Neurobiological Mechanisms of Trauma Recovery
This article from 2011 by Lyoo et al. is a fascinating study examining the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in trauma recovery. The study, conducted in South Korea, provides evidence suggesting that the cortical thickness of the DLPFC may correlate positively with the speed and ability with which one is able to recover from certain disasters. The DLPFC is a region of the brain responsible for regulating the amygdala, the fear center of the brain, and has been shown to be extremely active and increase in thickness when one is recovering from a traumatic experience. The ability of the DLPFC to change in thickness can be attributed to its high plasticity, which is due in part to a highly individualized molecule found in the brain known as brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). The authors of the study state that BDNF, while found in all individuals, is mostly effective if it is composed of valine (Val) rather than methionine (Met), a seemingly small difference that greatly changes the recovery process. The results of this study have vast implications, such as the clinical use of certain BDNF sub-types in treating trauma and a more neuroscientific approach to trauma recovery focusing on the DLPFC and the inhibition of the amygdala.
Questions:
- Do you believe that a more neuroscientific approach to trauma recovery would be beneficial in disaster situations, or would it perhaps depersonalize the experience for the survivors?
- The substitution of Met for Val in BDNF could potentially aid in trauma recovery, which begs the question of genetic engineering. Would it be prudent to alter the genome of an unborn child to substitute Met for Val in order to increase one's ability to recover from trauma?
I really liked how you linked an article about neuroscience to natural disasters. I feel like a more neuroscientific approach to trauma recovery would actually make the experience more personalized for the survivors. Survivors of disasters mostly have to deal with physical injuries, but they also have to deal with the mental aftermath of it. I cannot imagine person who was the sole survivor of a family that perished from flooding being un-phased psychologically from the event. I do not think that I necessarily agree with altering the genome of an unborn child to increase their ability to recover from trauma. In my opinion that just seems very unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteI think looking at the implications of neuroscience on trauma recovery is necessary, and I found the results interesting; however, I do have some doubts concerning the population studied. Maybe increased thickness of the DLPFC does play a role in trauma recovery, but I would have also like to look at the support systems in place for the survivors as that could have an impact on how people deal with their trauma. I think the whole nature vs nurture debate can be applied here, and instead of the nature vs. nurture I would have liked to see the nature combined with nurture; however, I do realize this is an article focused specifically on neuroscience, so I’m not sure how much nurture could have been factored in. This leads to your question of how a more neuroscientific approach could affect trauma recovery. I think it could result in depersonalization and perhaps lower empathy in the trauma survivor. Also, since I feel like since they didn’t look at aspects of social support, I find it very hasty to even discuss the prospect of genetic altering the genome of the baby.
ReplyDeleteI had never considered that there would be neurological ways to recover from trauma. It makes complete sense once I think about it, but I had never had to think about it before. I think that a more neuroscientific approach to trauma recovery would be very beneficial, assuming the treatments were pretty reasonably proven to be successful. I think it would be depersonalizing, but if we know it would work, then it seems like the ends justify the means. There's an argument to say that the change from Met to Val would be planning for failure, or that it would be completely unnecessary if the person lives in a safe area, but I don't really see the harm. I think tests should be done to determine whether or not there are other side effects, but if there aren't, then I don't see a reason why it would be a bad idea.
ReplyDelete