This book is a really interesting look at the difference between scientific and moralistic discourses, and a usefully summary of the state of ADHD research from a critical perspective, but it is ultimately hobbled by by its biases.

The conventional perspective is that ADHD is a real condition, and that while we do not know its precise biological etiology, it's something genetic, neurochemical, or neural circuitry based. The first three chapters do an admirable job at deconstructing the science behind the conventional explanation. The attack on Castellanos' 2002 study on medication and brain development is particularly interesting. Mostly, this effort confirms my belief that in matters of scientific construction and deconstruction, laypeople are alienated by the sheer density of facts, and the nuances of proper experimental design. How can we know which argument is true?

The book begins to falter as it looks for alternative explanations of ADHD, presenting dietary and chemical damage explanations that begin to cross into psuedo-science. The studies of the social and historical aspects of ADHD are cursory, tracing peripheral issues rather than engaging in a serious way with the main trust of ADHD in American society from the mid-1970s onwards. The final section, on how ADHD is a reaction to the post-60s society, falls to griping from boomers about how things just aren't like they were, parents are too permissive, kids just don't have moral fiber etc.

There is room for serious scholarly work on ADHD, but this book isn't quite it. Useful in some respects, but overall, disappointing.