Some of the recent evidence suggesting that rodents may have the capacity for empathy comes from pain research here at McGill. Mice in the presence of another mouse in pain are more sensitive to pain themselves, but only if the mouse is familiar (a ‘roommate’, essentially), and not if the alternate mouse is unfamiliar. To put it another way, if a mouse sees a ‘friend’ in pain, their understanding (such as it is) of the familiar mouse’s experience can affect their own perception of pain, as part of a phenomenon termed “emotional contagion” that is believed to be a precursor to empathic behaviour.

A brand-new study has potentially added some exciting insight to the issue of empathy precursors in animals. A team from the University of Chicago developed a novel method of examining empathy-related behaviour, in which one rat is held in a restraining device which can be released by another rat. After learning how to open the restraining cage, the freely-moving rat chooses to free its restrained companion, but not empty restrainers or those containing a toy rat. Notably, female rats seemed to show more altruistic behaviour than males. In a subsequent experiment, this team showed that if a second restrainer containing chocolate was placed alongside a trapped rat, the free rat was equally likely to initially open the chocolate restrainer (and enjoy the chocolate alone) or to open the rat restrainer and share the chocolate, suggesting that freeing the trapped companion is as motivating to the rat as a tasty treat. The authors of this study suggest that these results indicate empathy on the part of the freely-moving rat, in that it is highly motivated to rescue a companion animal that it perceives as distressed, even when doing so costs the rat resources (in terms of sharing the chocolate).

However, is this really the case? In the scant time since this article was published, alternative explanations for the rats’ behaviour have arisen. One possibility is that the freely-moving rat becomes distressed by the trapped rat (either by their vocal cries, a released scent, or another signal), and the free rat is opening the restrainer to extinguish these cues and reduce its own distress, as opposed to ‘helping’ the other rat. Supporting this hypothesis, the animals emitted more frequent ‘alarm calls’ when an animal was trapped, explaining why the free animals were more motivated to open only those cages containing a trapped companion. This would not be empathic behaviour, as the freely-moving rat is merely acting to reduce its own distress, rather than altruistically ‘rescuing’ the trapped rat. In addition, the evolutionary advantages to empathic experiences in rodents are unclear.

So the animal empathy issue, new as it is, remains somewhat murky. It seems that rodents possess the capacity for emotional contagion, a primitive precursor for actual empathy. The more recent research raises the possibility for empathy underlying altruistic behaviour in rats, although the evidence so far is insufficient to conclude that this is the case. However, these studies provide clear research directions for future studies investigating the origins of our own uniquely human condition. We already know that human infants display empathy- and morality-related behaviour, as well as a basic understanding of the mental experiences of others (“theory of mind”), as early as one to two years of age. Taken together, these avenues of research bring us closer to understanding the evolutionary and developmental origins of those traits that make us human, to whatever extent we can say they remain uniquely ours.

There’s this odd thought I get on a semi-regular basis; let’s say a few times per month. Here’s the gist: I’m walking down a busy street, such as Montreal’s Ste. Catherine Street, on a busy afternoon. I abruptly become aware that there are roughly a hundred thousand or so visible objects in my immediate surroundings; gold watches, sweater zippers, cell phones, noserings, Toyotas, handbags, bricks, iPods, and the like. That’s not the weird part, though. Immediately following this otherwise mundane bit of cognition is always the idea that all of these objects, and in fact every human-made object or bit of technology, would not exist but for a small lump of tissue at approximately the level of the passing bike courier’s bridge piercing [N.B. it’s a piercing that goes through the bridge of the nose just below and between the eyebrows; I had to look it up, too].

Scientists and philosophers have long wondered what it is that makes us uniquely human. Descartes believed that we were animated by a soul that interacted with the body through a structure known as the pineal gland. Having seen a few in person, I’m more inclined towards the current view that the pineal gland is more suited for producing melatonin than housing souls. To be sure, this is a difficult question to answer, but there are a few things we can be sure of.

Firstly, whatever it is that distinguishes humans from other animals must be reflected in our behaviour; obviously the human-animal distinction is more than aesthetic, or else we wouldn’t be the only creatures with the aforementioned zippers and iPods, to say nothing of the fact that you’re most likely reading this document over the internet on a computer. If we can assume that our humanity is represented in our behaviour, then what is the origin of our behaviour? We have a conclusive answer for this as well; behaviour, as with emotion and cognition, is a product of the brain. There are minor exceptions, if you consider reflexes in the peripheral nervous system to be behaviour, but we can safely say that volitional behaviour arises from neurobiological processes between your ears.

So particular behaviours distinguish us as human. Behaviours arise from the brain. How is the human brain unique?

Across the temporal branches of evolution (or ‘phylogenetically’), the brain has changed significantly. It’s too broad of a topic to go into detail in this context, but suffice it to say there have been some broad trends in the evolution of the brain. For one thing, certain parts of the brain are phylogenetically older. Your limbic system for example, which contains such critical structures as the hippocampus and amygdala, appears to have a somewhat earlier origin than other parts of your brain. The brain has gained new folds (gyri and sulci), most likely to increase the ratio of its surface area to its volume. Brains also became larger relative to overall body size.

What was the great leap forward in brain evolution with the appearance of our own species? Coming back to the bike messenger, a few inches away from that spike above his eyes lies a structure referred to as the prefrontal cortex, part of the neocortex. This is, phylogenetically, a relatively ‘new’ region, and one that appears in mammals and gains size (and ostensibly function) in primates such as ourselves. While our non-human primate cousins also have this brain structure, it represents a larger proportion of the human brain (see for example Semendeferi et al., 2001, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 114: 224-241). This may explain why, although primates display many human-like traits, we have little trouble distinguishing human behaviour from that of other primates.

Which gets to the heart of what messes with my head so much on Ste. Catherine. We have brains that are remarkably similar to those of chimpanzees. Leave chimpanzees on a human-free world for tens of millions of years, though, and in the absence of further brain changes you’ll have tens of millions of years without skyscrapers, sea-doos, sonnets, and Scud missiles. For better or worse, adding a bit of tissue to the neocortex seems to change all that, making possible every human-made object you’ll ever encounter. Whether you find that information disturbing or fascinating, I empathize.

The now-infamous hit by Zdeno Chara on Max Pacioretty resulted in a serious concussion, as well as a fractured C4 vertebra. Amid the controversy regarding the hit and whether further disciplinary action should be brought against Chara, the incident brings the seriousness of concussion injuries back into the public eye.

A concussion is a form of traumatic brain injury, in which a sudden impact causes the brain to compress against the inside of the skull, resulting in a temporary loss of brain function. The majority of concussions do not result in loss of consciousness. Roughly 1% percent of the population will suffer from a concussion at some point, although this statistic is likely an underrepresentation of the true prevalence. We used to view concussions as relatively minor events, but some disturbing recent studies have shown that they can have serious consequences.

Common side effects of a concussion are headache, nausea, loss of motor coordination, and sensory dysfunction. These usually dissipate without requiring treatment acutely after the injury. However, with post-concussion syndrome, symptoms may not disappear for months or years, or even at all, and there is currently no treatment except rest.

We are also learning a rapidly increasing amount about the effects of concussion on emotional and cognitive function. Recent studies in National Football League players have shown an association between concussion and depression, as well as memory deficits and general cognitive impairment. Tragically, traumatic sports injuries have even been linked with suicide. These effects have been attributed to chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative condition in which multiple head injuries lead to aggregate damage to the brain; boxers that are termed ‘punchy’ suffer from one form of CTE.

Pacioretty will hopefully recover from his injuries avoiding these particular issues, although his future career is in doubt. However, the primary issue is that millions of young athletes engage in contact sports on a regular basis, putting developing brains at risk for serious neuropsychological consequences. It is imperative that future research determines how best to mitigate the risk of concussion-related injuries in these vulnerable individuals.

****

On a lighter note, this week is Brain Awareness Week, so make sure to attend some of the great events and get involved (also check out their blog here)!

I recently saw the Douglas’ new ad campaign, ‘Brains need love too’ (check out the video here). The video is extremely open-ended, with the actual message of the campaign open to the interpretation of the viewer, at least until they visit the campaign’s web site. Here are the interpretations I took away from it (I initially tried to stay away from Cam’s blog entry and the campaign’s site until I got my preliminary impressions down, so as not to influence how I perceived it).

-          Psychiatric conditions are neurobiologically based, as implied with the opening shots of brains labelled by psychiatric diagnosis. I’m assuming the reasoning behind this is that it has traditionally been believed that stigma against mental illness could be ameliorated in the general public if it was more widely known that mental illness is fundamentally due to the structure and function of the brain itself, as opposed to any personal weakness of afflicted persons themselves. Although it’s noble to attempt to combat stigma by replacing popular misconceptions with fact, however, recent studies showing that stigma against mental illness persists even in the face of improvement of the public’s understanding of the origins of mental illness sadly cast doubt on the effectiveness of this particular strategy.

-          People are more than their labels, another anti-stigma message. Outside of its labelled container, the brain reveals it’s capable of experiencing life just like anyone else.

-          Take care of your brain, not meant as an anti-stigma message but more of a suggestion that all of our brains, well, ‘need love too’. Speaking of which, Brain Awareness Week is coming up in the near future, so get involved if you need some spring brain-awareness-lovin’. I’m assuming the figurative message here is, be aware that your brain needs care, if not by skateboarding and psychedelic brain-tossing, then by nutrition, exercise, mental stimulation, paying attention to your mental and emotional functioning, and not-sniffing-glue-or-opening-doors-with-your-head-or-something. They’re pretty vague on this one.

Overall, it’s charming and cute, and I like the bold approach of using real (albeit calf) brains up-close and bloody to show that something that may seem disquieting to us (in this case, a bloody brain) is capable of experiencing cognition, emotions and the world around us. Similarly, although mental illness can be disquieting to those with a stigma against it, psychiatric patients are fully capable of these same experiences. Also, regarding the brain images, I feel obligated to point out that we’re talking about something we’ve all got, which is processing this sentence right now within your own head, and while you don’t necessarily have to realize how cool that is, you should at least try to get over your squeamishness over the look of your own brain. It is, after all, what ‘you’ really look like.

However, it’s difficult to determine the overarching message of the campaign from the 62-second ad alone. It does seem to be necessary to go to the campaign website for clarification, where there’s a slightly vague description urging people to take care of their brains and, more usefully, a list of diverse resources for information on the brain as well as psychiatric disorders and treatment.

Finally, on its FAQ page, the campaign addresses some problems viewers might have had with the video, for which I thought I’d throw in my opinion as well:

‘Are these human brains?’

Given the demanding job our Brain Bank does of obtaining and processing human brains, and out of respect to the hypothetical brain donors that would have been involved, I would certainly hope not; thankfully they’re calf brains.

‘The bloody brains are shocking and disgusting. Don’t they make it difficult to understand the message?’

I can’t see why they’d obscure the message at all; if anything the graphic nature (which is tempered by an overall gentle tone) potentiates the message, as I mentioned earlier, that something that may seem disturbing to us intuitively (such as bloody brains or mental illness) facilitates (or does not preclude, in the case of the latter) the experiencing of our mental lives, and this also makes the message more salient.

‘Doesn’t the video reduce mental illness to a mere organ, the brain, ignoring the social and environmental aspects?’

Social and environmental factors do influence the risk for, and development and treatment of, psychiatric conditions, but they do so by influencing the structure and function of the brain. I don’t think that the ad reduces mental illness to a mere organ, but it does (justifiably) show the organ responsible for mental and emotional functioning.

‘Doesn’t the video make light of mental illness?’

I didn’t get this impression at all; if anything, it’s showing that, contrary to stigmatic views, those afflicted with psychiatric conditions are fully capable of living normal and fulfilling lives.

‘The goal of the video is to catch people’s interest so they visit the Douglas Web site, a respected source of accurate information about mental illness, verified by experts. If the message stimulates debate about mental illness, so much the better!

Mental illness is still a taboo subject in our society, and many people hesitate to ask questions or seek help. It’s high time we began talking about mental illness and taking it into the public forum. Mental illness affects one out of every five Canadians, yet it is still an unpopular and underfunded cause.

By placing the brains in boxes, you are placing people with mental illness in boxes.’

As I mentioned above, it does the opposite; by removing the brains from the boxes in the opening seconds, the ad suggests that it’s possible to remove individuals with psychiatric conditions from labelled boxes into contexts in which they can thrive.

‘Isn’t mental illness psychological rather than about the brain?’

Mental illness is characterized by disturbances in cognition, affect and behaviour, phenomena that are rooted in the neurobiological structure and function of the brain. To say that mental illness is “psychological rather than about the brain” is to neglect the fact that psychological features arise as consequences of brain activity.

‘Why did you use such shocking images?’

I really don’t think the sight of a brain should be too shocking to many people out there (though I’d be curious as to whether this ad could be run on television). However, the mild shock that might accompany the images in the video is likely intended to provoke more attention to the video’s important themes.

That’s pretty much it. While I think the overall ad is vague, and the campaign itself rather general (‘Take care of your brain!’ is quite a broad statement), I disagree with the negative points its authors anticipate on its website, and more importantly think that its message is worthwhile. Also it’s a well-produced and genuinely endearing ad. So go love your brain.

The basic premise is that the only trustworthy sources of scientific information that can be given to the general public are peer-reviewed journal articles and a small number of established news sources, the latter of which Dr. Murray correctly admits are faltering. To distill his point further, he doesn’t like the rise of scientific blogging.

I readily agree that, “The picture of scientifically grounded innovations feeding progress in science is well established. I firmly believe that this system has served science well and that the scientific literature has provided generally reliable information and vast benefits to society over the centuries to the present and will continue doing so into the future.” It’s true that this information should reach the public, for reasons I’ve mentioned previously, including that it protects the public, reduces stigma and susceptibility to pseudoscience, influences public policy, and fosters a sense of scientific wonder in prospective scientists and non-scientists alike.

However, I reject the premise underlying his statement that, “…editors and reviewers reinforce the meaningfulness of Impact Factors by explicit attention to the reliability of submitted articles; if the Scientific Method has not been adequately followed, then there should be a downwardly adjusted evaluation of impact.” This is a misrepresentation of impact factor, the measure of how frequently a journal’s articles are cited relative to the number it publishes. Impact factor does not measure the extent to which an article follows the scientific method whatsoever; it is more an index of how novel and important, on average, an article published in a particular journal is likely to be, as assessed by how frequently other scientists refer to it in their own articles. The principles of impact factor, far from applying only to peer-reviewed sources, apply just as accurately to informal sources, in that their quality and novelty determine their audience and are reflected by how frequently they are referred to and discussed.

More importantly, it’s false to say that the optimal venue for dissemination of knowledge from scientist to layperson is necessarily a published journal article. Scientific articles are not accessible to the general public, even to those members that actively seek them out; restrictive language and jargon, in tandem with prohibitively high costs for accessing articles, prevent access to anyone outside of university-affiliated experts in the respective fields, which defeats the entire concept of limiting the scientific information available to the public to peer-reviewed articles.

In agreement with Dr. Murray, I’m not a fan of the word ‘blogger’ or its derivatives, but I fear by his attempted definition that he does not understand the term, in that he assumes their primary motivation is to be “entrepreneurs who sell ‘news’”. This blatantly overlooks the fact that the vast majority of the population he attempts to describe act not out of personal financial gain but rather out of an altruistic desire to educate, and this is especially true of scientific writers in this medium.

Dr. Murray warns, ‘caveat emptor’; let the buyer beware, as communication through informal channels increases the risk of malicious misinformation. I propose an alternate viewpoint. Certiorari emptor; let the consumer of these media be informed. This is the ultimate goal of those who seek to educate regardless of medium.

References:

Murray, R. 2010. Science Blogs and Caveat Emptor. Analytical Chemistry 82: 8755.

In the narrow space between your ears, a roughly three-pound lump of tissue (composed mostly of water) contains everything that makes you who you are. Your brain is responsible for all of your memories, emotions, actions and aspirations. The human brain is also the source of all of our joy and misery, and understanding its workings offers hope for the amelioration of psychiatric suffering and, possibly, greater potential for happiness and enjoyment of life. However, one difficulty in dealing with the complexity of psychiatric disorders is that frequently multiple theories arise to help explain the origin or cause of any particular condition.

Depression is one example of this; there are many hypotheses attempting to explain this debilitating condition that affects more than 120 million people worldwide. One of the most widely-known theories is the ‘monoaminergic theory’ of depression, which focuses on neurotransmitters (chemicals used by neurons for communication) like serotonin. However, in this entry I will try to give a brief review of a more recent theory, the ‘neurogenic theory’ of depression.

Up until relatively recently, it was believed that the brain stopped producing new neurons after development; as the famous neuroscientist Santiago Ramon y Cajal said around a century ago, “In the adult centers, the nerve paths are something fixed, and immutable: everything may die, nothing may be regenerated”. However, in 1998, the creation of new neurons in the mature brain, a process known as ‘adult neurogenesis’, was confirmed in humans. This experiment, led by Fred Gage at the Salk Institute, looked at the postmortem brains of cancer patients who had been injected with a compound used to ‘label’ the DNA of cells about to divide. This compound (bromodeoxyuridine, commonly called BrdU) was used in these patients to evaluate (peripheral) tumor proliferation. But as BrdU crosses the blood-brain barrier, Gage and colleagues cleverly used this labelling to show that new cells had also proliferated in the brain, and that a number of these cells had differentiated into mature neurons. BrdU is now commonly used (including here at the Douglas) to study adult brain neurogenesis in animal models.

But there are some mysterious aspects to this phenomenon. For one thing, there initially seems to be only two clearly neurogenic areas in the brain; the olfactory bulb, and the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus. There’s some early evidence to suggest other parts of the brain may be neurogenic as well, but even in these areas, the number of new cells produced seems to be limited at best. So this raises some questions; why just these few areas in particular, and not others? And what is the function of these new cells?

Although adult neurogenesis is still a relatively new discovery, it’s become something of a hot topic in neuroscience, so we have some preliminary answers to the questions I just posed. For one thing, these new neurons seem to have special properties, in that immature neurons seem more ‘plastic’ or flexible in their firing responses than other cells. We also have some hints at their function, particularly with hippocampal neurogenesis; it’s been shown to be involved in learning and memory and, most importantly for this entry, has been associated with emotional functioning.

This brings us back to the neurogenic theory of depression, an idea that essentially states that if the rate of production of these new ‘special’ neurons decreases, depressive symptoms may appear or be increased in severity, whereas increases in the rate of adult hippocampal neurogenesis can reduce the severity or appearance of depressive symptoms. Although this idea is only a few years old, there’s some evidence supporting it. For one thing, factors that seem to make depression worse, such as stress, also decrease hippocampal neurogenesis, and factors that have been shown to improve depressive symptoms, such as antidepressant drugs and electroconvulsive treatment, also increase hippocampal neurogenesis. Human depressed patients also show decreased volume of the hippocampus. In addition, the delay between starting antidepressant medication and the amelioration of depressive symptoms, roughly four to six weeks, closely mirrors the time necessary for newly-proliferated cells spurred by these medicines to develop into functional neurons. And finally, experiments using animal models have shown that factors that increase neurogenesis also induce antidepressant behaviour.

So the neurogenic theory of depression, although it’s still a relatively new idea, has the potential to offer some exciting insight into depression and other psychiatric conditions, including treatment applications; if increasing the rate of neurogenesis can improve depression and depressive symptoms, then we can potentially develop new medications and treatments aimed specifically at increasing adult neurogenesis.

It’s important to keep in mind that a lot of the theories scientists have developed concerning psychiatric illness are still preliminary, and a lot of important research is still needed before we can provide the definitive answers patients and their families are desperate to hear. However, the silver lining is that with the work of researchers and clinicians here at the Douglas and elsewhere, we’re constantly getting closer to finding those answers, and offering hope to those searching for it.

[An abridged version can be seen here.]

As I’ve said before in these articles, communicating scientific findings to a general audience (including peers in other fields and, in particular, the general public), is crucial. In fact, it’s arguably the most important job of scientists today. To briefly summarize my previous arguments, effective communication of science can protect the public from being misled, overthrow previous misinformed beliefs, influence public policy, lead to further progress and clinical or otherwise practical applications, and cultivate a sense of wonder.  Paradoxically, however, proper communication in science is often relegated to a much lower priority than it deserves.

For example, one of the guest lecturers at this particular conference gave a talk about communicating effectively as a scientist. She did an excellent job of pointing out ways that graduate students in science, as well as established scientists, could improve how they convey their findings to their audience, including avoiding jargon and overly technical language, writing clearly and concisely, taking the level of understanding of their audience into consideration, and writing in an active voice to create clear and informal prose. However, at this point a girl at my table raised her hand to make a comment. Isn’t it true, she asked, that it’s better to appear ‘formal’ and intelligent in the eyes of the audience than to ensure that the audience understands clearly? I was surprised that she’d asked this, but I was more surprised that other students in the audience were either in agreement with her or silent. In fact, the point this student made was the exact opposite of the truth. The first priority is conveying an understanding of the points involved. Overly florid writing may seem more formal, but it’s also more pretentious, less clear, and much less accessible to the audience.

This girl wasn’t an exception at this meeting; she was definitely bright, and her research was impressive. But somehow she’d gotten the exact wrong idea about scientific communication. Where do these misguided beliefs originate?

There are a few possible reasons proper communication is not taken as seriously as it should be in some levels of science. First, I don’t think scientists and scientists-in-training receive enough training in effective writing and presenting. The average graduate student has had an extensive scientific curriculum from the end of high school through their undergraduate and graduate education, which is essential, but often leaves less room for education in effective communication. In addition, the importance of writing and rhetoric is probably not stressed sufficiently to students training to be scientists. Given the collaborative and international nature of research, language barriers may also contribute to communication problems. Finally, some scientists (hopefully a minority) may believe that having a broad audience understand their work is not important enough to justify the time and effort required for proper communication.

Fortunately, what all the above scenarios have in common is that they’re more or less easily addressed. Emphasize the importance of clear, concise and effective communication to aspiring scientists and give them the training and resources necessary to improve these essential skills, and the next generation of scientists will inevitably both possess and value better communication skills. This benefits everyone, both those with a desire to communicate their findings, and their audience, with a desire to understand them.

- We only use 10% of our brains
This one is a classic. There have been a number of proposed origins for this myth, including the idea that only 1/10^th of your neurons are in a firing state at any point. I always assumed that the reason behind the myth was due to a misunderstanding about what percentage of the brain is involved in actual cognition, in that people confused the parts of the brain responsible for ‘cognition’ (ostensibly the prefrontal cortex in the context of the myth, but that’s debatable) with the proportion of the brain that is ‘used’. However, it looks like I may have been mistaken here. In any case, there is an incredible body of findings refuting this, not least of which is the entire field of functional neuroimaging.

- ‘Left’ and ‘right’ brain functions
Another extremely common myth. Although certain brain functions are usually lateralized (for example, language), for the most part the brain’s functions are represented in both hemispheres; and the idea that there are ‘left’ and ‘right’ brain people, who are more analytical or creative, respectively, is just not supported by neuroanatomy.

- No new neurons
I’m going to be talking more about this topic in a future entry, but for now let me just say that the doctrine that the brain stops producing new neurons in adulthood, as espoused by the great neuroscientist Santiago Ramon Y Cajal roughly a century ago, is false. We now know that adult brain neurogenesis does exist, from rodents to non-human primates to humans, especially in the hippocampus and olfactory bulb, and that these cells seem to be involved in a myriad of brain functions from learning and memory to emotional modulation.

-  Mental illness is caused by…
In the past, our species has come up with an impressive array of explanations for the etiology of mental illness; in previous millennia and centuries (and in some parts of the world today) it was believed that demonic possession was the cause, whereas more recent theories have been much more varied. I’m particularly fond of this chart, which I’ve taken from Dr. Joe Rochford’s blog; in 1893, these were actual causes listed for the psychiatric conditions of Douglas patients, including disappointed affection, masturbation (cruelly, I fear the former could have led to the latter), tobacco abuse, menstrual irregularity, monotonous employment, ovarian irritation, religious excitement, sunstroke, and vicious indulgences. Thankfully, we have a bit more insight in our current age, and our theories on the etiology of psychiatric illness mostly center upon the idea that mental illness is caused by a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental stimuli, which affect brain functioning and cause cognitive, behavioural and emotional aberrations.

- Phrenology
Phrenology, or the belief that certain bumps on the skull correspond to particular personality traits, originated in the late 18^th century, was a big hit in the 19^th, and in some cases is still around today. However, its methodology was often unscientific, and among neuroscientists today phrenology is dismissed as a pseudoscience. In its defence, though, I should point out that phrenology, though incorrect and outdated, did help advance neuroscience in two main areas: first, that it represented one of the earliest theories placing all mental activity within the brain; and second, that it led to the modern idea that different areas of the brain have particular functions.

- Anything at all to do with supernatural brain ‘powers’
I hesitate to even mention this point, as I’m sure it’s obvious to any rational reader, and because anyone who seriously believes they have magic brain powers won’t likely be convinced by this article. Nevertheless, I’m obligated to point out that telepathy, mind reading, astral projection, bearing witness to future events, et cetera are all mythical. It is true (and fortunate, for us) that the brain does perform some incredible feats to shape our experiences, but for better or for worse absolutely none of them are beyond the laws of physics.

- Retrograde amnesia is readily caused, and cured, by getting bonked on the head
The former may actually be true, but of course the latter isn’t. I only bother to point this out because, due to too many hours of cartoons, I think I probably believed this one as a kid.

- Listening to Mozart will make your kid smarter
It’s possible you remember a certain parenting craze of the last decade, wherein parents anxious about producing the smartest possible children would plunk their babies and infants in front of the TV to watch “Baby Einstein” and similar movies, in which classical music was played accompanied by baby-friendly visuals. The series became massive (in 2003, one in three babies in America had a Baby Einstein video), even earning praise from President George W. Bush during the 2007 State of the Union address. So what’s the problem? The videos don’t work, and may even be harmful; for example, a 2007 study on the effects of baby videos not only failed to find any benefit, but actually demonstrated a decrease in language abilities among infants who watched the videos, and in fact this detriment was worsened for every hour per day of baby video viewing. One of the authors of the study stated publicly regarding these videos that, “The evidence is mounting that they are of no value and may in fact be harmful. Given what we now know, I believe the onus is on the manufacturers to prove their claims that watching these programs can positively impact children’s cognitive development”. Although Disney (who by this point had purchased the rights to the Baby Einstein series) initially protested, by the end of 2009 the company changed their policy, and now offer refunds for Baby Einstein products.

That should do it for this Brain Awareness Week; regardless of whether you’re a member of the neuroscience community, I hope you get a chance to take part in the week’s events. Thanks again for reading, and feel free to leave any comments you might have.

Why blog?

When I first mentioned writing for the Douglas Blogs, a few friends of mine asked me why. I’ve always believed the popularization of science for the benefit of the general public is one of the highest obligations of anyone who works in a scientific field. Although making complex concepts digestible by the public isn’t always easy, it’s absolutely essential to fully realizing the benefits of these discoveries. Here are seven reasons I believe that educating the public about scientific research is important, with a particular focus on the fields of neuroscience and psychiatry (as in the scope of this blog); as a bonus, I’ve thrown in a quote for each point from a famous popularizer of science who would have turned 75 last month, as he puts it much better than I do:

• Protecting the public. Without widespread understanding of the nature of brain function and psychiatric illness, members of the public may fall prey to unfortunate ‘treatments’ not supported by facts. In early human cultures, ‘trepanations’, or crude holes in the skull formed using rocks or other tools, were performed on the mentally ill to allow ‘demons’ to escape from the afflicted person’s head. In the last century, lobotomies were routinely performed without a full understanding of their consequences or mechanism of action. Charlatans constantly exploit the public’s lack of information by selling impossible products with false promises. And disturbingly recently, our own government has supported the forced sterilization of the mentally ill. These and similar ill-advised practices can only be avoided through education. “Skeptical scrutiny is the means… by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.”
• Eliminating stigma; in this context, I’m referring in particular to protection of the mentally ill from stigma. Conventional beliefs among the general public in the past (and, unfortunately, still today in some cases) held that mental illness was a result of inherent weakness on the part of the patient. Today, we know that mental illness is a complex product of how one’s genes and environment interact in brain development and function; we also know that the causes of these illnesses are biological, as opposed to due to personal weakness, and that they are very often treatable. This information, however, would not be (and is not) available to the public without education. “I try not to think with my gut. If I’m serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble.”
• Influencing public policy. Legislation is written, amended and voted on by legislators representing members of the public. If the public is informed, so are the choices of their representatives. “…that kind of skeptical questioning, don’t-accept-what-authority-tells-you attitude of science is also nearly identical to the attitude of mind necessary for a functioning democracy. Science and democracy have very consonant values and approaches, and I don’t think you can have one without the other.”
• Increasing investment ($) in science. Money for scientific research comes primarily from government sources, and for better or worse, the amount of research that can be done is contingent on the amount of money the government doles out. A well-informed population is better equipped to tell their representatives to support legislation increasing science funding. Similarly, it`s your money; you should know where it`s going. If you’ve ever paid taxes, you’ve contributed to government-funded research and public mental health services; as a result, barring security or privacy issues it’s your right to know what your money funds. “The best way to avoid abuses is for the populace in general to be scientifically literate, to understand the implications of such investigations. In exchange for freedom of inquiry, scientists are obliged to explain their work. If science is considered a closed priesthood, too difficult and arcane for the average person to understand, the dangers of abuse are greater. But if science is a topic of general interest and concern – if both its delights and its social consequences are discussed regularly and competently in the schools, the press, and at the dinner table – we have greatly improved our prospects for learning how the world really is and for improving both it and us.”
• To counter pseudo-science experts. Not all pundits spreading misinformation are malicious; some are just sorely misinformed. To see an example, just look at the debacle over whether vaccination causes autism. Although the science conclusively refutes this myth, without letting the public know about this research thousands of children a year might unnecessarily go without vaccination, with catastrophic results. “I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true.”
• It’s currently lacking. According to a 2009 survey (Pew Research Center), less than half of Americans know that electrons are smaller than atoms, or that lasers don’t work by focusing sound waves; just over half know that stem cells divide into new types of cells, or that antibiotics don’t kill viruses. Similarly, only 32% of the American public (as opposed to 87% of American scientists) believe that humans and other organisms evolved naturally. These results speak for themselves; the public’s education has been lacking, for all the reasons listed above it has frightening consequences. “I can find in my undergraduate classes, bright students who do not know that the stars rise and set at night, or even that the Sun is a star.”
• Fostering a sense of wonder, in the current and future generations. Although great research might be enduring, scientists themselves unfortunately are not; to keep science progressing, we need to constantly replete our ranks with a new generation of aspiring students with a passion for research. And regardless of how boring your 8^th grade biology teacher might have been, science presented properly and passionately is pretty cool.

My point is that getting the word out about scientific discoveries and topics, especially (I feel) in psychiatry and neuroscience, is not just important; it’s obligatory. So my goal with this blog is to try to do exactly that.

Thanks for reading, and happy holidays.

“Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works… We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers.” – Carl Sagan

• Protecting the public. Without widespread understanding of the nature of brain function and psychiatric illness, members of the public may fall prey to unfortunate ‘treatments’ not supported by facts. In early human cultures, ‘trepanations’ (crude holes in the skull formed using rocks or other tools) were performed on the mentally ill to allow ‘demons’ to escape from the afflicted person’s head. In the last century, lobotomies were routinely performed without a full understanding of their consequences or mechanism of action. Charlatans constantly exploit the public’s lack of information by selling impossible products with false promises. And disturbingly recently, our own government supported the forced sterilization of the mentally ill. These and similar ill-advised practices can only be avoided through education.
• Eliminating stigma; in this context, I’m referring in particular to prevention of stigma against the mentally ill. Conventional beliefs among the general public in the past (and, unfortunately, still today in some cases) held that mental illness was a result of inherent weakness on the part of the patient. Today, we know that mental illness is a complex product of how one’s genes and environment interact in brain development and function; we also know that the causes of these illnesses are biological, as opposed to due to personal weakness, and that they are very often treatable. This information, however, would not be (and is not) available to the public without education.
• Influencing public policy. Legislation is written, amended and voted on by legislators representing members of the public. If the public is informed, so are the choices of their representatives.
• Increasing investment ($) in science. Money for scientific research comes primarily from government sources, and for better or worse, the amount of research that can be done is contingent on the amount of money the government doles out. A well-informed population is better equipped to tell their representatives to support legislation increasing science funding. Similarly, it’s your money; you should know where it’s going. If you’ve ever paid taxes, you’ve contributed to government-funded research and public mental health services; as a result, barring security or privacy issues it’s your right to know what your money funds.
• To counter pseudoscience experts. Not all pundits spreading misinformation are malicious; some are just sorely misinformed. To see an example, just look at the debacle over whether vaccination causes autism. Although the science conclusively refutes this myth, without letting the public know about this research thousands of children a year might unnecessarily go without vaccination, with catastrophic results.
• It’s currently lacking. According to a 2009 survey (Pew Research Center), less than half of Americans know that electrons are smaller than atoms, or that lasers don’t work by focusing sound waves; just over half know that stem cells divide into new types of cells, or that antibiotics don’t kill viruses. Similarly, only 32% of the American public (as opposed to 87% of American scientists) believe that humans and other organisms evolved naturally. These results speak for themselves; the public’s education has been lacking, and for all the reasons listed above this has frightening consequences.
• Fostering a sense of wonder, in the current and future generations. Although great research might be enduring, scientists themselves unfortunately are not; to keep science progressing, it’s necessary to constantly replenish the ranks with a new generation of aspiring students with a passion for research. And regardless of how boring your 8^th grade biology teacher might have been, science presented properly and passionately is pretty cool.

My point is that getting the word out about scientific discoveries and topics, especially (I feel) in psychiatry and neuroscience, is not just important; it’s obligatory. So my goal with this blog is to try to do exactly that.

Thanks for reading, and happy holidays.