Mark McLaughlin

COLWRIT 161

Prof. Freeman

August 10, 2022

An Interview with Dr. James Calvert

What makes a psychologist unique? I believe Dr. James Calvert, a professor I had the

pleasure of learning from in college, is a great example. Dr. Calvert combines a deep

knowledge of mental health and psychopharmacology with a background in developmental

psychology. This means Dr. Calvert frames his thoughts about addiction within the context of an

individual’s entire life.

I am grateful to Dr. Calvert for taking the time to answer my questions about addiction,

writing, and how he stays up to date on new research. One aspect of Dr. Calvert’s lectures I

always enjoyed in college was his straightforward approach to answering questions; below are

his answers to my questions, in italics, each response followed by my own commentary. I hope

you will enjoy his answers as much as I have.

Dr. James Calvert is a senior lecturer at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas

Mark: What is your perspective on addiction as a disease?

Dr. Calvert: The problem with looking at it as a disease or not a disease is that people get

caught up in the notion that a disease is some sort of pathogen like a bacteria or virus and any

other view of a disease state is wrong and should be dismissed. It's like a disease is real and
"not a disease" means it's not real or just a human foible. I don't think it is helpful to even talk

about disease or not disease. Some people have a greater susceptibility to developing all types

of addictions, whether it is from alcohol, another drug, or gambling. People inherit genes that

make some more susceptible to addiction just as they inherit genes making them more

susceptible to developing depression, anxiety, obesity, psoriasis, cancer, heart disease, or

anything else. In all of these cases, it is a combination of genetics and environment, whether

the environment is biological (e.g., intrauterine environment) or social (e.g., hanging out with

people who drink). For example, you may have inherited the DRD4 gene that expresses itself

such that you crave high levels of excitement (the DRD4 gene codes for dopamine receptor 4,

which is related to craving excitement). Depending on your environment, you may end up

seeking excitement through hang-gliding, stealing things, or using drugs (or all three). If you

inherited certain SERT (serotonin transporter) genes, you could be someone who falls apart at

very small life problems or you could be a person quite resistant to environmental problems

such that you handle adversity well. If there is little adversity, then even the person who has

difficulty with adversity would never exhibit problems in life because they had little adversity

facing them. It's all interactions between what you are born with (genetic) and what happens in

life. There are many genes involved in all behaviors, so it isn't simple in addictions to determine

exactly which genes are involved, and it appears some genes are involved in drug seeking

behavior and others are involved in whether you will quickly get addicted, so it is possible you

could be a drug seeker by genetics but have low probability of developing an addiction (though

with enough drugs, pretty much everyone can get addicted). So some people are at risk from

the start, some are at risk right after birth (e.g., living with sorrow, sadness, abuse, and other

people's addictions), and some have to work at it to develop an addiction. So for me, the

question of whether it is a disease is a ridiculous question that comes up when someone wants

to say they have a "real" problem, as if it has to be called a disease to be real, or when

someone says it isn't a disease, just something someone brings on themselves, so they say it
isn't real because it isn't a disease (basically arguing the opposite, which is just as foolish). It's a

real disorder caused by a combination of genetic risks and environment just like other disorders

(e.g., cancer is caused by both genetic risks and environmental factors, like living in smog-filled

cities).

Commentary

Clearly, Dr. Calvert has thought about and researched this question extensively. From

my own limited research over the past 6 weeks, I agree with his argument. In particular, his

point about people needing to call addiction a disease in order to consider it a “real” problem. I

encountered this in my research quite a bit. This appears to stem from lingering stigmatization

of addiction. Just like other diseases, there are genetic and environmental factors that place

some people at higher risk than others. This does not guarantee that they will become addicted,

however it does mean that protective factors like education and a supportive community are

more likely to make a big difference for these at-risk individuals.

2. What are some of the areas of research you find most interesting/promising in the field

of addiction psychology? Or, more broadly, mental health in general.

The two big areas are use of psychedelics (e.g., magi mushrooms) in treating depression and

anxiety. The research is very compelling and when Oregon starts psilocybin therapy in January

2023, we'll get a better idea of how it is in the real world (experimental studies are quite

positive). The second big area is metabolism and the gut biome. The microbiome of bacteria

and other microorganisms in the gastrointestinal tract are the next big area for study in

psychiatric disorders.

Commentary
 Frankly, I was surprised by Dr. Calvert’s mention of psychedelics. Perhaps this is just

because I think of his classroom in the context of a campus in Dallas, Texas; not the first locale

that comes to mind when I hear “magi mushrooms.” However, the research in this area is quite

promising. Under the careful supervision of a trained clinician, after undergoing extensive

screening and preparation, psychedelics can have tremendously positive effects on lowering

depression, anxiety, PTSD, and even level of addiction.

Dr. Calvert’s second point about the gut biome was less surprising, at first. At this point,

we’ve likely all heard about the impact of our microbiome on physical health. But, I was intrigued

that Dr. Calvert said that this field is the next “big area for study in psychiatric disorders.” This is

quite the prediction. We have certainly come a long way from believing that no living thing could

survive within the human gut.

Both of Dr. Calvert’s areas of research he is interested in provide some fascinating rabbit

holes of research which I highly recommend exploring. To get started reading about the use of

psychedelics for mental health, give this post from Johns Hopkins a read. And to learn more

about the gut microbiome and its role in psychiatric disorders, read more here.

3. What are the top journals / conferences / resources you refer to most often?

There are so many journals now that it is impossible to focus on just a few. I cited over 100

different journals in the book I just wrote (about 1,000 citations). While there are "top" journals

based on their journal citation scores (i.e., those where the articles are cited a lot), those are

often ones publishing popular topics in research as opposed to interesting topics that are not

the "hot" topics right now. Certain journals pop up a lot, like the New England Journal of

Medicine, The Lancet, The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, American Psychologist, JAMA, JAMA - Psychiatry, and so on. But it really depends

on what you are researching. No journal publishes in all areas. So if you are talking behavioral

therapies, you would go to certain journals, while if you are interested in forensic psychology,
you would go to a completely different set of journals. Each specific area of psychology or

psychiatry has its own set of journals that are publishing the best research, though that often

changes over time.

Commentary

Dr. Calvert mentions that articles highlighting research in areas which are not the current

“hot” topics are sometimes overlooked. This relates to the difficulty in scientific communication

of balancing readers’ interest with the goal of furthering the field of knowledge.

4. What kinds of writing do you do?

This past year I have been working on my textbook called "Psychopharmacology: Drugs of

Pharmacotherapy and Addiction".

Commentary

Dr. Calvert did not mention how busy he really is: in addition to writing a textbook, he

also teaches several college courses each semester. This means he writes not only for readers,

but also makes presentations and handouts for his students. He is an excellent presenter and

lecturer, who excels at using analogy and storytelling to explain complex topics. His writing is

clear and concise, with an abundance of diagrams and visual aids to complement explanations

of pharmacological processes.

5. What do you consider "good" writing in your field? Do you have any examples of poor

or misleading writing you've encountered?

Not sure I can answer this. There is too big a range of good and bad. Good writing varies a lot

from very technical and specific to broader and more all-inclusive so it reaches a wider

audience. Depending on the goal of the paper, either can be good. Poor writing in journals is

most often writing that leaves a lot out and explains things poorly. Use of too many acronyms
bothers me because it makes it jargony. The best example of misleading is the outright lie, such

as Wakefield's publication 24 years ago saying that vaccines cause autism. He cherry-picked

certain data (he got money from lawyers representing parents of autistic children suing) and just

lied. The Lancet, typically a great journal, had to retract the article after they found out he lied,

but he had already created so much misinformation that even today, 12 years after the

retraction, people still believe the lie.

Commentary

Dr. Calvert first explains that the type of writing must vary according to the goal of the

piece. The goal depends on the intended audience. One aspect of Dr. Calvert’s writing which I

enjoy is his avoidance of long, jargon-filled explanations. His writing is very clear and

exemplifies the idea that, in writing, less is often more.

He offers the example of Wakefield’s misrepresentation of the truth, which illustrates

how the drive for recognition and financial gain can have terrible consequences when it leads to

lies in scientific communication. How many children have become sick with illnesses which

could have easily been avoided with modern vaccines because of this lie? Dr. Calvert’s answer

here makes it clear that the most vital part of scientific writing is the proper representation of the

truth.

Takeaways

I am grateful to Dr. James Calvert for his generous gift of time in providing these

answers. The common theme I took away is that in scientific communication, the most important

thing is to communicate the truth. In this age of clickbait and the pursuit of views, it can be

tempting to twist the truth for some extra attention. However, we must remember that in the field

of science, misrepresenting the facts can have negative impacts on many individuals. Moreover,
every lie which is published undermines the trust of the public in the scientific community at

large. No matter how enjoyable the read, it’s integrity that truly matters.

Thank you for reading, and I hope you gained some insights from Dr. Calvert’s answers.