Fact check gem of the day: On Karl Popper's contribution to neurotransmission
In the early 1950s, neuroscientists were arguing about whether neurons communicate with one another via electricity (sparks) or chemical neurotransmissions (soups). It was known as "The War of the Soups and the Sparks" (Big reveal: It's mostly soups).
The experiment that put the debate to rest (at least for the spinal cord) was performed in 1950 by John Eccles and colleagues. In that experiment, they demonstrated that their own hypothesis (sparks) was wrong.
What inspired them to do a "disproving" experiment as opposed to the type that would gather support for their favorite theory? In 1944, Eccles met Karl Popper, and they began corresponding. Per one historian,
"The association with Popper made Eccles reformulate his experimental questions in accord with Popper’s philosophy that apparent ‘‘authentication” is no proof at all. It is only the clear-cut ‘‘falsification” of a theory that carried intellectual weight." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18617413/
Some say it was tapered:
"It was 1 1/4 inches in diameter at one end (not circumference as in the newspaper report) and tapered over a distance of about 1-foot to a diameter of 1/4 inch at the other." https://www.uakron.edu/gage/story.dot
Have you read the original clinical reports on him? His symptoms were not quite as severe as is often described. Yes he started cussing on a few occasions and decided to venture around as a seaman (or something similar, I forget), but honestly that could also be a healthy response to “Holy shit I just had a rod go through my head and maybe it’s time to rethink my life choices given how short it can be!”
I wrote a book and now I have to wrap it up. In that effort, I have many! facts to check. I think I can plow through the bulk of it at ~60 facts per/day for ~30 days (spread across ~10 sources). My new hobby, I guess?
This type of tedious, detailed work is not my favorite thing. I have the source material, but I need to go back and scrutinize what I wrote in detail to make sure it's correct.
On one hand, it may have been easier if past Nicole did a better job at documenting details along the way. On the other hand, it was really unclear what would make it through the final filter and documenting every little thing would have been even more tedious (and would have disrupted the process of connecting it all together).
Any tips for how to make this new hobby of mine easier or more pleasant?
(Academic press) book pre-publication reviews are back. Really positive. YES!!!!!!!!!!!! 🎉🎉🎉.
So now I'm moving onto final revisions. It feels good to slip back into that headspace again.
My big question for anyone who has sent a book off to the world: What was your strategy for those last steps? There's addressing the feedback, of course. But after that? It will never been perfect. But it has to be great. How do you know when to let it go?
During my own book revision process, an issue came to light.
Early in my teaching career, I found it paid off to treat all Ss as gifted regardless of the class make-up. I’d gather and tickle and motivate all Ss by enriching content, pursuing teachable moments, noting factoids and connections during instruction, etc.
Those are not always good practices when writing a book!
Do you have communication foibles/strengths that deserve attention as you shape and polish your manuscript?
There are so many different types of researchers. Weather researchers, climate researchers, brain researchers. And within those categories, the nuances (like memory researchers).
When someone says they are an X researcher, what does that imply to you? In other words, what qualifies? Does it just imply that they are curious about X? Or perhaps that they know a bit more about it - perhaps they've mastered some scholarly literature or they've done at least one experiment? Or maybe even published a paper in a peer reviewed journal? Or maybe even more - perhaps they have a body of work on the topic; maybe they even run a lab (and have grants to support X research).
On one hand, no one should gate keep curiosity! On the other, certain terms imply knowledge and qualifications. I'm a "researcher". But just because I know a lot about memory doesn't automatically mean that people should listen to me about climate or economics. And I once read a very good book about ecosystems, but I don't think that means I should quality as an ecosystem researcher. So what, then, might instead?
@vicgrinberg I'm just saying that if you only count people who have already had a major impact in their field as researchers, you're excluding a lot of early-career researchers. Publications are hard to evaluate if they're not in your field. We all know that rubbish sometimes gets published in peer reviewed journals. In practice, we tend to look at the reputation of the institution or department that the person is working in.
On making the anticipation bifurcation collapse ...
At the final stages of pulling together a big proposal where I'm really sticking my neck out, I feel like I'm torn between two states: I can be nervous about woulda-shoulda-coulda, or I can be really happy with the delta from start to finish.
After musing for a good while on the first (Did I do everything I possibly could, given what I know?), I'm going to opt for the latter.
While it feels a bit dangerous to be hopeful and excited, I'll say it: I'M EXCITED!!!
And instead of being superstitious, I'm opting to invite the universe to join in. Hey universe: working together could be fun. Want to collaborate?!
Many know about amyloid, the gene APP and its relationship to Alzheimer's. But how many know the backstory? It all began with a letter from Carol Jennings to John Hardy .... Wonderful tribute and retelling here in @thetransmitter.
Carol's family is among those with a type of rare genetic mutation that, if inherited, determines that an individual will develop Alzheimer's with near certainty. This is only true for ~1% of all individuals with Alzheimer's (more here: https://dian.wustl.edu/). For this group, there is very little question about the science. But tragically, we still don't have a cure for them.
But what I expect you are hinting at is also true: for the 99% of other individuals with Alzheimer's, what triggers it, and the role that amyloid plays in that, is a lot less clear. In some of those individuals, genetics leads to higher risk. For others, no genetic links have been found.
I’m looking to compile a big pile of IRL books for summer beach reading.
Big fan of scifi, specfic, murder mysteries. Strong female characters = bonus points. Can’t deal with darkness. Nothing high brow or tedious. Nonfiction lover but that list is already bursting at the seams.
I also love long series - 3 body problem, wheel of time, foundation … those waves all have good memories attached.
If that brings anything to mind, please send the rec!!
Big news! A townhall will follow the #ccn2024 talk unpacked in the post below. A chance for you to chime in.
The topic of the townhall: The GrandPlan for brain & mind research. What are the challenges? And opportunities? Particularly with regard to the research arc that culminates in new treatments for brain & mental dysfunction. What do we need to know and how will we figure it out?
I’m convinced that we’ve inadvertently created a scientific culture that disproportionately dissuades high-level, big-picture thinking. How do we rectify that?
A few venues I know. Please add to this list!
We write at a high-level. Venues: perspective pieces of journals, thetransmitter.org, aeon.org, etc
@NicoleCRust In Astro, in the US there is the Decadal Survey - in Canada it’s the Long Range Plan. These are largely targeted at prioritizing telescopes for funding, however. But as a byproduct, the science is prioritized because you have to do that before figuring out which telescopes will get you there. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_and_Astrophysics_Decadal_Survey
Carol Jennings was an amazing woman who letters wrote letters to Alzheimer's researchers about her family. That led to the discovery of the APP gene and, in turn, the amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer's. (Her family carries a rare form in which mutations to the APP gene cause Alzheimer's with certainty). She devoted the rest of her life to Alzheimer's advocacy. Tragically, she acquired the disorder later in life herself.
Ironically, I got to know Prof @kevinbolding here before IRL, despite the fact that his lab is on the same campus (and we might have the same boss? Dunno. Penn is a big, confusing place). In any case, we’ve now rectified that and I can attest: he’s a real person. And he’s great!
@NicoleCRust thanks! And thanks for looping me in today. I thoroughly enjoyed interacting with everyone and look forward to more. Making the walk over to CNI seminars is paying my brain big dividends.