In an excellent two part series, Wired magazine explores breaking research at the interface of bioengineering and brain science. It is at this interface that neuroengineers are finding new ways to manipulate neurons and in doing so have high hopes of mastering the mind.

“If we take seriously the idea that our minds are implemented in the circuits of our brains, then it becomes a top priority to understand how to engineer brains for the better,” said Edward Boyden, a neuroengineer at MIT in an interview with Quinn Norten from Wired.

As neuroscientists continue to unravel the mysteries of the mind the challenge for neuroengineers is to find new ways to tweak neurons while leaving our brains intact. The hope is to mend neurological maladies whether they are severely debilitating or merely subjectively annoying.

Boyden may have found a way to tap into neural networks using research that borderlines science fiction.

By infecting the right motor cortex of a mouse with viruses carrying genes that encode light sensitive proteins Boyden and his colleagues can use photons to control the mouse’s behaviour. The article on Wired’s website includes a video of a mouse with a fibre optic cable protruding from its skull and at the push of a button the mammal spins helplessly in a left-leaning circle.

Boyden uses a less invasive approach known as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to manipulate the behaviour of human research subjects. A magnetic coil that rapidly alternates in polarity is held above the head and induces electric currents in the cerebral cortex. Wave it over the left motor cortex and muscles on the right side of the body contract. Hold it over the frontal cortex and some scientists have noticed changes in emotion and motivation.

Boyden hopes to manufacture a smaller, wearable version of the TMS device that could allow people to use it outside of the laboratory, perhaps at home or in the office. He has also developed an open source project that provides instructions on crafting your own homemade version.

Why would anyone want to use a portable mind magnetic? Research with TMS has shown promising results in managing mood and derailing depression. Boyden also believes that one day it may be used as a means to boost creative thinking.

I cannot help but imagine strange future scenarios of mental manipulation: prisoners injected with “light switch” viruses to control behaviour and magnetic helmets in the office to cure the Monday blues. As we piece together every element of the self and find novel ways to engineer new networks, how much of who we are will we be willing to manipulate?

The brain itself is an excellent engineer. Taking advantage of its natural dynamism we reorganize our neural networks as we grow and mature and also when we exercise, learn, and socialize. Everyday we rewrite the script of our minds and do so simply by living our lives.

However, the idea of lifting the lid and tinkering with technology to change the mechanics of our minds sits uncomfortably with many people. If our free will is vulnerable to magnetic stimulation and genetically engineered viruses are we really anything more than organic circuitry?

That idea doesn’t cause me great grief, for even if “I” am nothing more than electrochemical synaptic circuitry the significance of the phenomenon of the self remains. By knowing that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom changes nothing of the quality of water when I am thirsty.

What does cause me concern is the need for speed, the desire to know mixed with the desire to apply and our natural tendency to want a quick fix. No amount of caution and forethought can be too great in adjusting the seat of the soul, especially if only to make ourselves just a little bit more comfortable.

]]> http://thethunderbird.ca/2009/03/05/weird-brain-science/feed/ 0 http://thethunderbird.ca/2009/01/31/smart-drugs-on-the-path-to-perfection/ http://thethunderbird.ca/2009/01/31/smart-drugs-on-the-path-to-perfection/#comments Sun, 01 Feb 2009 03:03:19 +0000 Kevin Sauve http://thethunderbird.ca/?p=3845

The Times Online has published a piece about the development of a new drug that will enhance memory retention in healthy individuals. The drug developed by Astra-Zeneca, Targacept, and Epix Pharmaceuticals is designed to ameliorate the symptoms of Alzheimer’s but researchers are interested in marketing a milder version as a “life-style” pill.

Students and professionals are already using Alzheimer’s drugs such as Aricept to boost memory and ADHD medications, such as Ritalin and modafinil, to improve concentration. Although this practice is currently illegal, a study conducted by Nature in 2008 determined that one-fifth of the world’s professional scientists and science students have used prescription stimulants this way.

Last month seven neuroethicists wrote a commentary in Nature requesting that cognitive enhancers be made available for use by the healthy:

“[Cognitive enhancement drugs], along with newer technologies such as brain stimulation and prosthetic brain chips, should be viewed in the same general category as education, good health habits, and information technology — ways that our uniquely innovative species tries to improve itself.”

Are we willing to sacrifice happiness for the sake of progress? I think we run the risk of doing so if we are concerned only with progress for progress sake.

A genuine criticism of legalizing smart pills is the unknown consequences of long-term use. For example, could the use of memory boosting medication result in the “persistence of unwanted recollections”, as the authors of the Nature commentary mention as a possibility?

Perhaps meaningless details about every day life, such as at what time you put the toothpaste cap back on last Tuesday, would be persistent mental irritants. This is not to mention the details of unpleasant or horrific events that we may wish to forget but cannot. Next in line, ‘misrecollection’ medication.

Never mind the social ramifications. Consider the widening socio-economic gap that already exists and that will surely grow in the wake of cognitive enhancement technology. Certainly those that can afford to benefit from it will, and those who cannot, or choose not to, will be at a significant competitive disadvantage.

Given the current economic downturn and the scarcity of high-paying jobs, people are looking for anything available to give them an edge against their competition. And what is to stop an employer from “suggesting” that his employees take a regular dose of medafinil to keep them focused and efficient, especially once smart advertising tunes into smart pills?

Students are particularly susceptible to the allure of enhancement technology. Studies indicate that approximately 7% of American university students use prescription stimulants for academic purposes. Legalizing this practice is the same as encouraging it. Should we assess our future leaders and thinkers on the basis of whether or not they are willing, and can afford, to pop pills for higher grades?

I fear that legalizing prescription stimulants for use by the health will jeopardize the discretion of those who reject the technology and further marginalize the financially vulnerable.

The truth of the matter however, is that as long as we continue to make drugs that enhance cognitive function, healthy people will find a way to acquire them. We should not stop producing Aricept simply because select groups of healthy individuals may use the drug as a brain booster.

I am certain that as cognitive enhancement technology is perfected there will be increasing pressure to use it, despite whether or not this comes at the expense of our genuine happiness and freedom.

“If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.“- Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama

What can neuroscience tell us about the brain of the benevolent? The Dalai Lama is donating $150,000 to Stanford University to find out.

His largest financial contribution to a scientific endeavour was in sponsorship of the Centre for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education (CCARE). Under the direction of neurosurgeon Jim Doty and neurologist William Mobley, this multimillion dollar prject will use brain imaging technology to investigate the neurobiology of altruism.

Jim Doty knows about Altruism. As a former multimillionaire entrapenuer he has donated over $25 million to charity, $5.4 million of which he gifted to Stanford.

His research will test the hypotheses that compassion has a biological basis and that meditation can rewire neural networks to enhance altruistic behaviour.

Research at the University of Wisconsin studying experienced and amateur meditation practitioners has given insight into brain activity during mediation. Using electroencephalography (EEG) they have found that meditation produces high frequency neuronal activity in the prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain associated with positive emotions.

Amateur practitioners demonstrate increasing left prefrontal activity and report increased relaxation and contentment during meditation. Buddhist monks who have extensive practice in meditation show a permanent increase in neuronal activity in this cortex.

Dotty and Mobley suggest that mediation techniques could benefit social health and clinical practice. Understanding how the brain produces compassion during meditation could lead to techniques that could improve clinician’s bedside manner, lower criminal recidivism, and benefit social education in schools.

Although meditation may achieve these results, the benefits of practice take time and patients, something few of us can afford.

Could the research of CCARE lead to the development a compassion drug? Perhaps in the future we will use deep brain stimulation to cure psychopathic and antisocial behaviour.

For the Dalai Lama, his reletively small contribution will be well spent if observing a physical link between mediation, compassion, and happiness can lend credibility to the teachings of Buddhism.

Work in theoretical physics is already beginning to bridge this metaphysical gap.

In Buddhist belief, the cosmos and its components are “empty” of substance and self. Buddhist philosophy suggests that the basic nature of reality is sentience and that the world is ultimately a product of consciousness.

According to quantum physicists, the elementary particles that make up the universe are only packets of energy, nothing more than parcels of probability that float in an ocean of potential. Hence Einstein’s famous equation E=MC² that suggests that all matter is ultimately energy.

What turns this potential energy into the substantial reality we see? According to some theroretic physicists it is the mind of the observer.

In the mind of both the Buddhist and the physicist, consciousness and the material world are inextricably linked.

I am curious as to whether other members of the scientific community will be as willing to support spiritual endeavors in the name of science in the future.

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.” – Albert Einstein

]]> http://thethunderbird.ca/2009/01/27/the-brain-of-the-benevolent/feed/ 0 http://thethunderbird.ca/2009/01/17/battling-brains/ http://thethunderbird.ca/2009/01/17/battling-brains/#comments Sat, 17 Jan 2009 23:42:22 +0000 Kevin Sauve http://thethunderbird.ca/?p=2904 A study led by Edward Vul, a PhD student of neuroscience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has called into question the validity of several studies that link parts of the brain to social behaviour. After reviewing 54 major research papers in the social neurosciences, Vul has published a free paper that is circulating widely around the net, asserting that many functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies contain significant statistical blunders.

This has struck nerve in the neuroscience community, generating tremors of conflict throughout the World Wide Web. (See the blogs Mind Hacks or The Neurocritic). Prior to the release of a peer-reviewed article that will refute Vul’s claims, several of the neuroscientists on his “red-list” have issued a press release that was published Thursday by Nature online.

The scientists, including members of the National Institute of Mental Health, state that Vul has failed to grasp the complexities of brain imaging statistics and that he has made spurious and “unfair” conclusions about valid research.

Their anguish is understandable. I know I would hardly be impressed if after years of laborious study and a plethora of peer-reviewed papers someone with fewer suffixes had the gull to label my work as preposterous. It must have taken guts, not to mention brains, to engage in this battle.

And a battle it will be. Vul has already published a website refuting the refutations.

Some people have had reservations about the grandeur claims of fMRI research for quite some time. There was a great article written by Benedict Carey in the New York Times about this two years ago.

Nonetheless, research into the correlation between the brain and behaviour has come along way since the days when Dr. Wilder Penfield probed the brains of conscious patients looking for the cells that “smelt burnt toast”. fMRI has allowed neuroscientists the ability to peer into the brain while giving patients the dignity of keeping their skulls intact.

fMRI is now being used to discover everything psychological, and the media is eating it up. Two weeks ago 60 minutes did a special report on fMRI used for mind reading and lie detection.

It wouldn’t matter much if the technology remained a pricey plaything for neuroscientists, but now that it’s used in politics and the private sector, there is good reason to maintain a healthy degree of skepticism.

Companies such as No Lie fMRI are marketing the massive magnet as a lie detection device more accurate than the polygraph and corporations like McDonald’s, Proctor and Gamble, and Intel (just to name a few) have high hopes for its use in marketing strategies.

Regardless of whether he’s wrong or right, Guys like Vul are perpetuating the tradition of good science, scouring data for errors when the numbers just don’t add up and keeping scientists on their toes where they should be. Besides, it is always great to remind people that we have come along way since the times the indubitable high clergy and the aristocratic authority of the church.

Perhaps because of its complex nature, brain research is often given the benefit of the doubt and few people have the brains or brawn to challenge it. But let’s not forget, that our brains often make mistakes and neuroscientists are, quite literally, just brains who research brains.

Either that or checking the refrigerator, repeatedly. It seems that a belief in spontaneous generation, of the kind purposed by the seventeenth century scientist Jean Baptiste van Helmont, who insisted that mice would spring into existence by wrapping cloth in wheat germ, makes logical sense to the procrastinator.

None-the-less, while deliberating on whether to begin this blog or check the icebox one more time, I came to my senses and abandoned spontaneous generation as a possibility and left to buy more milk.

Conveniently traversing the magazine aisle, two words caught my attention, “Procrastinating Again?”. After a quick double take and an anxious wait in the check-out line, I had the topic for my first blog.

The most recent edition of Scientific American MIND delights in the biology of deferment, a dawdling science writers dream come true. It turns out that the ubiquitous neurotransmitter, dopamine, plays a significant role in promoting procrastination. Which doesn’t seem all that remarkable when one considers the reputation dopamine has in encouraging addictive behaviour.

Perhaps a little explanation of the research is in order.

Addictive substances work by signalling the reward system in the brain that utilizes our good friend dopamine. Under normal circumstances, say biting into an ordinary looking apple that just so happens to be the best apple you’ve ever had, this reward system encourages you to repeat the behaviour and seek out another apple that looks the same, an obvious evolutionary advantage.

Addictive drugs bind to receptors that signal the release of dopamine and flood the reward system with elevated levels of it. Even if smoking that first cigarette made you choke and gag, you can blame your brain for telling you that experience was a good one. Hence why people with addictions find it so hard to kick them, even if they hate them. It’s not so much that smokers can’t quit but, strictly physiologically speaking (whatever that means), they find little value in doing so.

When it comes to procrastination, the story is a little bit different. Led by neuroscientist Barry Richmond from the National Institute of Mental Health, a study conducted on monkey’s who were trained to hold and release levers for a juice reward were found to delay in releasing the lever more often if they knew the reward wasn’t coming any time soon. When a light signaled that the reward was close at hand most would perform the task faster and more accurately.

That was until Richmond turned some of the monkey’s into focused, compulsive lever releasing machines. Richmond injected a small molecule known as DNA antisense into the rhinal cortex of each primate, blocking the production of dopamine receptors and effectively nullifying the effect of the neurotransmitter on this part of the brain. Some of the neurons in the rhinal cortex are connected to neurons associated with the visual cortex and dopamine works between them, indicating that something that was seen may lead to a reward.

To summarize, without dopamine the monkeys had no idea when to expect the juice and so just kept plugging away at the task hoping that the next lever release would be the one to win the jackpot. They had no value in procrastination. In addiction, it’s arguable that without dopamine, lighting up a cigarette may be of as much value to a smoker as drinking rocket fuel.

So that beautifully complex concept of value that exists “in here” is related, at least in some sense, to a tiny and relatively simple molecule that exists “out there”. But regardless of where it exists, the intrinsic value I feel from writing this blog has been overwhelmed entirely by the fear of failure if I don’t. Perhaps dotting the end of this sentence with one final period may give me the dose of dopamine I need to get rolling on my next blog, that is, if after reading it I find it just a little bit better than expected.