The necessary paradigm shift in the study of addiction: Inconsistencies and fallacies of the brain disease model of addiction

The Brain Disease Model of Addiction (BDMA) has been the dominant paradigm since its official
proclamation by the National Institute of Drug Addiction (NIDA) a quarter of a century
ago. However, all its principles have been repeatedly falsified and none of the benefits proposed
by its authors have been achieved. Its survival is based on the unconditional support of
the pharmaceutical industry and on the management of funds that NIDA allocates as a priority
to studies that verify its hypotheses, as well as disregard for all research that questions its principles.
Following Popper, the correct procedure is not verificationism, but the falsification principle,
which forces the discarding of refuted hypotheses. And, following Kuhn, when a scientific
paradigm does not meet the requirements, it must be replaced by another that surpasses the
discarded one. This article reviews the inconsistencies of the BDMA and the fallacies on which
its hegemony, now firmly questioned, has been based.