“Neuroscience is an easy profession to enjoy. If you can make it work, academic science is a wonderful vocation.”

Dr. Charles Bradberry

Dr. Charles Bradberry is the Chief of the Preclinical Pharmacology Section here at NIDA. His lab uses sophisticated preclinical behavioral and cognitive models to study brain mechanisms involved in reward guided choice. This is important because reward guided choice, like choosing drugs over beneficial alternative rewards, lies at the core of addiction. In fact, addiction can be characterized as a behavioral disease marked by maladaptive choice behavior. In this interview, Dr. Bradberry discusses his personal insight on choice behavior, other hot topics in the field of addiction, and his career in neuroscience. Read below to learn more about one of NIDA’s insightful and successful PI’s!

 

How would you describe your previous academic history?

“I got a BS in Chemistry at the University of Kansas and one of the requirements for a BS was to do undergraduate research. I ended up working for a very charismatic, interesting, and inspirational guy. In fact, I also got a PhD in Biochemistry in his lab.

I didn’t really approach heading into graduate school with a real strategic game plan. I didn’t have a timeline of what I wanted to accomplish. I was basically just doing stuff that was fun. Graduate school was a fun time for me, hanging out with friends, and doing interesting research.”

When did you first decide to study illicit substances?

“That was sort of serendipitous. In 1986, I went to do a postdoc at Yale right when the crack epidemic was at its peak and there was a big increase in funding. The lab where I was doing my post doc was a famous catecholamine lab that was studying cocaine and was funded by NIDA. I didn’t specifically go there to do a postdoc to study addiction, but it ended up being a natural fit.

One of the interesting things about a lot of the NIDA funded research is that it enables people to understand brain mechanisms through the actions of drugs. It is an inherently powerful way of manipulating brain function and subjective states. Addictive substances have been an interesting heuristic for understanding brain mechanisms.”

When does maladaptive choice behavior turn into addiction?

“If someone uses a substance and it doesn’t interfere with their life, is it considered addiction? According to the DSM criteria, a lot of it is based on functional outcomes. Most of us drink coffee every day, and a lot of us would consider ourselves addicted to it. But, it doesn’t interfere with our daily work life. So, it could almost be considered a benign addiction. It is when the addiction comes at a cost that it is maladaptive.”

Are functioning alcoholics “addicts”?

“I would say, yes. The DSM used to differentiate between “substance abuse” and “addiction”, but now it is more so on a continuum going from mild to moderate to severe. A lot of the criteria relate to control: using more than you really want to, trying to stop and not being able to. In this case, this is someone who drinks regularly, but is still holding down a job, maintaining their relationships…. but, there still may be a cost to that. To say that they are functional is not to say that it is without cost.”

What about people who use in secret and no one else knows about their drug usage?

“I would say this comes down to if they feel like they have control over it. Even though it is secret, are they controlling in a way they want to? Are they using more of a substance than they plan to? Have they tried in secret to stop and been unable to? I guess the fact that it is hidden doesn’t really change the situation that much. All of those criteria still apply, it’s just that they are discrete in the way they conduct their lives. You can suffer harm that other people don’t see.”

As a person who studies choice behavior, where do you stand on the “addiction is a choice” argument?

“I would say it’s both a choice and not a choice. You can clearly see heritability of addiction which is something we don’t control. But, any action you take is ultimately a volitional act. This decision may be biased by a predisposition, but there is a still a component of your life where you make decisions. My opinion is to not let predisposing factors absolve people of personal responsibility, because I like to believe in control over your destiny. To not believe in that is despairing, because then it means that you don’t have any freewill or agency.”

What are your thoughts on the “addiction is a brain disease” argument?

“I like that this argument supports the idea that we should provide people with therapy, rather than just punishment. The potential downside is absolving people of personal responsibility, so it is a double-edged sword in my mind. I think people want to make the argument that addiction is a brain disease or is a choice fit into only one category, but I don’t believe things like this are that clear-cut.”

What are your thoughts on clean needle exchange programs or safe spaces?

“This is commonly misconstrued as enablement. However, when these stations first started popping up in the 1980’s, it was more so because of the AIDS epidemic and used needles became a serious public health issue. So, not only is it protecting the people who go to these stations, but it also helps protect the general public.

In regards to safe spaces, this is far more controversial. These are places where people can use their own drugs and are less likely to die from an overdose because of the oversight of other people. Such as others there with naloxone, nurses around that can serve to give these people medical attention if need be. This is the general idea of harm reduction which is the foundational idea behind methadone and agonist replacement therapies. If harm reduction is a true consequence of these programs, then I think we should continue it and not think of it as enabling them. The impediment of stigma in this line of work is striking and should not be overlooked.”

How do you feel about the recent legalization of marijuana?

“I have no problem with the decriminalization of marijuana. I think it’s silly to let cartels profit off of it. I think it’s nonsensical to ruin people’s lives by throwing them in jail for it. The damage that is done to people when coming into contact with the justice system can be pretty profound. Stress is a big risk factor for mental illness and there is evidence that pot exposure to high levels of THC is a risk factor for the emergence of schizophrenia who are already at risk. However, the stress of being arrested and incarcerated and not being eligible for student loans is also a big risk factor. These are all consequences of its legal status.

I think there is a lot of unknown potential and clinical benefit of the cannabinoids in marijuana, but it takes a lot of work to really know something especially with the effects and consequences of drugs. To me, schedule 1 is a ridiculous categorization but, the avenue medical marijuana has taken during decriminalization has enabled a lot of myths regarding the properties of marijuana which are not always backed by science. It’s not about the science, it’s about the culture wars – that’s what is driving that. Nonetheless, I think we should be able to study it and learn more about marijuana.”

What advice would you give to postbacs for a career in neuroscience?

“Being thoughtful, careful, curious, and interested. Enjoy the social aspect of science, work with people you like, interact and collaborate with people who you think are interesting.

There are those that will be successful, but there aren’t enough positions for everybody. For some people, success will come at a really high price of constant anxiety and stress. But, for others, it comes easy. The ideas flow, the writing flows, and they are going to be successful no matter what. Therefore, I think you need be cognizant of how your individual skill set meets the demands of the landscape of this scientific research.

However, I certainly think it’s always good to get a PhD. You are going to be working anyway. That time during the day is going to be occupied by things that are effortful and require a lot of thought. Why not get a degree while you are doing that? If you are enjoying yourself and you are being intellectually stimulated, even if you don’t use that PhD, what have you lost? If you think you are doing something useful and you are enjoying the learning that comes with it, there is no downside to it. The fact that you have a PhD will add value to your presentation. It shows that you have had the initiative to continue to learn. You have learned how to learn and how to think critically which will always be useful in whatever you end up doing.

In the end, the process of life is what you are living for. Not many of us are going to have legacies left behind, but life should be lived for the joy of living so be sure that this is what you want to study.

For me as a scientist, what I value most is that people appreciate the work I’ve done, see me as a careful scientist, and see that I have credibility. Neuroscience has been an easy profession to enjoy. If you can make it work, academic science is a wonderful vocation. You retain a lot of control. I usually compare it to owning a small business. You have complete control, but also complete responsibility.”

As a PI, what is the best part of your day?

“Socializing with my coworkers and being able unveil the data. To talk about ideas and to see the product. To interpret it within our reference frame of how we think the world works. To do studies that either enlighten our perspective or shift it a little bit, or to find data that reaffirm our understanding of the way the brain works and how the brain interacts with drugs. Looking at the structure of data is very satisfying to me. Looking for patterns and relationships. To create a model of the world, get predictive power, and manipulate is a fundamental aspect of human behavior. I think that is an important part of human nature – to understand that we are driven by understanding the world so that we can predict it and control it. These are all things that I am reminded of during my daily life as a scientist.”

 

Message to postbacs:
I proposed the idea that the newsletter should include interviews from scientists that were titans in the field of addiction to serve as an informative reference for all of the postbacs to benefit from. This can be a written record that exposes you to career and personal advice from successful PI’s.
-Holly Hake

If you would like to request for the newsletter to interview a specific PI, you can submit your requests to holly.hake@nih.gov