The Nature article is old hat and I'm rather angry that we, as a society are even having this pharma-fueled ridiculous debate, but we are, and I will hereafter consider this post one more arrow for the quiver.

This seems like a cool blog, am off to do some reading. I may have questions about posts from your archives, and if so will resurrect them for elucidation if you're so inclined.

I agree. I suppose what amazes me is how long it's taken for the theoretical models to catch up with, or even just accept the evidence. Perhaps there are even researchers around still searching for that elusive 'gene-for-[insert mental illness here]'.

I'm very happy to see this article exploring some new models as well as suggesting a range of new ways the research in this area can be taken forwards.

I don't think the recent Nature article is important because it stresses that mental illness results from a combination of genetic and environmental effects, as you mentioned, this is old news.

It is important, however, because it gives an explanation of how this occurs (or rather, reviews current explanations). This is what has been missing from classical 'stress-vulnerability' models of mental disorder, which typically do little more than describe the extent of the interaction.

P.S. Love the new look!