Neuroscience 2010 Abstract Submission Opens

In case you haven't received one of many emails from the Society for Neuroscience, here's a reminder that abstract submission opened today. Submission will remain open thru May 5th. Submission of your abstract can be done online at the Neuroscience 2010 website. See the call for abstracts for submission information and guidelines.

Neuroscience 2010 will be held in San Diego from November 13-17, with more than 30,000 attendees expected. Special lectures will include talks by Martin Chalfie, Helen Mayberg, Okihide Hikosaka, Pawan Sinha, Hank Greely (on Neuroethics) and Glenn Close (regarding dialogues between neuroscience and society).

Cortical Stoke Alters Physiology of Reticular Thalamic Nucleus

An article published today in the Journal of Neuroscience describes the effect of focal cortical lesions on the reticular thalamic nucleus. The research, conducted by Stanford's Jeanne Paz (with help from Catherine Christian and Isabel Parada from the Huguenard and Prince labs) shows that focal cortical injuries significantly alter the intrinsic properties and synaptic excitability of inhibitory neurons in the reticular thalamus. Focal cortical injury (as will occur following a cortical stroke) causes significant damage or death to the thalamocortical relay neurons that project to the affected cortical area. Neurons of the inhibitory reticular thalamic nucleus general survive, although many of their corticothalamic and thalamocortical inputs are destroyed. The physiological properties of the survivng reticular neurons would determine recovery of the thalamocortical circuit after injury, however, these properties were not known.

The research by Jeanne and company looked at the physiology of inhibitory reticular thalamic neurons in a focal cortical stroke model. Their main findings are that:

1. Changes to reticular thalamic neuron physiology occur by the end of the first week after injury.
2. Reticular neurons have:
   • decreased membrane input resistance
   • reduced low-threshold calcium burst responses
   • weaker evoked excitatory synaptic responses.

Jeanne and company conclude that such alterations in excitability of the inhibitory neuronal population could lead to loss of inhibition of surviving relay nuclei, which would in turn increase the output of those surviving thalamocortical relay neurons, enhancing thalamocortical excitation and potentially facilitate recovery of thalamic and cortical sensory circuits. Of course, these enhancements in excitability could (and often do) go too far, inducing a hyper-excitable thalamocortical circuit. These results are therefore notable, in that they provide clues as to the pathophysiology of post-stroke epilepsy.

Focal Cortical Infarcts Alter Intrinsic Excitability and Synaptic Excitation in the Reticular Thalamic Nucleus. Jeanne T Paz, Catherine A Christian, Isabel Parada, David Prince and John Huguenard. J. Neuroscience. April 14, 2010, 30(15): 5465-5479.

Emotion's Alchemy

Ed. Note: The article below was written by Aslihan Selimbeyoglu. Aslihan recently accepted an offer from Stanford to join the Neuroscience Ph.D program. She is a Fulbright Scholar currently working in the lab of Dr. Josef Parvizi. Emotion’s Alchemy

Above is the first article in a long while which urged me to disconnect the unbreakable link between my fovea and my MacBook to get up. Not that I was extremely excited about what I’ve just read that I couldn’t sit still, but I had to find a mirror and a voice-recorder (and a metronome if possible) after reading the elaborate definition of laughter in the first paragraph. The article, published in Seed Magazine, seeks to unravel the biological mechanisms that ignite emotional feelings and their link to bodily expressions.

Genevieve Wanucha (a 25 yr-old science writer from MIT) takes the reader to a journey from neurological disorders to method acting, from autonomic responses to mirror neurons. She mentions Gall, Lange and Shakespeare along with Damasio, Gallese and Parvizi! You’ll find the new theory of Parvizi and colleagues explaining the neurological mechanisms of pathological laughter and crying (opposing the “corticocentric myopia”, as he defines it), and a well-written summary of the leading theory of Antonio Damasio’s, “somatic marker hypothesis”.

Although the article is an interesting and informative one by itself, it’s the take-home message that makes it definitely worth to read: “acted expressions can cause emotions and emotions are contagious”. That is to say, you can practice your laughter, perform it without a reason, and make people laugh, which in turn would cause them feel as if there’s a reason to laugh. I wonder if Americans know this inherently and smile each other passing by accordingly. I wonder more whether “e-motions” are also contagious, whether you’ll be able to feel that I wrote this article smiling and smile back.

Note: Visit Wanucha’s blog if you like to read more of her articles.

Karl Deisseroth receives first HFSP Nakasone Award

The Human Frontier Science Program Organization (HFSPO) has announced that they have conferred the first HFSP Nakasone Award upon Stanford's own Karl Deisseroth for his work developing optogenetic techniques. Winners of the prize receive an unrestricted research grant of $10,000, a medal and a personalised certificate. According to the HFSPO's press release, "the HFSP Nakasone Award has been established to honour scientists who have made key breakthroughs in fields at the forefront of the life sciences. It recognizes the vision of former Prime Minister Nakasone of Japan in the creation of the Human Frontier Science Program."

The HFSPO is an organization founded in 1989 to support international research and training at the frontier of the life sciences and on creating opportunities for young scientists. Its funding pool is supplied by contributions from multiple nations, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the European Commission.

See the official press release for a brief history about Karl's pioneering work.

Krishna Shenoy discusses mind-reading

The Stanford School of Engineering has a monthly Ask the Expert series wherein a question is posed to a member of the engineering faculty. This month, the expert faculty is Professor Krishna Shenoy, and he is asked "Can we read thoughts, and are there ones we shouldn't". As Krishna responds, to a limited extent, the answer to that question is yes, enough that neuroethicists and neurobiologists are actively contemplating the future of those abilities. He goes on to describe the basics of his research, as well as research being done by Stanford Professor Bill Newsome. Krishna concludes by discussing the implications of recent advances in neuroimaging and interfaces between brains and machines.

Krishna's thoughtful response is easily readable both by neuroscientists familiar with the topic and by general members of the public. As such, it is well worth reading, and can be viewed over at the Stanford School of Engineering website.

Stanford School of Engineering: Ask the Expert

Science and the Arts: Neuro-Literary Criticism

The other day, I came across an article in the New York Times describing what some believe to be the “Next Big Thing” in literary criticism: Neuro-Literary criticism, neuro-lit crit for short. According to the article, entitled "Next Big Thing in English: Knowing They Know that You Know", liberal arts academics, particularly scholars of English Literature have begun to use neuroimaging to explore an array of questions in their field. Literature therefore joins fields such as history, political science, economics, and advertising in using functional magnetic resonance imaging to provide scientific legitimacy to a wide variety of theories and practices. The article is well worth a read, as it provides interviews with several literature researchers who are currently using fMRI to study literary questions such as the mechanics of reading, the ability of humans to interpret and track mental states, and the role of fiction in satisfying an evolutionarily determined desire to know the motivations and thoughts of others (this last being a theory developed by Stanford English Professor Blakey Vermeule. Of additional interest is a series of blog posts and associated reader commentary that discuss the practice and implications of neuro-lit crit.

One warning: no neuroscientists were directly consulted in either the main article or the associated blog posts. Indeed, this lack was of particular interest to me: it would seem obvious that if a neuroscience technique is being used, neuroscientists should be interviewed. However, the various researchers quoted in the article are all professors of English or Literature, with specific collaborations with neuroscience imaging labs left unmentioned (although one mention is made of a partnership between literary scholars and cognitive psychologists). I am left contemplating how much guidance from experienced neuroscientists the literature researchers are receiving, and indeed, how much guidance we should expect them to request.

Neuroscience is a field that in many ways is still in its infancy, with many associated techniques that have enormous potential to both power novel research and capture public imagination. No wonder academics from diverse fields are eager to examine their particular questions through the lens of fMRI. But I find myself wondering if neuro-imaging is a sufficiently nuanced technique that interpretation of its results must be done by someone with an advanced degree in neuroscience. Does using neuroscience techniques make the research neuroscience research, or does it remain literature research? And if using the techniques allows entrance into the scientific community (and access to scientific funding) for these literary researchers, should they be required to receive formal training in the techniques and field they have co-opted? Irrespective of the question of education, is it dangerous, or beneficial for neuroscientists and our public image that so many diverse groups have embraced our techniques and theories. In many ways this enthusiasm for applying neuroscience to human interactions reminds me of Social Darwinism. Will the beauty and deceptive simplicity of fMRI usher in an age of Social Neuro-imaging?

Stanford's Postdoc population at record high

Just published in the Stanford report is news that the number of post-doctoral researchers currently employed at Stanford is at a record high. As of the start of 2010, 1,754 postdocs are conducting research in various Stanford labs and offices, with two-thirds (1,179) working at the Medical School. Post-doctoral researchers compose a significant proportion of the Stanford community, numbering more individuals than any single undergraduate class.

For more numbers and descriptions of this massive workforce, head on over to the online article.

Celebrate Anniversary of First Spaceflight at NASA Ames

On April 9th and 10th, the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View will be joining over 120 other cities to celebrate Yuri's Night. The event commemorates two achievements, the first of Russian Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, who on April 12, 1961 became the first man to fly into space. The second achievement celebrates is the launch of the first Space Shuttle by NASA on April 12, 1981, exactly twenty years later. In honor of these grand milestones of human exploration, NASA Ames Research Center is hosting a two day party. April 9th is Multiverse Education Day, a free event for elementary, high school and college students lasting from 9am-3pm. Leading NASA scientists and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs will be giving talks; there will also be several exhibits, activities, workshops, and art.

Speakers include:

• Pam Marcum (NASA), who will be discussing how astronomers use infrared light to explore the universe
• Steve Wozniak on his life in general
• Brian Day (NASA )on robotic missions, specifically the L-CROSS mission to the moon
• Android Jones on using technology to create art
• Jon Jenkins (NASA-SETI) on the Kepler Mission which is tasked with detecting Earth-like planets.

Exhibits include:

• A portable planetarium from the CA Academy of Sciences
• The RV-9A N42PE, aka how to build a home-made aircraft
• Butterflies from the Space Station
• An exhibit called Humpback Whales and Life in the Universe, which will "explore the unique collaboration between the Alaska Whale Foundation and investigators at the SETI Institute"
• Grassroots Innovation by the people who bring you Maker Faire
• Lego engineers: RC Airplanes and Helicopters
• Many fun things from NASA, including tires/tiles from shuttlecraft, a 3D Mars Panorama that uses 3D glasses, and a human gyroscope

After all that fun is April 10th: the Festival Day, a concert festival lasting from noon to midnight. There will be lots of music, as well as more speakers and exhibits. Interesting speakers include:

• Bruce Damer on Avatars, Life, The Universe and Everything, a talk on how the technology of James Cameron's film Avatar might be made manifest.
• Ryan Wyatt of the CA Academy of Sciences, giving a tour of the Universe
• Richard Garriott talking about "What happens when a video game designer gets to train as a cosmonaut and spend 10 days on the International Space Station

The festivities of April 9th are free and open to the public. April 10th's events require the purchase of a ticket, which can be done online for around $50.

For more information, and for full schedule information, including an extensive list of speakers and events, visit the website.

AAUW Report: Bias Persistant Hurtle for Women in Science

Some news from last week: the American Association of University Women has released a report discussing the persistant underrepresentation of women in science and engineering fields. Despite the increasing prominence of women in fields such as medicine, law and business, women remain remarkably underrepresented in science, technology, math and engineering. This issue, and how it could be resolved, has enjoyed much discussion, and now the American Association of University Women (supported by the National Science Foundation) weighs in with their report that highlights the role of environmental and social barrier in discouraging women from entering "hard science" fields. The report also includes up-to-date statistics on the participation of women in scientific fields, and concludes with some recommendations for how to entice women into science.

One main finding is that women are particularly sensitive to external suggestions regarding their ability to do well in science fields. The report cites research showing that womens' performance suffers following a suggestion that they are not good at math. On the other hand, the report finds that teaching women that such stereotypes will affect performance, will by itself reduce those effects.

A good summary of the report can be found at the NYTimes. Also of note are several letters sent to the newspaper which comment of the article; authors include the President of Mount Holyoke College, who comments on the success of women's colleges in supporting the entrance of women into science. As she points out, women's colleges generally have twice as many women majoring in math and science than at comparable coeducational institutions. As a graduate of another women's college (Bryn Mawr College), and as the sister of a Mount Holyoke student who recently chose to major in Computer Science and Math I can personally attest to the powerful role institutional culture can play in encouraging women to enter and succeed in scientific fields. And while attending a women's college is not the solution to the society-wide issue, the success of these institutions could inform how coeducational institutions can encourage women to study science.

For those of you interested in the report, it is available for download from the AAUW website.

The Aging Brain on Charlie Rose

Avaliable on Hulu: a special edition of Charlie Rose on the basis of memory and the effect of aging on brain function. Special guests include Dr. Brenda Milner, Dr. Larry Squire, Dr. John Hardy, Dr. Scott Small, and Dr. Eric Kandel.

All together, an amazing group of neuroscientists discussing a fascinating topic for the benefit of the general public. Neuroscientists may find the subjects familiar, but the experience of listening to luminaries in the field discussing their research is well worth the review. The language and subjects are certainly accessible for non-scientists (or non-neuroscientists), so tell your friends/family.

Charlie Rose: Brain Series at Hulu.com

UPDATE: The rest of the Charlie Rose Brain Series is also available online, at the main website for the Charlie Rose series. Subjects of past episodes include:

• The Great Mysteries of the Human Brain (with Gerald Fischbach, Anthony Movshon, John Searle, Cornelia Bargmann and Eric Kandel)
• The Perceiving Brain (with Tony Movshon, Nancy Kanwisher, Ted Adelson, Pawan Sinha, and Eric Kandel)
• The Acting Brain (with Daniel Wolpert, Thomas Jessell, John Krakauer, Robert Brown, and Eric Kandel)
• The Social Brain (with Cornelia Bargmann, Giacomo Rizzolatti, Gerald Fischbach, Kevin Pelphrey and Eric Kandel)
• The Developing Brain (with Patricia Kuhl, Huda Zoghbi, Stephen Warren, Elizabeth Spelke and Eric Kandel)

Future shows will air over the next year, and will cover a wide variety of subjects:

• April 20: The Emotional and Vulnerable Brain;
• May 25: The Anxious Brain;
• June 22: The Mentally Ill Brain
• July 20: The Disordered Brain
• September 28: The Deciding Brain
• October: The Artistic Brain
• November: The New Science of the Mind