Evidence-based perspectives on addiction, recovery, and the systems that shape both.
Essays and research by Major Brock · Founder, Brock Recovery Group
Longform thinking on addiction science, treatment systems, and the path toward integrated care.
Why We Know So Much and Yet Help So Few — exploring the fragmentation between research, treatment, and innovation.
Why the System Hasn't Kept Pace With What We Know — examining the gap between addiction science and how treatment is actually delivered.
Why the Next Breakthrough Is Not New Science, But Better Connection — examining how better alignment across research, treatment, and innovation can drive the next phase of progress.
New essays added regularly.
Addiction Research · Major Brock
Published March 2025
For decades, addiction has been studied from nearly every conceivable angle. Neuroscientists map the brain. Clinicians refine treatment models. Pharmaceutical companies develop medications. Policy experts analyze systems and funding flows. Recovery communities build peer-driven support networks. And yet, despite this immense effort, addiction outcomes remain deeply inconsistent. The problem is not a lack of knowledge. The problem is that our knowledge exists in silos.
By Major Brock · Founder, Brock Recovery Group
Published March 2025
Addiction research and treatment operate in parallel worlds that rarely intersect in meaningful ways.
Academic institutions produce rigorous research, often funded through highly specialized grants with narrow scopes. These studies are frequently published in journals that are inaccessible to practitioners and almost entirely disconnected from real-world implementation.
Treatment providers, on the other hand, operate in fast-moving, resource-constrained environments. They rely heavily on lived experience, practical frameworks, and what has worked historically within their specific programs. While this work is invaluable, it is often not systematically captured, measured, or shared.
Meanwhile, innovation in healthcare technology and behavioral health is accelerating rapidly. Startups are building tools for prevention, monitoring, and recovery support. But many of these companies are operating without deep integration into academic research or frontline treatment environments.
Each group is making progress. But they are not making progress together.
This fragmentation has real consequences.
Breakthroughs in neuroscience or pharmacology often take years, if not decades, to influence actual treatment protocols.
Programs operate with varying philosophies and methodologies, with limited shared data on what truly works across populations.
Individuals navigating recovery encounter a system that feels disjointed, inconsistent, and difficult to trust.
New technologies are often built without sufficient input from those on the front lines of care or those with lived experience.
In any other area of healthcare, this level of fragmentation would be unacceptable. In addiction, it has become the norm.
To fix the problem, we need to acknowledge why it exists.
Academia rewards publication, not implementation. Treatment centers prioritize occupancy and outcomes, not research collaboration. Startups are driven by growth and capital, not necessarily integration.
Institutions, particularly research bodies, often cannot directly partner with treatment providers due to legal and compliance constraints.
There is a longstanding divide between "clinical" approaches, "research" approaches, and "recovery community" approaches. Each brings value, but they often operate with different languages, priorities, and belief systems.
There is no unified system for capturing and sharing outcomes across treatment settings, making it difficult to build a cohesive evidence base.
If we are serious about improving outcomes, we need to move from isolated excellence to integrated systems. This requires intentional infrastructure.
We need environments where research, clinical care, and real-world application are connected by design. Not as occasional partnerships, but as ongoing, structured collaboration.
No single institution will solve this problem. Universities, treatment providers, and private-sector innovators must work together, sharing data, insights, and accountability.
Treatment environments should not just deliver care. They should generate data, inform research, and continuously refine approaches based on measurable outcomes.
Any meaningful system must incorporate the voices of those in recovery. Lived experience is not anecdotal. It is a critical data source that must be integrated alongside clinical and scientific perspectives.
My own experience in recovery has shaped how I see this issue.
I have lived through the gaps in the system. I have experienced both the strengths and the inconsistencies of treatment. And now, through my work in building and investing in recovery-focused organizations, I see how these silos persist at every level.
We do not need more isolated breakthroughs. We need better connection between the breakthroughs we already have.
The future of addiction treatment will not be defined by a single discovery or a single institution. It will be defined by our ability to connect:
This is not just a structural challenge. It is an opportunity. If we can break down the silos, we have the potential to fundamentally reshape how addiction is understood, treated, and prevented. And in doing so, we can move from fragmented progress to meaningful, scalable impact.
Recovery Science · Major Brock
Published March 2025
The addiction treatment field has made meaningful progress over the past several decades. Programs have expanded. Access to care has improved. Millions of people have found recovery through systems that were built with the best information available at the time. And yet, outcomes remain inconsistent. Not because we lack effort. Not because we lack care. But because, in many cases, the system has not kept pace with the science.
By Major Brock · Founder, Brock Recovery Group
Published March 2025
Across the industry, treatment is still largely organized around fixed timelines: 30 days, 60 days, 90 days. These timeframes provide structure. They help standardize care and align with reimbursement models. But they are not grounded in biology.
Addiction affects brain chemistry, stress response, and behavior in ways that do not resolve on a predefined schedule. There is no universal point at which a patient is 'ready' simply because a certain number of days have passed.
The system often prioritizes consistency of structure over variability of need.
Treatment models are often positioned along a spectrum: Clinical or Twelve-step. Each brings value. Each has helped people. But most patients do not fit cleanly into either category.
Co-occurring mental health conditions are the rule, not the exception. Depression, anxiety, trauma, and other disorders are deeply intertwined with substance use. As a result, effective care is rarely one-dimensional. It requires integration. Clinical care, medication, behavioral therapy, and community support are not competing frameworks. They are complementary components of a more complete system.
There is no shortage of progress in addiction science. Advances in pharmacology, improved understanding of craving and reward pathways, more effective behavioral interventions, and emerging technology to support recovery in real time. The knowledge exists. But implementation remains uneven.
Research often takes years to translate into practice. New approaches face operational, regulatory, and financial barriers before they reach patients at scale. This creates a growing gap: the science moves forward, the system moves more slowly. And patients experience the difference.
Program completion, early sobriety milestones, engagement during treatment
Sustained recovery, mental health stability, return to work and daily functioning
These metrics do not fully capture what matters most — outcomes over time, not just at discharge
If addiction is treated as a chronic condition, outcomes must be measured accordingly
If addiction is treated as a chronic condition, then outcomes should be measured over time, not just at discharge.
Medication-assisted treatment has become more widely accepted, supported by a strong and growing evidence base. And yet, adoption still varies. Some of this is philosophical. Some of this is operational. Some of this is rooted in historical perspectives on recovery.
At the same time, the data continues to evolve. Medication is not a replacement for recovery. But for many patients, it is a critical component of it. The opportunity is not to choose between approaches, but to better integrate them.
Addiction treatment has, by necessity, been built around standardized programming. This has allowed the field to scale. But addiction itself is not standardized. Patients present with different histories, different mental health profiles, and different biological factors.
As the science advances, there is increasing potential to move toward more personalized models of care. Not by abandoning structure, but by becoming more responsive within it.
One of the most consistent patterns in addiction is this: relapse risk increases after treatment ends. And yet, much of the system is still oriented around the treatment episode itself. Aftercare exists. Alumni programs exist. But long-term recovery management remains underdeveloped relative to the need. If addiction is a chronic condition, then care models must extend beyond the initial phase of treatment.
Medication is not a replacement for recovery. But for many patients, it is a critical component of it.
This is not a critique of the industry. It is a reflection of where the industry is in its evolution. The current system was built with the knowledge available at the time. It has created real impact. But the expectations are changing. Science is advancing. Data is becoming more accessible. Patients are more informed. And the model will need to adapt accordingly.
The future of addiction treatment will not be defined by choosing between existing models. It will be defined by how well those models evolve and integrate with emerging science.
Not just structure — treatment timelines should reflect individual need
Clinical, behavioral, and community-based care are complementary, not competing
Reduce the lag between what science knows and what systems do
Success must be defined beyond discharge
Build systems that support recovery over time, not just during the episode
We don't have a lack of effort in addiction treatment. We have a gap between what we know and how we apply it. And closing that gap is where the next generation of progress will come from.
Addiction Treatment · Major Brock
Published April 2025
The addiction treatment field has made meaningful progress over the past several decades. Programs have expanded. Access to care has improved. Millions of people have found recovery through systems built with the best information available at the time. That foundation matters. At the same time, there is a growing recognition that the field is still evolving. Not because something is broken. But because there is an opportunity to do more — together — than any one part of the system can do on its own.
By Major Brock · Founder, Brock Recovery Group
Published April 2025
Over time, different parts of the addiction ecosystem have developed in parallel.
Continue to expand our understanding of the brain and behavior
Work on the front lines, helping individuals navigate recovery in real time
Develop new tools and therapies
Create structure, accountability, and long-term support
Each of these plays a critical role. And in many cases, they are all improving. But they are not always improving together.
There is no shortage of effort in this space. There is no shortage of knowledge. The opportunity is in how those pieces come together.
When research is closely connected to treatment environments, it becomes more relevant and more actionable.
When treatment providers have access to evolving science, care becomes more precise and more effective.
When innovation is informed by both research and real-world experience, it becomes more practical and more scalable.
Integration is not a new idea. But it is still underbuilt.
It is difficult to apply science effectively without understanding what is happening on the front lines. At the same time, it is difficult for operators to fully incorporate new approaches without clear, practical guidance from research. This is not a one-sided gap. It works both ways.
Important context can be missed. Science advances without the grounding of real-world experience.
Valuable insights take too long to reach patients. Progress slows at the point of care.
The strongest systems are the ones where these feedback loops exist. Where learning moves in both directions.
As the field continues to evolve, there are a few patterns that are becoming more visible.
Not just collaboration, but ongoing connection. Environments where research informs care, and care informs research in real time.
Treatment is not a single phase. It is a longer journey that includes stabilization, structure, community, and long-term support.
Medication, behavioral therapies, and technology are increasingly part of the conversation. The focus is shifting toward how these tools are integrated, not whether they are used.
Success is being viewed over longer time horizons. Not just completion of a program, but sustained recovery and improved quality of life.
There are real reasons why integration takes time. Different parts of the system operate under different incentives. Regulatory and liability considerations can limit collaboration. Resources are often constrained at the treatment level. And historically, these groups have developed independently, with different priorities and ways of working. None of this is due to a lack of commitment. It is simply how the system has evolved.
The next phase of progress in addiction treatment will not come from a single breakthrough. It will come from better alignment.
Reduce the distance between what science discovers and what treatment delivers
Ensure new tools are built with and for the people using them
Build systems that support recovery across every phase, not just the first
Most importantly, bring together those already making progress — but doing it in parallel
We don't need a single new answer in addiction treatment. We need a better system for bringing the answers we already have together.
Have thoughts on the research? A perspective to share? I'd like to hear from you.
© 2025 Brock Research & Opinion · Major Brock