Doctors at Stanford University are studying a medication they hope will alleviate the suffering of millions of American women. But their target isn't breast cancer, osteoporosis, or a similarly well-known affliction. Despite its alarming impact on its victims, the malady in question has received comparatively little medical scrutiny. It's a 'hidden epidemic', according to the Stanford researchers: compulsive shopping disorder. That's fight. What was once merely a punch line in television sitcoms is now being taken seriously by many clinicians. According to the Stanford study's leader, Dr. Lorrin Koran, compulsive shopping is 'motivated by 'irresistible' impulses, characterized by spending that is excessive and inappropriate, has harmful consequences for the individual, and tends to be chronic and stereotyped'. Compulsive shoppers 'binge buy'—most often clothes, shoes, makeup, and jewelry—and then suffer intense guilt. That, in turn, helps trigger another frenzied trip to the mall, and the cycle continues. Could compulsive shopping be a health hazard associated with America's unparalleled economic prosperity? 'It seems to be a disease of affluence', says Dr. Jerrold Pollak, a clinical psychologist who's treated several shopaholics. 'Advertisers would like us to think that shopping is a reason to live', agrees Dr. Cheryl Carmin, another clinical psychologist. 'If you do not have the time or inclination to go to the mall or grocery store, there are catalogs, delivery services, home shopping networks on TV, and endless items to buy via the Internet'. Indeed, this year, U.S. advertisers will spend $233 billion—an amount equal to six federal education budgets—to persuade Americans to buy, buy, buy. Yet the possibility that U.S. advertisers may be driving certain women in our society to psychosis is only part of the story. It seems that the pharmaceutical companies' quest to cure the effects of excessive marketing may itself be little more than a cleverly-disguised marketing scheme. The Stanford study, like many of its kind, is being funded by a pharmaceutical company. The undisclosed drag is an FDA-approved antidepressant, specifically an SSRI—a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (The researchers are also studying behavioral therapies for compulsive shoppers). The researchers running the Stanford study refused to reveal their sponsor. However, only five SSRIs are currently on the U.S. market. Pfizer (makers of Zolofi), Eli Lilly (Prozac) and SmithKline Beecham (Paxil) all reported that they are neither conducting nor planning any studies of their drags for compulsive shopping. Solvay (Luvox) also seems an unlikely candidate. In 1997, researchers at the University of Iowa tried using Luvox to treat compulsive shoppers and found no measurable differences between the effects of the drag and those of a placebo. Perhaps the manufacturers of Luvox want to give their product another shot. More likely, however, the mysterious benefactor of the Stanford Study is Forest Pharmaceuticals (Celexa). Their PR department neither confirmed nor denied any involvement in Koran's study. Why would a pharmaceutical company anonymously spend money to license one of its top-selling drugs for a marginal disorder like compulsive shopping? A big part of the answer is profit. The mystery company presumably hopes to carve a unique slice out of the mental disorder pie in order to market it together with a ready-made treatment. This is not at all a new strategy for the world's mammoth pharmaceutical fins, as David Healy, a professor at the University of Wales College of Medicine, explains in his book 'The Anti-Depressant I'm'. Healy's book describes a process by which companies seek to 'educate' both patients and clinicians about a new disorder, to sell the disorder in preparation for selling its cure. Funding clinical trials is a crucial part of that process. We learn