Modern Times

Anthropology of Truths


Attention Deficit Disorder - Sources

Modern Times

Project 3 - Truths

  • Gulf War Syndrome
  • Weight-loss Drugs
  • Attention Deficit Disorder
  • "Paying Attention." Scientific American.

    "Increased Medication Use in ADD: Regressive or Appropriate?" JAMA

    "The Ritalin Controversy: What's Made This Drug's Opponents Hyperactive?" JAMA

    The Leading Edge Research Homepage

    newsgroup: alt.support.attn-deficit

    Meng Weng Wong ADD page

    Wired Magazine, "Interrupt Driven"

    NIMH Pamphlet on ADD

    Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Adults

    You Mean I'm Not Lazy, Stupid Or Crazy?!

    CH.A.D.D. Homepage

    Success with Attention Deficit Disorder and Hyperactivity

    Parents of Children With Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

    Biological Correlates of Learning and Attention

    Interrupt-Driven

    An Epidemic of ADD or a Matter of Overdiagnosis?

      Leutwyler, Kristin. "Paying Attention." Scientific American. August 1996: pp 12-14.

      This article was found in the depths of the Schering-Plough Library (MIT's medical library). The library was open to MIT faculty, staff and students. Students from other schools were asked to check in at the front desk, but they were also given access. Scientific American, in general, is a magazine targeted for the intellectual; it contains relatively simplified scientific news that only the educated is comfortable to read. However, most people may be able to obtain access to copies since they (the magazine) are sold at newstands and is available at most public libraries. The article in question is relatively easy to read, since it is a commentary/summary of recent developments in the controversy over Ritalin. Unlike many of the other articles in the magazine, the article contains fewer medical jargon and abstruse concepts; the article is more of a scientific commentary than a detailed investigation. Therefore, the wide availability of the magazine and the article's relative simplicity lead to conclusion that in general, the public has easy access to the information presented.

      The article cites a real example of a hyperactive child and describes his situation with respect to his parents, his doctor and the drug Ritalin. Ciba-Geigy, the company that manufactures some 8.5 tons annually of this drug, is also mentioned, though only in name. Another organization that is also only mentioned briefly is the the United Nation's International Narcotics Control Board, who was responsible for releasing a study that there was a possible overdiagnosis of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Among the relatively more prominent people in the article were James Swanson of UC Irvine, Russel Barkley of U Mass Medical Centre, Alan Zametkin and F. Catellanos of the National Institute of Mental Health and Julie Schweitzer of Emory University. These individuals served as sources of opinion and lended credence to particular sides of the controversy. For example, the two men from the NIMH acted as spokespersons for their research into biological proofs for ADHD. All the individuals seemed to act as individuals, not as spokespeople for their respective organizations. Where they worked was only added to give them credibility. Other groups included the more vague generalizations of "parents", "doctors" and "kids." These are grouped by the author to perhaps display the applicability of her findings. The parents could very well be the readers, as could the doctors. With the broad generalizations, the reader is able to see a much larger picture. For example, the author describes a common belief that psychiatrists are "too ready to diagnose a range of behavioural problems as ADHD and to dismiss them with a quick chemical fix." By grouping the psychiatrists, the reader is allowed to believe that, for simplicity's sake, the psychiatrists form one actor in the controversy over Ritalin.

      The article is a third person investigation into the subject. At first, the author lists the fears regarding Ritalin: it is too commonly used, misdiagnosis of ADHD and improper use of the drug (as a recreational drug for teenagers because it is related to cocaine). Then she (the author) begins to allay the fears by gently coaxing the reader into believing the experts. The first expert says that ADHD diagnosis is just reaching the expected range. The second expert examines the social belief that relying on a drug is an indication of weakness. Not true, he assures. Then the last three researchers speak on their biological proofs of the existence of ADHD. The whole article seems to condone the use of Ritalin in general; the last sentence concludes with "These kids really are born to be wild." It seems that the article is aimed at interested individuals who wish to be better informed on current events. The article seems particularly relavent to parents, doctors and ADHD kids. And although the author tries to be objective, it seems that she is more impressed by the new technological/scientific developments in the controversy than the social/ethical side. She addresses the social side somewhat but fails to even mention the ethical sides. As a result, the article becomes a scientific romance, a small tale in the greater story of human salvation via science. What the article becomes is a quiet champion to Ritalin, a product of scientific response to a problem (ADHD) that is scientifically analysed. This draws away from the credibility of the article, though the information presented is solid, albeit one-sided.

      Reviewer: Peter Siu

    PREVIOUS NEXT