National Geographic

Book Review: OBSESSED

A great long-form narrative demands at least one irresistible character. If a writer finds a protagonist who is quirky, contradictory, charming, sadistic, or interesting in any other way, the reader will follow that character through any number of complex ideas.

In OBSESSED: The Compulsions and Creations of Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz, released this past weekend, writer Steve Volk finds that special character and describes him beautifully. According to Volk’s depiction, Schwartz is a socially awkward, belligerent psychiatrist whose research has been unfairly shunned by the scientific establishment. He is an unsung hero whose revolutionary behavioral therapy has rescued thousands of people from the irrational fears and repetitive behaviors of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). If his success continues, Schwartz may even rescue the withering concept of free will.

Great long-form science writing is not only about the yarn, however. It’s also about pulling away from the character’s seductive orbit in order to put his or her ideas into a wider scientific context. And Obsessed, unfortunately, doesn’t do that well. Volk tells a slanted truth about Schwartz, the man, and about how his work fits into the larger field of anxiety research. That shortcoming is particularly disappointing given that Obsessed is the debut long-form e-book of an established science magazine, Discover.

It’s obvious from the first few pages of Obsessed that Volk, a senior writer at Philadelphia Magazine, is a master of narrative. If there was ever a dull moment in the book’s 13,000-plus words, I don’t remember it.

I worry, though, that because of its compelling and seemingly authoritative story, readers will come away from the book with inaccurate ideas about anxiety disorders and how the mind works.

Take Schwartz’s therapy, for example, which is a combination of mindfulness—a technique borrowed from Buddhist meditation in which you try to detach yourself from your emotions by focusing on breathing or some other innocuous behavior—and reappraisal, or explicitly focusing on naming and re-framing your emotions. Volk describes Schwartz’s therapy as novel and even revolutionary—a thorn in the side of the psychiatric establishment and its beloved pharmaceuticals.

But Volk largely ignores the fact that Schwartz’s approach is only a slight variation of other kinds of cognitive behavioral therapies (including exposure therapy, which Schwartz oddly villifies). These treatments have been around for decades and are firmly established among psychiatrists as effective for some people with anxiety disorders.

So the fact that Schwartz’s therapy works for many people with OCD is not at all surprising. The brain changes with our day-to-day experiences—it’s why even adults can learn new things, and yes, why some people with addiction, depression, and anxiety disorders can overcome them without drugs. There aren’t many neuroscientists or psychiatrists who would disagree with that.

Where Schwartz stirs up trouble, Volk explains, is in his leap from the existence of an adaptable brain to the existence of free will:

“We’re talking about people with a biological brain disorder,” says Schwartz, “who learn through the use of neuroplasticity to change their brain function! That’s free will in action!”

It is a claim that flies in the face of most modern neuroscientific research, which suggests an ever-increasing number of our “choices” are somehow hard-wired into us—from which candidate we vote for to which flavor of ice cream tops our cone.

But there are actually lots of neuroscientists who believe in free will. (Even David Eagleman, one of the three scientists whom Volk puts in the anti-free-will camp, is on the fence about it.) It’s an age-old question that people have debated forever. I suspect that Schwartz’s colleagues don’t like him for two of his other, crazier ideas, neither of which is adequately challenged in the book.

The first is Schwartz’s theory about the physical processes underlying free will. In one head-spinning chapter, Volk explains how a combination of wave-particle duality, quantum Zeno, and Hebb’s law might prove that the mind is separate from the brain. Volk tells us that “this is an idea in its infancy”, yet neglects to include any outside comments from independent physicists or neuroscientists. The reader is left with no sense of how plausible—or crackpot—this theory is.

The second overlooked part of Schwartz’s biography is his recent conversion to Christianity. Here’s how Volk describes it:

The most important new development in Schwartz’s life underscores the schism between the champion of free will and the academics who oppose him: Schwartz has become a devoted Christian, his faith formed in great part by reading the essays of Deitrich Bonhoeffer, the German Lutheran pastor executed by the Nazis for insurrection. His faith seems odd at first—the young Jew, turned Buddhist, scientist and then Christian. But in the life-story of Deitrich Bonhoeffer, Schwartz’s guidepost for Christianity, there is a finer and firmer example of Schwartz’s own tough-mindedness. Bonhoeffer believed so strongly he died for it, openly opposing the Hitler regime that ultimately assassinated him.

What’s never mentioned, however, is that in accepting Christ, Schwartz also seems to have rejected evolution. He is one of several hundred scientists to sign A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, a document put together by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank that lobbies for creationism. The signatories of that document, including Schwartz, endorse the statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”

With that kind of public rejection of a fundamental law of biology, is it any wonder that some scientists are skeptical of Schwartz’s other ideas?* And doesn’t his alignment with creationists deserve at least a mention in a story of his scientific career?

Jeffrey Schwartz is a character, and one that I thoroughly enjoyed getting to know. But ultimately, the man’s obsessions corrupted his work—and Volk’s work, too.

*

*Update, 9/8/13: Schwartz signed the Discovery Institute document in 2004, years after being condemned by his peers. So that couldn’t be part of his critics’ motivations, as I speculated in the review, and I regret that error. Since my review appeared, Volk and Discover In-Depth have issued an updated version of the book that includes a paragraph about Schwartz’s ties with the Discovery Institute. You can download the book here.

Maia Szalavitz contributed much to the reporting and thinking behind this review

This review also appears at Download the Universe, a site for science e-book reviews

There are 7 Comments. Add Yours.

  1. raj sharma
    August 26, 2013

    Bonhoeffer’s first name is consistently misspelt; it is Dietrich not Deitrich. If this originates from Volk, it doesn’t speak very highly of the book.

  2. amba (Annie Gottlieb)
    August 29, 2013

    No, it doesn’t speak very well of Discover’s copy editor or lack thereof.

  3. Glenn Gardner
    August 29, 2013

    I, like Jeffrey Schwartz, am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
    Which fundamental law of biology am I rejecting by expressing my skepticism?

  4. Bill Smith
    August 29, 2013

    Yikes. Someone has been hanging out with the Dawkins fan-club too long. Is Virginia aware of how much the fundamental doctrines of Random Mutation and Natural Selection are questioned within mainstream biology literature? Might want to explore beyond the Darwin tabloids before you begin calling that particular faith a “law of biology” …

  5. Jason Poole
    August 30, 2013

    “conservative Christian think tank that lobbies for creationism”

    The Discovery Institute names among its members, friends and allies many who are not beholden to Christianity. Your miscategorization is a sign of lazy journalism that is attached to your dull axe.

  6. jared ponder
    September 15, 2013

    I am in awe of the unadulterated stupidity spewing forth into the comments section of this article. Referring to evolution as a faith is misguided at best and willful idiocy at worst, not to mention the last person’s complete failure to realise (with a simple Google search) how much of a deliberate fraud the discovery institute is and the “scientists” that support it are either unscrupulously greedy or terrible at their professions, to not recognize evolution and the mechanism of natural selection as the single best approximation to how the simple became the complex, let alone do any of these individuals offer a better approximation other than the paltry and laughable “god did it” excuse. Please do better research and think more before attacking a wonderfully put together piece of journalism. Thanks, Virginia and keep doing what you do.

  7. Mark Anderson
    September 19, 2013

    I found this piece informative and thought-provoking. Well-written and engaging, thank you Virginia.

Add Your Comments

All fields required.

Related Posts