LAUSR

predicting who will and who will not develop a disorder (Davey-Smith, 2011). Nevertheless, Davey-Smith points out that genetic variants can enhance the importance of insights that epidemiology (population level risks) brings. So, should we welcome the ideas of social neuroscience? Probably, as we have already seen some important advances in our understanding of the processes that may link brain mechanisms to environmental exposure; including immune activation (Pariante, 2016); dopamine receptor activity (Howes & Nour, 2016) and the roles of the amygdala (Pechtel, Lyons-Ruth, Anderson, & Teicher, 2014). All these studies are dependent on the use of scanning technologies, which ultimately have their limitations. What may be of most benefit is the suggestion of an interdisciplinary approach that provides an intellectual environment to allow the relevant conceptual work to be carried out. As Rose (2016) suggests, we need to ask, ‘how does adversity get under the skin?’. Importantly for both researchers and clinicians in the field of mental health, not only do we need to improve our methodological approach, we need to take a broader view of mental disorders as an experience of people (including psychiatrists) who are active agents in a social and political world where they are also considered as citizens. Rose (2016) helpfully suggests seeing this view as part of ‘formulation’ that pulls together peoples reported psychological difficulties and dysphoric experiences in the context of their past and present lives and involves conversations between clinicians, patients and other stakeholders which take account of the persons narrative, their strengths and aspirations. This collective and collaborative view can contribute, not only to our understanding of disorders, but can provide an important means to effectively translate research into practice in psychiatry (Fulford, Bortolotti, & Broome, 2014).