Neuroscience-based Nomenclature (NbN) as a Teaching Tool

Overview

In recent decades, medical student interest in a career in mental health appear to be in decline, possibly due to the perception that the scientific foundation of psychiatry and psychopharmacology is weaker compared to other fields of medicine. In an effort to examine ways of improving the current nomenclature in Psychopharmacology, in 2008 the nomenclature taskforce was initiated, composed of representatives from five international organizations: ECNP - European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, ACNP - American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, AsCNP - Asian College of Neuropsychopharmacology, CINP - International College of Neuropsychopharmacology, IUPHAR - International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology.2 The result of this effort is the Neuroscience based Nomenclature (NbN) - a pharmacologically driven nomenclature that focuses on reflecting current knowledge and on the understanding of the neural system being modified this research is the first that examine whether putting greater emphasis on neuroscience in the teaching of psychotropics, through the use of the new NbN terminology, achieve the goal of improving medical students views on psychiatry.

In recent decades, medical student interest in a career in mental health appear to be in decline1. There are multiple factors responsible for the apparent lack of interest in psychiatry, one of them may be the perception that the scientific foundation of psychiatry and psychopharmacology is weaker compared to other fields of medicine. As the field of psychopharmacology evolves, the terminology used to describe different classes of medication becomes increasingly convoluted: at a time when the same agent is used for the treatment of several different disorders, the nomenclature in use is indication-based and divided into classes that are disease based - such as Antidepressant, Antipsychotic and Anxiolytics. These classes, in turn, are divided into subclasses like "Atypical" or "Second Generation" - terms that give little information regarding the pharmacological properties of the medication itself. This discrepancy between the current naming of psychotropics and the way they are used in clinical practice is confusing to both the clinician and the patient - and since it fails to reflect on the current scientific knowledge, may affect the way young medical professionals perceive the profession of psychiatry. In an effort to examine ways of improving the current nomenclature in Psychopharmacology, in 2008 the nomenclature taskforce was initiated, composed of representatives from five international organizations: ECNP - European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, ACNP - American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, AsCNP - Asian College of Neuropsychopharmacology, CINP - International College of Neuropsychopharmacology, IUPHAR - International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology.2 The result of this effort is the Neuroscience based Nomenclature (NbN) - a pharmacologically driven nomenclature that focuses on reflecting current knowledge and on the understanding of the neural system being modified (''pharmacological domain'') and its mode/mechanism of action (''mode of action'')3. The NbN was widely accepted by both clinicians and leading psychiatric journals4 The need to revise the teaching methods of psychopharmacology was reviewed over the years, with different strategies suggested5. To our knowledge, this research is the first that examine whether putting greater emphasis on neuroscience in the teaching of psychotropics, through the use of a new terminology, achieve the goal of improving medical students views on psychiatry.