In Memoriam
Thomas Detre (1924-2010)
Thomas A. Ban


On October 9, 2010, Thomas Detre, a Past President (1994) and Life Fellow of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP), passed away.

Tom Detre was born in Budapest on May 17, 1924. He grew up in his native city and entered medical school there in 1945. Two years later he left Hungary and continued his studies in Italy where he received his MD from the University of Rome in 1952 (Detre 2004).

Soon after graduation Tom immigrated to the United States and by 1957 completed his residency training in psychiatry, spending one year (1954-1955) at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York and the rest at Yale from 1955 to 1957; he was resident in psychiatry, first at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, then at Yale. Subsequently, he stayed on faculty in the Department of Psychiatry at Yale and during the 1960s was director of the academic unit of the Department at New Haven Hospital (Detre 2011).

Already as a first-year resident at Mount Sinai, Detre became involved in studying psychotropic drugs, first chlorpromazine and reserpine, then several others. In 1971, he published his text, coauthored by H.G. Jarecki, on Modern Psychiatric Treatment (Ban 2011; Detre and Jarecki 1971).       

            In 1973 Detre left Yale to become chairman of the department of psychiatry and director of the Western Psychiatric Institute at the University of Pittsburgh. During his tenure at the University he rose to the position of Senior Vice Chancellor of Health Sciences, as well as President of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (Ban 2011; Shorter 2011).

            Thomas Detre (TD) was interviewed twice for the “Oral History Series” of the ACNP (Ban 2011; Shorter 2011). The first was a regular interview, conducted by Benjamin S. Bunney (SB) at the annual meeting of the College in December 9-13, 1996, in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The second, a special interview in preparation of the 50-year anniversary of the College, was conducted by David Kupfer (DK) on October 2, 2008, in Pittsburgh.  



Interviewer: Benjamin S. Bunney

San Juan, Puerto Rico, December 9–13, 1996


SB: I’m Steve Bunney and I’m interviewing Dr. Thomas Detre. Tom, how did you get started in medicine?

TD: My father and several members of my family were physicians. I was interested in medicine ever since I can remember. My interest in psychiatry was kindled by the remarks made by one of the priests in a Catholic high school I attended when he said that at the turn of the century a degenerate Jewish physician, Sigmund Freud, developed a pansexual theory of human behavior called psychoanalysis.

SB: Where was that?

TD: In Hungary. I went home, asked my father where I could read up on psychoanalysis and he gave me a few books by Freud and Ferenczi. I found the ideas fascinating but too speculative. I remained interested in psychiatry, however.

SB: And then you pursued medicine?

TD: I then pursued medicine, but only after the Second World War in 1945 because Jews were not admitted to medical schools when I got my BA. Two years later, in 1947, when the Communists were about to take over the government, I decided I did not want to live in another dictatorial regime. I left the country, emigrated to Italy, and graduated from the University of Rome in 1952.

SB: And then?

TD: And then, in 1953 I came to the United States on a lovely day in May and found out that the only internship I could get was at the Morrisania City Hospital in the Bronx, New York, but that was a very good experience. It toughened me up.

SB: How old were you at that time, Tom?

TD: Twenty-nine. I was accepted into Mount Sinai Hospital’s psychiatric residency program a year later, but found it had too many pretensions of an academic institution without being one, and moved to Yale for the rest of my post-graduate education.

SB: What date did you arrive at Yale?

TD: July 1955.

SB: And you were there for how long?

TD: I was there for 18½ years. When I left I was Professor of Psychiatry and Psychiatrist-in-Chief of Yale New Haven Hospital.

SB: When did you first become interested in neuropsychopharmacology?

TD: At Mount Sinai. I began to read about a very interesting psychotropic drug called reserpine, which for some reason now is out of fashion, though not necessarily for a good reason. Since it was unclear what reserpine was good for, I proposed to start an open trial in psychiatric patients. The chief resident joined me, to the consternation of the faculty, because Mount Sinai was then a very psychoanalytically oriented program. We presented our findings at a meeting of the New York Academy of Medicine and described an interesting observation, namely that when psychotic symptoms subsided following the administration of reserpine, another set of symptoms emerged which actually preceded the onset of the psychotic episode, a phenomenon called rollback. For example, when reserpine was given to severely depressed patients, after the symptoms of the psychotic depression subsided, they became extremely anxious, which made perfect sense since severe anxiety ushers in most depressive episodes. Although few believed this was possible, my observations have subsequently been confirmed.

SB: To go back to schizophrenic disorders, were you feeling that you were seeing the prodromata after the psychotic symptoms subsided?

TD: Exactly.

SB: This is interesting, because as you know right now, there’s a big push to try to identify prodromal symptoms as soon as possible in order to see whether or not early treatment will prevent psychotic episodes. It would be interesting to go back to your observations to see if this would help us to determine the early warnings signs.

TD: I want to mention that the talk was given by the chief resident, not by me, but that was then the “convention.”

SB: Yes, that’s an old tradition actually.

TD: As I mentioned, Mount Sinai Hospital at the time was not particularly friendly to biological psychiatry and psychopharmacology, so with the help of a distinguished colleague, I got an interview with Dr. Fritz Redlich, who, as you recall, was once upon a time chairman of the Department of Psychiatry, and later Dean of the Yale Medical School. He was kind enough to accept me into the residency program. To my surprise, however, the situation at Yale was not very different from Mount Sinai. As I sat in the midst of my first teaching conference at Yale, presided over by the famous Jules Coleman, and the resident presented a schizophrenic patient, I proposed that instead of treating this young woman just with psychotherapy, we might want to give her some chlorpromazine. Jules Coleman just stared, but one of my fellow residents, who later became a good friend, turned to his neighbor and said, “This guy is for the birds.” That was the attitude. Things got even worse when I became a resident, and later chief resident of the Yale Psychiatric Institute, where to the consternation of everyone, I suggested that the era of neuropsychopharmacology had arrived.

SB: Was Danny Freedman there at the time?

TD: You know, there was a peculiar dichotomy in many departments of psychiatry, not just Yale, but Stanford, Harvard, Columbia, and elsewhere. People interested in biological psychiatry could do anything they wanted to do in the lab but that was not necessarily acceptable in the clinical arena. Danny was very ambivalent about whether to start a career in clinical research or basic research. Eventually, he left Yale and spent about two years in the intramural program at NIMH. When he came back he stayed in the lab and I stayed in the clinic. Whenever a new drug came out he studied the mechanism of action and I started to do clinical trials. At some point we did an open trial on amitriptyline and after it appeared fairly effective, I suggested to my residents that we should do a controlled clinical trial. Even though they felt that they were being forced to use drugs, they declared that it was immoral to start a controlled clinical trial, because it would deprive patients of the benefits the drug might provide.

SB: I assume the reason Danny came back and you were able to run a service, with what appeared to some colleagues as a rather untraditional approach to the management of psychiatric patients, was that Dr. Redlich was able to embrace both sides?

TD: Redlich believed, quite correctly, that every language ought to be spoken and all flowers should bloom. He actually enjoyed the dialogues and the disputes among us, feeling that this provided an intellectually stimulating climate, and it did. This was indeed one of the hallmarks of his leadership style.

SB: Let’s talk a little bit about the research that you have carried out over the years.

TD: Well, I started in New Haven looking at schizophrenic patients. I was particularly interested in the long-term effects of psychotropic drugs after the patient left the hospital and when adherence was no longer ensured by nurses and doctors. Of course, it turned out that the compliance was absolutely miserable. And there was little to be gained unless patients could be persuaded to adhere to a maintenance regime. As you are aware, the resistance to drug therapy at the time was not limited to patients, however. Many psychiatrists felt drugs were ineffective and deprived the patients of the “real” treatment, i.e. psychotherapy, as did the rest of society. So it was difficult to persuade patients to take medications until the public-at-large had a better understanding of the value of pharmacologic treatment, and it was also accepted by the medical profession. In an attempt to overcome this attitude, I started a joint patient/family psycho-educational program. In the course of studying a host of antidepressant drugs I discovered to my consternation what a bad idea it was to combine a monoamine oxidase inhibitor with certain other drugs, particularly amphetamine, as it produced a spectacular rise in systolic blood pressure. Although the inpatient service I directed at Yale New Haven Hospital had only 30 beds – it expanded several years later – we did a large number of clinical studies.

SB: Do you think the side effects of these drugs contributed to poor “adherence?”

TD: Absolutely. More patients were willing to take drugs and tolerate their side effects when they felt sick, but became less cooperative once they felt better. But then this change in attitude can be observed in other medical conditions as well. Having to take medication tends to be disturbing to one’s self-image. It is a constant reminder that you are impaired or weak, as it were. Perhaps you remember the famous study of mothers who were told that their children could be protected from the cardiac damage caused by rheumatic fever by giving them flavored oral penicillin – which is obviously not a psychotropic drug – and six months later, over 40% of them were noncompliant. So we cannot even say that inadequate adherence is typical only of psychiatric patients.

SB: So you left Yale then, in?

TD: 1973.

SB: To become chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh.

TD: Yes, I left because I wanted to develop a department that would be dedicated to clinical research, not to the exclusion of basic research, but where clinical research would have the highest priority. I had a large number of my colleagues from Yale accompany me, which made my task easier. My former colleagues at Yale were also pleased, because some of the people who left with me were viewed as obnoxious. Together we established the department, which I had the pleasure of chairing for nine and a half years.

SB: People that are now in the ACNP whom you took with you include David Kupfer.

TD: Right.

SB: It must have really been a challenge, as chairman, to essentially build a department from scratch. So, how did that progress, in terms of doing what you had in mind?

TD: My view was that clinical research will never stay in the forefront unless it is backed up by a solid neuroscience program. That however could not be my agenda for the first five years, but it became my agenda in the second five years. Then I realized that unless the medical school improved further our own efforts would fail.

SB: So you took a different job?

TD: Yes, the Chancellor proposed that I head up the health sciences. I accepted his offer, but at his request I remained director of Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic. My life had changed, but I continued to be very interested in psychiatry, managed to keep up to date with developments in the field, saw a few patients, and did a little teaching. I eventually had to stop because in addition to dedicating myself to improving the medical school and the other schools of the health sciences, I also became the President of the Medical Center.

SB: As Senior Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, you then had the opportunity to begin to build the basic science arm, as well as the clinical arm, and then to link the two of them.

TD:  Yes. I think they are probably better linked here than at many other universities. In order to strengthen neuroscience in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, I helped the university to establish a Department of Behavioral Neuroscience, and Ed Striker became the first chairman. You probably know him.

SB: Very well. And that comes under the medical school or the graduate school?

TD: The Faculty of Arts and Science. I felt strongly that all of the university should be involved in neuroscience, and the best way to accomplish this for the benefit of both the Medical School and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences would be for them to recruit jointly and offer joint appointments to encourage collaboration throughout the campus. Indeed, in a relatively short time, a strong interaction developed between the departments of Behavioral Neuroscience, and the School of Medicine’s Departments of Neuroscience, Psychiatry, and Neurology. I assisted with the recruitments, hoping to select not just creative scientists, but ones who were not territorial and wanted to cooperate. Today about two-thirds of all recruits in the neurosciences have joint appointments in departments and schools of our university, which I believe is the future, since no department, or even school today, can be its own university.

SB: So, translational research was something that you had in mind all along when you began to set this up.

TD: I might add, of course, that a medical school is not a national science foundation. No matter how seductive we are, how well we teach, and what good role models we are, 80% of our graduates are going into private practice and it is important that we teach them how to remain up to date and to evaluate what they do.

SB: If I remember right, looking at the recent statistics of the University of Pittsburgh, the Department of Psychiatry now has more grant awards from the National Institutes of Health than any other department in the country.

TD: But that is strictly David Kupfer’s fault.

SB: However, you brought David Kupfer when you came, so . . .

TD: Yes, but one cannot take credit for what others have accomplished.

SB: If you take responsibility for recruitment and have an eye to pick the right people, some credit is due.

TD: Perhaps what is most important is that the whole medical school has improved. You probably recall from one of your earlier visits that it was not very distinguished and ranked very low in federal funding, but now it is in 10th place. It is not as good as Yale, maybe never will be, but it’s okay.

SB: Well, you keep us working hard. Tom, let’s talk about the future for a moment. You’ve lived through some remarkable changes in the history of neuropsychopharmacology and the treatment of psychiatric patients. What do you see coming down the road?

TD: Well, I believe that rational drug design will eventually replace what has been a rather serendipitous way of finding new drugs, but I am not persuaded we are there yet. We will probably be able to design drugs that are cleaner in their mode of action.

SB: In terms of side effects?

TD: Not just in terms of side effects, but affecting the central nervous system a little more specifically than the so called dirty drugs we have today. Our hypotheses are often based on one receptor or one neurotransmitter and revised again as new receptors and neurotransmitters are identified. What concerns me, and we have talked about this in the past, is that just when a host of new biologic entities are ready to come down the pike the federal government, dedicated to a short term science policy, has stopped supporting training programs for clinical pharmacologists, who are also trained in molecular biology and genetics. I believe it should be one of the goals of the ACNP to campaign to ensure that we have an adequate number of clinical pharmacologists.

SB: So you’re proposing that there be support for the training of these individuals, as well as research support to carry out the investigations?

TD: Correct, but I think the training of this new type of clinical pharmacologist is a very urgent national task.

SB: You get no argument from me on that.




Interviewer: David J. Kupfer

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, October 2, 2008



DK: Tom, good morning.

TD: Good morning

DK: How are you? I'm trying to remember when was the first time that you went to an ACNP meeting?

TD: I believe I was already in Pittsburgh when I went to the first ACNP meeting. I was curious how a meeting of an academic society operates differently from the very large meetings of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), in which not only academics but also practitioners participate. I was very pleased to see how my colleagues interacted. Small evening seminars were the highlights, especially in the early days when there were fewer of us attending the annual meeting.  It was a wonderful learning experience and I immediately decided I would like to become a member of the College.

DK: So that, that was probably around 1973.

TD: Being at an ACNP meeting was very different from being at the meeting of any other so called academic society by its greater cordiality and intimacy. We had a shared interest, we were all in academic medicine and we were all curious about what the future holds for us. Psychopharmacology made great strides and we had unreasonable hopes that we are going to arrive at very effective treatments in the near future. I joined the college in 1974 or '75. We thought in those days that we have these wonderful new drugs. While we did not know much about their effect on the central nervous system, we believed that by using them we will derive to some very important information regarding the etiology and the pathogenesis of psychiatric disorders. Well, that hope was not fulfilled; those drugs were dirty drugs which acted on many different systems in the brain.

DK: Exactly. Right from the outset ACNP has been a very multi-disciplinary group of individuals. It wasn't like a group of psychiatrists at the annual APA meeting. I also remember that there was a lot of time left for relaxation on the beach, or around San Juan in the casinos and restaurants.

TD: Yes.

DK: Well, it was genuinely funny that even when we were sunbathing we never talked about anything else but psychopharmacology. Maybe around 6 PM in the afternoon we managed to think about what restaurant we should go in the evening. There was a desperate search to find outstanding restaurants in San Juan. But they did not exist. Every year somebody found one but when we went there it was disappointing. During the day we could relax on the beach and talk about issues related to the field. As you pointed out it was a multidisciplinary group and they were not just psychiatrists there; the majority of people were basic scientists. Attending those meetings was a phenomenal learning experience. It's almost impossible to read all the journals today; nobody has the time for that. But, if you go to a meeting like the annual meetings of the ACNP you get a perspective about the field from neuroscientists operating in twenty different areas

DK: How do you think those meetings impacted on what you were planning to do in your work?

TD: It was very difficult to see where psychiatry was heading. We did know that eventually real discoveries will be made by molecular pharmacologists. But, you knew that it was a long way before molecular biology and molecular pharmacology will translate into clinical practice. I 'm sure you have done what I have done in those meetings: looking for talented people. It was an outstanding opportunity to see who would be not just creative but also a good colleague. It was an opportunity to assess the social competence not just the intellectual competence of people, an important aspect in recruitment.

DK: We were both members of the council and served as president in the mid-1990s.

TD: Yes

DK: Two years back to back, 1994 and 1995. If we had to do it now, what do you think we would have to do if we were saddled with the responsibility of the presidency of ACNP? What do you think has changed?

TD: Well, I believe that over the past fifteen years federal funding has been getting slimmer and will become probably much slimmer in the ensuing years. People are turning to pharmaceutical companies to support their research and while most of these relationships have clear, ethical boundaries, problems have developed. We have very different standards than we had twenty-five years ago. You know luncheons and dinners sponsored by pharmacy companies were normal in olden days. I was always astonished at the meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, that when tobacco companies gave a carton of cigarettes away, there were long lines of people waiting for it. These were people who made anywhere from a hundred to two hundred thousand dollars a year. I could never understand why they were lining up for cigarettes. None of these gifts are now there. When pharmaceutical companies sponsor events they have to be clean, in a sense, that their products may be mentioned only in the context of other developments in the field. So, that's a great development. I think that some of our colleagues also got into trouble and all the media talks about their greed.  Well, I must say that physicians and bio-medical scientists are no different from the rest of society. We have just as much greed as anybody else and as a result, numerous problems have surfaced. If you or I would be in charge we would be struggling with those problems. We wouldn't know exactly what to do with our colleagues who have slightly or not so slightly deviated from the standards.

DK: So you think that it was easier in the old days?

TD: I think that it was easier. It was easier. We could discuss important matters as for example how many new members should be accepted next year or how are we going to deal with our junior colleagues who are almost ready to become members.  We could have lengthy discussions about that. That's no longer the case, I don't think it is.

DK: What do you think is going to happen to the ACNP in the future?

TD: You know that's very difficult to predict because we already see that  neuroscience societies attract most of the basic scientists, and clinical trials, which are very important, themselves, obviously are insufficient to provide the content for an academic society. I think the focus probably will shift to translational science in the coming years, because the neurosciences will go to the neuroscience societies. So the novelty in clinical science and transitional science may stay at the ACNP, but not the basic science. I also believe that we are getting perhaps slightly too large for our own good. I have nothing against it; the kind of intimate exchange of ideas which existed in the past cannot be done as easily as it could be done in the past. The schedule of programs is also very crowded. Our new leaders want to give a place to everyone to speak and we have now this large number of evening programs. What is missing now is the opportunity for informal exchange.

DK: Do you think that by becoming much larger and maybe less personal would put the training function of the College in jeopardy?

TD: I am not sure about that but at the same time I don’t think that assigning a mentor to new people would accomplish everything.

DK: We are using mentors as if they were like travel guides.

TD: Yes. I look forward to talk to young people but that got sort of lost in these large meetings.

DK: So, maybe we should cut the ACNP in half?

TD: We should cut it in half. I think it would be nice to have a couple of days dedicated to a program that has only one set of lectures and one set of seminars instead of having twenty-four different study groups going at the same time. We should have a couple of days of quiet reflection to digest what people have been talking about. One or two panel discussion in the evening could be relaxing and perhaps even productive.

DK: Are you suggesting that we go back to a little bit less concentrated set of first days?

TD: Yes. Not only that, but also that for the first two days everybody should take a tranquilizer, sit down and not only listen but also  think about what is said. Lectures currently always overrun in time. We have forgotten that the important part of any lecture is the opportunity afterwards to ask questions and make comments. There is no time for that in the current system. I would like to have that restored, at least during the first two days


TD: Then, let the crowd have whatever they want to have.

DK: Anything you would like to say to our colleagues on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the College?

TD: Yes. You are a young old and I'm a nearly old-old. We have predecessors and we should first congratulate our predecessors, especially to those who are still alive, because they have done something wonderful by creating the College. I believe that the leadership of the College throughout the years has done a magnificent job. But the leadership will have to think about how the future is going to evolve because nothing is stable in science. Academic societies may lose their original characteristics and my plea, solely, is that part of it, not all of it, should be restored.

DK: One of the key players who come to mind is Oakley Ray.

TD: Well, you and I were presidents for a year, maybe council members for a few years.  We came and went away and the only person who stayed was Oakley Ray. The only person who organized these meetings was Oakley Ray.  He made very wise comments in our council meetings and scouted for good places to organize our meetings. Oakley set-up a good organization and he was a very cordial and funny host with a wonderful sense of humor. He really radiated warmth. Apart from his role as host and organizer Oakley was an excellent lecturer and a beloved teacher. He also wrote a very sensible textbook on psychopharmacology. In general he understated himself and managed to convince himself and everybody that he was not important and not even very bright. Of course, the exact opposite was true. He often interjected a little comment into the council by saying, “yes that sounds good, but, perhaps we should also...”, and, then, he would say the exact opposite of what we were saying. But, he did it nicely and we all knew deep down that he was right and we were wrong. It was a wonderful, wonderful interaction with him. I really miss him. I miss the ecology he created around this annual meeting. Well talking about the ecology and not just the annual meeting, I can remember that we were doing as a council much more lobbying

DK: At least trying to create a presence in Washington.

TD: What do you mean not lobbying, we were lobbying ferociously.

DK: Well, do you think that is something that was lost and picked-up by other societies and organizations?

TD: Well, you know we were running into a little bit of a problem because one year we lobbied for increased research funding and next year we lobbied for increased training research funds and eventually, people got a little tired of us. Moreover, almost no professional society can compete with the lobbying firms now in Washington. Of course our politicians say that lobbyist have no influence on them whatsoever. I do not believe that academic societies per se can do very much in influencing matters but I do believe that personal relationships with our Congress, House and Senate members is very important. I believe, in today's world. If I were president of the ACNP, I would make every effort to testify on critical issues. I would ask Congress members to use us as expert witnesses wherever that's appropriate because that's the only way we could be really heard. Lobbying means not just presenting an idea, but promising support to a Congressman, financial support or visibility and we are too small to provide visibility and certainly not rich enough to provide economic support. So expert witnessing is probably the best way to exert our influence.

DK: What's your favorite memory from a meeting?  Do you have a funny story to share, something that happened to you at an annual meeting?

TD: Actually, you ought to know that neither neuroscientists nor psychiatrists, with few exceptions have a sense of humor. We are not known to be very funny just as cab drivers in Puerto Rico told me, '”you guys are the poorest tippers we have ever seen”. There were some sad moments too at annual meetings. When I was president, for instance, one of our colleagues who strongly believed that running is a good thing collapsed and died. He did this running, despite my concerted effort to stop him from doing it. I told him that we are biologically derivatives of monkeys and monkeys run twenty or thirty steps, then stop, scratch themselves, or eat a little something and swing maybe on trees, but they have absolutely no intention of running three to five miles. I don't believe that our organism is suited for these long runs. The only reason we encourage it as physicians because these runners are candidates for orthopedic surgeons.

DK: Before you were elected a member to the ACNP, obviously you had a strong interest in pharmacology and in all these new drugs. It was certainly manifest in the way you went about setting-up a specialty clinic at Yale, and you certainly had some clear ideas as you moved out to Pittsburgh about what a contemporary department of psychiatry should be.

TD: Well, as you probably know since you were with me almost from the beginning, that the psychiatric service I established at The New Haven Hospital was completely different from the standard service in managing psychiatric patients. Very few people got electroshock and nobody got psychoanalytical psychotherapy. We did not blame families for having caused their children mental illness. We educated them about the illness of the patients, we told them how important compliance, now called adherence, is. In America as I always say, we like to recreate everything. The toilet became powder room and compliance became adherence. We told relatives and patients how important it is to adhere to a treatment regime and it became clear from our little experiment at Yale’s New Haven Hospital, that what we did was a sound way of managing patients. It was a sound way of managing patients, but we really didn't know very much about drugs. We talked about antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs as if they were some kind of nice, clean entities like antibiotics which they are not. We eventually learned that the diagnosis of patients’ mattered less than their symptoms for deciding about what kind of drugs they should be receiving. We managed to create a system where the average stay was down to 30 to 60 days from years. In psychoanalytical establishments they stayed two, three, four, or even five years. So when I came to Pittsburgh I felt time has come to establish a department of psychiatry which would first and foremost concentrate on translational and strictly clinical research to improve the management of patients. And that's why I asked you to come with me as director of research. I also had this strange conviction that while advances in basic sciences represent the ultimate hope for us, we have a moral obligation to do the best that we can on the basis of what we know today. With all this said congratulations ACNP on your fiftieth anniversary, and congratulations to all of our colleagues who made this fiftieth anniversary possible. You were all fabulous people. You were even likeable. I only wish everybody would be still around, but of course, that's not in the cards. I'm sure the next fifty years are going to be very interesting and I truly regret that I won't be present to witness it



Ban TA. Preface. In: Shorter E, editor. Starting Up, In: Thomas A. Ban, editor. An Oral History of Neuropsychopharmacology The First Fifty Years Per Interviews. Volume One.   Brentwood: American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, pp. XXXIX-LXIV.


Ban TA, editor. An Oral History of Neuropsychopharmacology The First Fifty Years Peer Interviews. Brentwood: American College of Neuropsychopharmacology; 2011.


Detre T, Jarecki HG. Modern Psychiatric Treatment. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1971.

Detre T. The way we were and the way we are. In: Ban TA, Healy D, Shorter E, editors. Reflections on Twentieth-Century Psychopharmacology. Budapest: Animula; 2004. p. 217–22.

Shorter E. Introduction & Dramatis Personae. In: Shorter E, editor. Starting Up. In  Shorter E, Editor. Starting Up. In: Ban TA, editor. An Oral History of Neuropsychopharmacology The First Fifty Years Per Interviews. Volume One.  Brentwood: American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, pp. LXXIV-CXV.


Shorter E. Introduction & Dramatis Personae. In: Shorter E, editor. Starting Up. In  Shorter E, Editor. Starting Up. In: Ban TA, editor. An Oral History of Neuropsychopharmacology The First Fifty Years Per Interviews. Volume One.  Brentwood: American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, pp. LXXIV-CXV.


Shorter E. Introduction & Dramatis Personae. In: Shorter E, editor. Starting Up. In  Shorter E, Editor. Starting Up. In: Ban TA, editor. An Oral History of Neuropsychopharmacology The First Fifty Years Per Interviews. Volume One.  Brentwood: American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, pp. LXXIV-CXV.


Shorter E, editor. Starting up. In: Thomas A. Ban, editor. An Oral History of Neuropsychopharmacology The First Fifty Years Per Interviews. Volume One. Brentwood: American College of Neuropsychopharmacology; 2011.


January 4, 2018