Why aren’t psychologists better trained in biology?

[wannabe123]

Maybe this opinion is coming from my nieviete on the subject, but it seems like after looking into curriculum at various psyd programs there’s a deficit in biological course work. Isn’t a solid understanding of biochemistry and biological processes intrinsic for grasping different psychological pathologies? It just seems like a typical undergraduate degree in psychology doesn’t offer the necessary foundational sciences. What do you guys think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psych.meout]

Maybe this opinion is coming from my nieviete on the subject, but it seems like after looking into curriculum at various psyd programs there’s a deficit in biological course work. Isn’t a solid understanding of biochemistry and biological processes intrinsic for grasping different psychological pathologies? It just seems like a typical undergraduate degree in psychology doesn’t offer the necessary foundational sciences. What do you guys think?

A "deficit" compared to what? Med school?

 

[rerope]

I mean it depends on your program. I did a B.S in psych in my undergrad and it was required for you to have 2 concentrations in the hard sciences (out of a potential 5): biology, general chemistry, organic chemistry, math, computer science. Essentially if you did a psych degree with bio and chem concentration you could honestly just aim for med school as it was similar pre-requisites. The BA required courses in sociology, linguistics, creative arts etc. Also, I know my PhD program encourages taking courses in neuroscience and clinical psychopharmacology, though its not required, so it varies across phd programs as well.

 

[wannabe123]

I mean it depends on your program. I did a B.S in psych in my undergrad and it was required for you to have 2 concentrations in the hard sciences (out of a potential 5): biology, general chemistry, organic chemistry, math, computer science. Essentially if you did a psych degree with bio and chem concentration you could honestly just aim for med school as it was similar pre-requisites. The BA required courses in sociology, linguistics, creative arts etc. Also, I know my PhD program encourages taking courses in neuroscience and clinical psychopharmacology, though its not required, so it varies across phd programs as well.

What program did you go to? sounds excellent!

 

[PsyNeuro37]

A lot of this depends on the program. If you look at programs that have more of a neuro or health psych focus you'll find a lot more opportunities for bio classes. I'm at a Psy.D program, and we have a decent amount of bio heavy classes (neuro fundamentals, bio foundations of behavior, cog/affective bases of behavior, neuro assessment, clinical psychopharm, health psych). If you want an extreme example, the Queen's College clinical psych PhD program is close to 50% bio/neuro coursework. In general though, programs that have neuro or health faculty will probably have more classes in those areas. I imagine lots of the programs you looked at didn't have any faculty focused in these areas?

 

[AbnormalPsych]

I suppose if you are in a certain specialty like health psych, gero, neuro, etc, it could be argued there is a need for more advanced training in those areas to inform assessment, conceptualization, and intervention. But your generalist clinical/counseling/school psychologist probably doesn't get much bang for the buck in those areas in terms of adding to their services, and could better use their time training in other areas.

 

[deleted343839]

Isn’t a solid understanding of biochemistry and biological processes intrinsic for grasping different psychological pathologies?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, exactly. If you attend an APA accredited doctoral program you're required to take at least one course pertaining to the biological basis of behavior. Some people take more than that and/or learn about specific biological substrates relevant to their area of research.

And of course psychopathology "lives in the brain," but you can look at psychopathology through a lot of lenses, big (populations, systems, cultures) and small (genes, proteins, etc.). What sets our training apart is an emphasis on theories of learning and behavior, and to some extent our approach to clinical empiricism. Behavior (defined broadly) tends to be our default level of analysis though certainly people branch into more macro or micro levels of analysis too.

 

[PsyDr]

1) Chem, O-Chem, Bio, Physics, etc are undergrad
2) Bio bases, neuropsych, and psychopharm are very standard courses for doctoral psych curricula.
3) There are usually additional courses available.

In the more bio based specialties such neuro, med, rehab, and health, the psychologist goes through an additional several years of training.

For purely clinical psych, one is focused on behavioral interventions. If you have the most basic understanding of behaviorism, you'll know that the what is going on in the brain is unimportant.

 

[futureapppsy2]

For purely clinical psych, one is focused on behavioral interventions. If you have the most basic understanding of behaviorism, you'll know that the what is going on in the brain is unimportant.

Eh, as a behaviorist, I wouldn't say this is so strictly true these days. There's considerable acknowledgement and interest in the biological/neurological basis of reinforcement and punishment, etc.

 

[foreverbull]

Biology is just one of many pieces of the puzzle in our field. I took one biopsych class in grad school plus a cognitive/affective class (if that counts) but it was a good foundation. Only one cultural course is required by APA as well, as far as I know, so you could argue the same for multicultural foundations/practice. My program was scientist-practitioner and was heavily weighted toward research/stats and theory/practice, so we had little to no room for extra electives. It would be lovely to have a whole plethora of additional areas covered, but then doc programs would be 10+ years of classes before we could graduate.

Of course this varies by program, and health/neuropsychology emphases would likely include additional bio courses, but the more bio courses you have, the more you have to sacrifice learning in other equally important or (some would argue) more important areas that inform our practice (depending on your specialty).

 

[smalltownpsych]

My experience was biology, anatomy, and neurobiology were all part of my education with more emphasis on the neuro the further I went. I am a strong believer in psychologists understanding the neurobiological mechanisms that underlie behavior. Some of my favorite research revolves around the neurobiology of attachment, for example. However, an understanding of what the particular receptors are and which medications work with them is where the limits of my own knowledge lie. Mainly because I don't need to know this and I have plenty of learning as to how to continue to improve the efficacy of my psychological interventions. Whether or not risperidone acts more on D2 receptors verses paliperidone on D1 receptors and which ones are more likely to hit various histamine receptors and what medications are an agonist or partial agonist verses a blocker is all information that is better left to a psychiatrist who specializes in this. Real world example. My next job the psychiatrist who owns the facility is hiring me to run the treatment program which refers to all aspects of the patients life other than medication. I don't think he will need help with the medication and I am sure I will be busy enough with what I have to do.

 

[PsyDr]

Eh, as a behaviorist, I wouldn't say this is so strictly true these days. There's considerable acknowledgement and interest in the biological/neurological basis of reinforcement and punishment, etc.

I really don’t think OP knew much about the profession, which directed my response. Keep in mind that kandel’s work, naltrexone interference studies, and classical conditioning of single cell organisms studies are all decades old. But OP doesn’t seem to know this stuff.

@wannabe123 Imagine going to a therapist who says that your depression is solely attributable to biochemistry. Not only has this been repeatedly disproven, such formulations would make psychotherapy a fools errand. For treating schizophrenia it the cbt treatment models, the tuberoinfundibular pathway is unimportant. Training the patient to accept and move on, or use behavioral tools to mitigate the symptoms is important.

 

[psych.meout]

One fundamental problem is the unfounded assumption that biological units of measure, explanations, and interventions are superior to psychosocial ones.

Lilienfeld does a good job of discussing this:
The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): an analysis of methodological and conceptual challenges. - PubMed - NCBI

I'm all for more research into the biological correlates of psychopathology, but we shouldn't necessarily assume that this is the only or best perspective to take. Patients may like having biological explanations for their problems, because then they seem more real and feel more validated, but that shouldn't dictate our science or practice.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I worry about patients thinking it is MOSTLY or ALL biological. I try and educate a balanced approach and then utilize mostly behavioral interventions.

Being able to have good examples and even have the patient test the theory during the subsequent week or two have been the most effective ways to demonstrate efficacy.

The only patients i’ve had completely reject everything were somaticizers and someone malingering.

 

[rerope]

What program did you go to? sounds excellent!

Went to Stony Brook for undergrad but that was a while ago so the major requirements may have changed.