It sounds like a terrible disease, and dirty too: neophilia. It is neither, actually, but an affliction nonetheless, and one especially common to the bright and overeducated. Moreover, the sufferers seem not to notice, which speaks to its kinship with addiction, to which it is quite similar.

You, reader, may have the dread disease, especially if you are reading this on a Blackberry or some such portable device. 

Neophiliacs are people who love everything new or novel. While most people have some element of this trait in their personality, there are some folks who have an almost unstoppable draw to every whizzy new electronic gizmo. Or maybe they just have to have the latest combination of strappy sandals and hip-hugging jeans.

These neophiliacs are, in effect, every marketer’s dream.

And now a team of researchers have provided these consumers with just about the greatest excuse ever for justifying their expensive compulsion to buy the newest and coolest. They can't help themselves.

It turns out some people may, in fact, be more genetically predisposed than others to wanting the newest toys, gadgets and fashions.

In scientific mumbo jumbo, it seems that genetic differences mean that people produce different variations of a mitochondrial enzyme called monoamine oxidase A. That’s according to research from the Yamagata University School of Medicine in Japan, which was recently published in the scientific journal Psychiatric Genetics and mentioned in the New Scientist magazine. 

The researchers found that one form of this enzyme was “significantly associated with higher scores of novelty seeking.” In other words, people who produce that form of the enzyme are more likely to have novelty-seeking traits in their personality than others.

But before neophiliacs everywhere put their new excuse into action, it is worth nothing that, of course, not everyone agrees that novelty seeking is likely to have a genetic link. 

Colin Campbell, a professor of sociology at the University of York in the UK, has studied the nature of consumerism, and he believes that the existence of novelty seeking is a relatively new phenomenon. So it can't by definition be genetic.

“Pre-modern societies tend to be suspicious of the novel. It is a feature of modernity that we are addicted to novelty,” says Campbell. Campbell dates the emergence of novelty seeking to the beginnings of the industrial revolution in the mid 18th century. As he explains, “Modern fashion evolved then.”

During the medieval period fashion changed extremely slowly, he says. Then with the industrial revolution, there was a sudden shift toward rapid fashion changes. Acceleration has continued in recent years.

It is because of this historical change that Campbell is not entirely convinced by the idea of a genetic link, questioning why we would not have seen this trait throughout history if it is genetic.

But whether there is a genetic predisposition to be more--or less--of a neophiliac, there’s one thing that is certain. The general desire for the newfound to some degree in many people is a key component in our modern economy and popular culture.

Which is to say that while neophilia may be in some sense a disorder, it is an economically necessary one. Modern popular culture depends upon folks needing something new all the time.

“It is the engine for making popular culture continue to develop,” says Bob Thompson, director of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture at Syracuse University. Thompson believes that as humans we are predisposed to be curious. And that curiosity is behind the lure of novelty. Marketers are able to endlessly play upon this desire into order to turn people on to something new. And as such, the lure of the new also provides some of the underpinnings for our capitalist society.

“If we all as humans weren’t already predisposed for a desire to be stimulated by new stuff, a lot of the structure on which capitalism is founded would not exist,” says Thompson. So if this desire ever ceased, big problems would ensue.

“If all of a sudden we decided we would wear clothes until they wore out and use our car until it collapsed, it would be amazing how much would not be consumed. It would be a huge problem because our whole economy is based on the expectation that we will consume all this,” he says.

Campbell agrees. “If people were to lose interest in the novel, our economy would crash immediately,” he says. “We have developed a civilization that is dependent on it. That’s the situation we are in, for good or ill.” 

Meanwhile, in other pop culture news, "Cars" stayed No. 1 at the box office for the second straight week, making $31.18 million. Three new releases made it into the top five, joined by "The Break-up," which has now made $91.9 million.

Three new releases topped the movie rental charts, with the Harrison Ford movie “Firewall” coming in No. 1, followed by “Underworld: Evolution” and “Glory Road.” That dropped last week’s No. 1, “Date Movie,” to No. 4 on the IMDb.com chart.

In music, Rascal Flatts’ “Life is a Highway” was the only new single to enter iTunes’ top 10 on Friday, bumping Chamillionaire’s “Ridin’” out.

In books, Lauren Weisberger’s “The Devil Wears Prada” is sneaking back up the USA Today charts with the release of the Meryl Streep-Anne Hathaway movie. It jumped from No. 7 last week to No. 4 last week, its 71st week overall on the charts.