Ecology and neurobiology of toxin avoidance and the paradox of drug reward

Abstract Current neurobiological theory of drug use is based on the observation that all addictive drugs induce changes in activity of dopaminergic circuitry, interfering with reward processing, and thus enhancing drug seeking and consumption behaviors. Current theory of drug origins, in contrast, v...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inNeuroscience Vol. 160; no. 1; pp. 69 - 84
Main Authors Hagen, E.H, Sullivan, R.J, Schmidt, R, Morris, G, Kempter, R, Hammerstein, P
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Amsterdam Elsevier Ltd 21.04.2009
Elsevier
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Abstract Current neurobiological theory of drug use is based on the observation that all addictive drugs induce changes in activity of dopaminergic circuitry, interfering with reward processing, and thus enhancing drug seeking and consumption behaviors. Current theory of drug origins, in contrast, views almost all major drugs of abuse, including nicotine, cocaine and opiates, as plant neurotoxins that evolved to punish and deter herbivores. According to this latter view, plants should not have evolved compounds that reward or reinforce plant consumption. Mammals, in turn, should not have evolved reinforcement mechanisms easily triggered by toxic substances. Situated in an ecological context, therefore, drug reward is a paradox. In an attempt to resolve the paradox, we review the neurobiology of aversive learning and toxin avoidance and their relationships to appetitive learning. We seek to answer the question: why does aversive learning not prevent the repeated use of plant drugs? We conclude by proposing alternative models of drug seeking and use. Specifically, we suggest that humans, like other animals, might have evolved to counter-exploit plant neurotoxins.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0306-4522
1873-7544
DOI:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.01.077