From Johns Hopkins University:
Johns Hopkins researchers say they have discovered a chemical alteration in a single human gene linked to stress reactions that, if confirmed in larger studies, could give doctors a simple blood test to reliably predict a person's risk of attempting suicide.
The discovery, described online in The American Journal of Psychiatry [Abstract], suggests that changes in a gene involved in the function of the brain's response to stress hormones plays a significant role in turning what might otherwise be an unremarkable reaction to the strain of everyday life into suicidal thoughts and behaviors.
"Suicide is a major preventable public health problem, but we have been stymied in our prevention efforts because we have no consistent way to predict those who are at increased risk of killing themselves," says study leader Zachary Kaminsky, Ph.D., an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. "With a test like ours, we may be able to stem suicide rates by identifying those people and intervening early enough to head off a catastrophe."
(Score: 2) by ticho on Thursday July 31 2014, @03:30PM
Isn't that a bit like trying to determine whether or not someone is a serial killer based on geometric proportions of their face?
(Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Thursday July 31 2014, @05:03PM
That would be phrenology [wikipedia.org].
This appears like it has a bit more behind it:
(Score:1^½, Radical)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MozeeToby on Thursday July 31 2014, @05:22PM
Not really. You see, attempting suicide is a symptom of a fundamental breakdown in the way a few areas of the brain function. Imagination, self preservation, decision making, doubtless a few others. All they are showing (if independently verified) is that you can detect those breakdowns by looking at certain hormone levels in the blood. They aren't even claiming a causal relationship, it could be the hormone cause the changes in brain function, or the other way around, or some other cause that leads to both; the researchers intelligently make no claims in that regard.
This isn't really directed at you, more of a generally statement: It's shocking how much people get wrong about suicide by trying to apply logic to what is an inherently illogical process. For example, removing a single means of suicide does in fact lower suicide rates. Despite the fact that the statistics are simple and widely available, people will post endlessly about how "they'll just find another way of killing themselves". Another example, a surprising number of suicide victims show no signs of depression. Certain illnesses (HIV, Cancer, insomnia, sleep apnea) show an increase in suicide rates higher than their purely psychological effects would predict.
Suicidal tendencies is a disease in and of itself which happens to be co-morbid with a number of mental illnesses. Lithium does relatively little to treat depression but all but illiminates suicidal tendencies in depressed patients. Countless anti-depressants do the opposite, treating depression without lowering (sometimes even raising) suicidal risks.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday July 31 2014, @08:16PM
It's shocking how much people get wrong about suicide by trying to apply logic to what is an inherently illogical process.
There are examples of suicide that is perfectly logical. A seriously wounded soldier who imperils his group on an important mission. A mountain climber hanging on a rope, who is bound to soon drag down his teammate who holds that rope. An old man who is dying from untreatable cancer and his future only has a couple of pain-filled months in store for him. A driver who chooses to steer his car into a concrete wall to avoid a child in the road.
Suicidal tendencies is a disease
Yes, it is, if the answer to every little inconvenience in life is "suicide." However not everyone who attempted or committed suicide had those tendencies.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Thursday July 31 2014, @10:14PM
While it true that there are examples of altruistic or pragmatic suicide, they are the vanishingly small fraction of cases. The vast majority is clearly the result of mental illness (whether idiomatic or societal in cause). In my age group (25-40) suicide is the highest cause of death. It's somewhat terrifiying to think that in all the world the thing most dangerous to me... is me.
Anything that helps detect when people are starting to come off the rails is a good thing. I suspect that suicidal throughts and motivations are much more common than people acknowledge because there is such a great stigma attached to it. I would like to know how an accurate account of modern suicide rates would compare with historical rates. Unfortunately, the same stigma and lack of reporting likely makes it impossible to know.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 31 2014, @11:37PM
Life is hard, especially for people who are, for some reason, less attuned to life in this world. Some have mental issues, other have physical issues, yet another have temporary psychological breakdowns (Romeo & Juliet style.)
In what cases the society has the right to tell an individual that his/her choice is wrong? Is the society going then to live in his broken body, or think with his broken mind? Is the society going to repair that body - like to grow lost limbs back, or to replace the brain, or to replace the entire genetic code of the individual? If not, then the society should be very careful with its demands on a free person. The society has hardly any rights to force a sentient being to live. (If that is not so, what is the origin of that right?)
Not every animal in the forest is born healthy and vigorous. Not every animal remains so for the entire duration of their lives. Wolves and other predators remove sick animals, leaving only the best to breed. There is no such mechanism in the human society. Everyone is precious, and everyone must be kept alive - against his will, if need be - on IV and machines, until he or his family run out of money. The principle of survival of the fittest is broken among humans. In some way this is good, as we want to let geniuses in thick glasses live; otherwise bodybuilders and gangsters with microscopic IQ would be the breeding stock. But on the other hand, defective DNA is not stopped from propagating.
Setting the cases of altruistic or pragmatic suicide aside, let's look at those that are caused by psychological issues. They are a sign of weakness. Many of them are temporary, but some are not. Many people attempt suicide several times, until they succeed. In some cases this is caused by their poor adaptation to existence in this society. Humans are not endangered species; there are plenty of them on this planet. Is it even humane to drag the kicking and screaming weaklings along? Who benefits? A free man should have the right to commit suicide whenever he wants, for any reason. A kind neighbor, if asked, may opine that suicide is not always the best choice. But... it's the best painkiller for the individual. Not for his relatives, perhaps, unless he is filthy rich.
So let's assume that Romeo and Juliet removed themselves from the society IRL, not just on paper. What then happens to the society? Nothing. It was a branch not taken; we do not know how would it be in that other case. Perhaps Romeo would become a wise ruler - or maybe a vicious killer. There is no way to know for certain, and there is no point in knowing. The society does not care about any one individual; his place would be instantly taken by another, who may be an even better person. (In case of suiciders, it's very likely.) People are brought into this world without being asked, and they do not sign a contract with gods to live their life for at least N years. If they don't like it in this world, they should be free to leave at the time of their choosing, and there is nobody out there with authority to stop them.
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Thursday July 31 2014, @08:36PM
I just want to point out that there are rational reasons to commit suicide, although it takes extreme and unusual circumstances.
(Score: 4, Funny) by bob_super on Thursday July 31 2014, @03:42PM
"be extra-nice to him, even when he's a brat. it's not his fault he's got the suicide gene!" (Canada)
or
"I'm suing my boss for still firing me after I told him I had the suicide gene" (US)
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 31 2014, @04:51PM
"So you cancelled my health insurance after testing positive on the suicide gene. That's not acceptable!"
"Well, it wasn't just that result. We have many people still insured after testing positive on suicide risk."
"Err ... then what was the problem?"
"You also failed on the intelligence test. Which means that not only are you likely to attempt suicide, but you're likely to fail that attempt."
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 31 2014, @11:23PM
Well, it was discovered (invented) and reported by The American Journal of Psychiatry.
These guys are one degree less reliable than Chiropractors in my humble opinion.
Those guys had more codes in the DSM than anybody else, and they come and go with a simple vote.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 31 2014, @04:44PM
If you tell someone he tests positive on suicide risk, how will that affect the probability of him performing suicide?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday July 31 2014, @04:48PM
I would think so. If it was me, i would see it as an external actor on my state of mind and strive to overcome it.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1) by hottabasco on Thursday July 31 2014, @05:42PM
what the hell is this doing at -1? its a good question (no mod points)
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday July 31 2014, @04:44PM
That might be a piece of it but i don't think stress is what drives soldiers to commit suicide after returning from combat. In many cases they have even left the military and will never again be subject to the same stressors. It would be great to have a blood-test that showed you have a weakness to suicide ideation. Then atleast you know it's part biology that is causing your suicidal thoughts and not what you consciously desire.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 31 2014, @05:00PM
So, azrael is Soylent's samzenpus, eh.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday July 31 2014, @09:29PM
I fear my phrasing of this topic is wholly inadequate but please treat the question with an open mind.
If Suicidal tendencies are potentially genetic, how have they survived natural selection? And again, if such behaviour is genetic (along with a lot more 'afflictions' we are discovering these days) how long before the human race embraces Eugenics as a scientific method of improving the race, instead of relying on blind luck (aka love) for procreation?
Eugenics gets a bad rap from its association with Nazis, but the science behind it sound and was favoured by a lot of great thinkers before WW2. Is it something that should, by now, have the stigma removed and looked at with a critical eye given how many diseases we are linking to genetics?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday August 01 2014, @02:41AM
If good genetics for society had anything to do with procreation then nobel prize winners would have a small army of lovers desiring to make kids with them. But observation shows it's the standard physical attributes that is propagated. What counts is to have sex. That is what makes it possible for psychopaths, dumbasses, etc to propagate.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Friday August 01 2014, @08:36AM
Well, is the jury not still out on whether raw intelligence is genetic? I can understand that there may be conditions that affect intelligence, but in otherwise perfectly healthy people, isn't the greater part of it in education, nourishment and hard work?
And Eugenics shouldn't be about just smarts, it is primarily about health. It's about the removal of degenerative genetic diseases from the gene pool.
I will just point out I'm no expert on the subject, so take anything I say with a pinch of salt
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01 2014, @12:58PM
For example, it could be that if you are not actually committing suicide, that gene makes you more successful. For example, I'd guess that people with a high suicide risk are people who tend to think a lot about their situation (if you are depressed, thinking about your situation most likely makes you even more depressed), and if that trait doesn't come together with a depression, it is of advantage (because in that case, it allows you to avoid dangerous situations). So maybe that's a genetic trait that increases your tendency to think about your situation. If you're depressive, it increases your suicide risk, while if you're not depressive, your suicide risk is negligible anyway, so it won't affect it noticeably; the net effect therefore is to increase the suicide risk, while at the same time increasing your chances to survive if you are not in risk of suicide,
Now, of course that's only one possibility (and pure speculation, of course). But the point is, just because something sometimes has negative effects doesn't mean it cannot have positive effects as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01 2014, @01:14PM
I would agree with this assessment; I've suffered from depression and intrusive suicidal ideation for most of my life (no attempts, however, and no concrete plans - just ideation) and recently went on an antidepressant. I've found that I'm now slightly more impulsive and I'm having a bit more trouble maintaining my financial savings rate. When you're able to enjoy doing things, you're willing to spend money on those things! So far it's a minor change, but in the modern world we're insulated from the immediate feedback of poor decicions. It's quite possible that the difference between me now and the me before antidepressents would be enough to get an Ice Age version of me eaten by a cave bear.
(Score: 1) by sbgen on Friday August 01 2014, @06:24AM
Just a reminder - the paper talks about genetic association of a single nucleotide in the genome with suicide behavior and other technical aspects. That does not mean there is a functional explanation for the data: that is yet to be demonstrated. Only after such a demonstration a genetic association can be carried forward to test if it can used in clinics. Alas, press releases/coverages do not wait for the second part.
Warning: Not a computer expert, but got to use it. Yes, my kind does exist.