linking back to brembs.net





Welcome Guest
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
 Currently Online (17)
 Extra Information
MicroBlog
NeuroTwitter

[15 Feb 10: 11:11]
W00t! Editor's selection at Researchblogging.org: http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=966

[11 Feb 10: 01:02]
Pharyngulated! http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/religion_adaptation_or_by-prod.php

[26 Jan 10: 12:28]
New Theme! What do you think? http://bjoern.brembs.net

[04 Dec 09: 08:25]
Rolled over 400 citations today... http://bjoern.brembs.net/citations.php

[17 Nov 09: 08:45]
Students! You tell them for 45 minutes why their papers have to be in IMRaD format and some still hand in garbled, structureless papers!

[28 Oct 09: 04:17]
The m.o. of university administrations: divide competence until you can never be mad at anyone, because there are always so many others who can be blamed.


Networking
Random Video
SciSites
GeoCounter
outils webmaster
In recent weeks, or so it seems, there has been an accumulation of some very disturbing trends in the media. Unaware of how they all are connected, I wrote separate posts on the different occasions when the events triggered their separate thought processes.

It started in the US (where else?), when at least one creationist went on the record as claiming the moon landings were a hoax. Two delusions in the same person? Indeed, the blogosphere, home to all the echo-chambers of the social web, acts pretty much as a powerful amplifier without crossovers or equalizers: sometimes it just amplifies garbage. The political attacks on science slowly moved towards political (and physical) attacks on scientists. The US-based Discovery Institute wants to put all scientists in jail. Most recently, in the Telegraph (UK), the columnist Gerald Warner wrote:
Who cares? Thanks to climate change scams, swine flu and a whole host of own-goals, the status of the white-coated prima donnas and narcissists has never been lower in the public esteem. It was Rush Limbaugh, of all unlikely candidates, who at the height of the Climategate exposé made the thoughtful point that more than climate was at stake: the credibility of the entire scientific community was collapsing. He was right. After a period of priest-like authority, the pointy-heads in lab coats have reassumed the role of mad cranks they enjoyed from the days of Frankenstein to boys’ comics in the 1950s.
Add to that a system in which fraud and careerism are incentivized, and one starts to get a grim hunch of the dynamics that have to play out such that even decades of scientific data and debate are not enough to convince people.

The social web creates echo-chambers of epic and unseen proportions. Echo-chambers lead to such strong convictions that their members easily and quickly become 'unpersuadables' - no amount of evidence can persuade them (Guardian, UK version). The hallmark of a scientist is that he/she is an opportunist: in the face of overwhelming evidence, change your mind. In contrast, unpersuadables would never change their minds. Maybe this difference already explains some of the recent hostility? Already in 2004 it became clear that the unpersuadables, the delusional, are not marginal any more. Today, they are a powerful minority with substantial societal power. Let's face it, there are now millions upon millions of people all around us who are impervious to argument, consistently learning resitstant and who hold one or several beliefs unthinkable since the time of the enlightenment more than 200 years ago. In other words, a substantial portion of western society is moving backwards and degenerating intellectually and the social web 2.0 technology is fueling this regression.

And these millions of people vote.

Unpersuadables would decrie gravity as a hoax if a political opponent endorsed it, or the second law of thermodynamics. So far, these prophecies are just satires, but given that even the Flat Earth Society is thriving again (interview with the president of the society), there seems to be a Poe at every corner these days. Is it just a matter of time until the new, hi-tec, web 2.0 echo-chambers have managed to shift the Overton window enough such that any opinion is worthy of serious debate? Is there nothing we can do about it? Or has it already shifted?

What if the delusional becomes the majority?


P.S.: Most likely, there is already an echo-chamber somewhere, where people are using 'unpersuadable' as a positive adjective when describing themselves.


Posted on Tuesday 09 March 2010 - 09:28:21 comment: 0

via Jens.


Posted on Sunday 07 March 2010 - 06:19:02 comment: 0
PhD   graduate student   The Simpsons   

The plural of anecdote is not data. Yet, anecdotes of scientific misconduct are accumulating. Everyone knows the most high-profile cases like those of Jan Hendrik Schön or Hwang Woo-Suk. In a recent survey, over 70% of scientists self-reported some kind of major or minor misconduct. Can scientists be trusted? Why should we trust scientists, you might ask, when we have the data?

How fragile public trust in scientists really is was revealed when two or three stolen private emails from climatologists were taken out of context and published. Objectively, given the overwhelming consensus of several tens of thousands of climatologists discussing and collecting data for at least the last 60 years, this should have been laughed off. However, the public sometimes is neither objective nor rational: the public is starting to show signs of doubt. Given that only a negible percentage of the general population are climatologists, or even interested, educated lay persons, or, for that matter, know what the scientific process is about, let alone have first hand access to the data, what is the public to do, other than deciding who to believe in a he-said, she-said game of politics? Clearly, public trust in any authority is fickle, rightfully so and we've just been shown that scientists are no exception.

Of course, one can blame the media. Of course, one can blame the education system for scientific illiteracy. Of course, one can blame special interest groups and big corporations. Some of that blame probably wouldn't be all that misguided, but I'd like to have a look what we, the scientists are doing about our own credibility. Well, for one thing, we are asking that politicians and bureaucrats simply entrust us with taxpayer money and reduce any regulations tied with the funds. Hmmm...
Let's see what universities and other research institutions are doing. They decrease the number of tenured positions while, at least in the US, the number of students "earning PhDs in science and technical fields has risen by 18 percent since 1985" (Scientific American). Not only in the US. At our institution, for instance, around 1980 there were about 40 tenured professors in the biology department. Today, there are 15. According to my own experience, a typical tenure-track or tenured position on any side of the Atlantic will receive anything between 60 and 300 applicants. So, what is happening is "casualization". Secure, tenured jobs are cut in favor of short-term, cheap labor. A graduate student with, at least in Europe, a Master's degree will net about 12,000€ for a 60-80h job. That's a net income of ~4,00€/hour after taxes. Which you can live on, since you don't have any time left to spend the money anyway. In the current system, a given professor will have somewhat around 40-60 graduate students in the course of his/her career. If the number of positions remained constant, one of them would eventually get a tenured professorship, on average. A postdoc makes about twice that, so ~8€/h, after texes.

In which other profession do you make 8€/h after taxes with a Master's and a doctorate for about 10 years on 2-3 year contracts until you're around 40, only to then have a 1 in 60 chance of getting a contract without an end date?

And what if you're not the one in 60? You've been in a lab for your whole life, usually working on a topic so specialized that even working on a different molecule in the same cell would make you feel like a novice. You've never even seen a company from the inside and are expected to compete with recent graduates when you're 42? Basically, for many, the prospects are flipping burgers or tenured professor. Is it a surprise that even honest people start to to give in to the temptation? Shouldn't we rather be surprised that it took so long for someone to snap? Shouldn't we instead be surprised that it doesn't happen more frequently?

As I see it, we have to ways forward: either we keep going with the current system and install a science police to catch the fraudsters and psychologically labile scientists whose numbers will increase if we keep incentivizing fraud and frustrate the hell out of the majority of the work force. This would of course also mean that scientists can't be trusted until they've been cleared by the science police. If the stakes are so high, nobody should be trusted and peer-review will be the least of our problems. On the other hand, we could lower the stakes and provide constructive incentives, for instance by providing reasonable career prospects for professional scientists. This can be done either by lowering the number of trainees or by increasing the number of tenured faculty, whichever your budget allows. With less incentives for fraud and misconduct, the numbers will stay low. But you can't have your cake and eat it too: placing the carrot so high that hardly anybody can reach it and then acting all surprised that people are actually scrambling for the ladder. You get what you pay for, also in science.


Posted on Tuesday 02 March 2010 - 05:21:05 comment: 3
tenure   credibility   politics   fraud   misconduct   labor   working hours   

ResearchBlogging.orgIt is still unusual when the Catholic church allows a scientific study of one of their relics. So I was surprised to find the manuscript describing the study of the DNA of the remains of one of Europe's patron saints, St. Birgitta (Bridget of Sweden) in my PLoS One inbox one fine day in May, 2008. I'm a neurogeneticist by training, so I felt competent to take this manuscript on as academic editor. The manuscript stated that they had found through both DNA analysis and carbon dating that not only were the remains of St. Birgitta most likely not from the relevant time period, but that the remains stored with her, once thought to be her daughter, could not possibly have been from any of her relatives, let alone her daughter.

Such claims, sure to stir some public attention, needed a thorough peer-review process. I selected a team of four high-caliber international experts in both the field of ancient DNA analysis and radiometric dating. I also used a scheduled visit to Uppsala, where the work had been done, to meet the last and corresponding author of the manuscript, Marie Allen, and have a good look at the laboratories where the experiments had been made. Marie was the most gracious host and took a lot of time out of her busy schedule to show me around her lab and explain how professionally she had handled the relics according to the latest techniques.

The review-process was a lot more bumpy and time-consuming. The reviewers all liked the way she had handled and analyzed the DNA and only had minor suggestions for improvement in this respect. The radiocarbon dating itself was also ok, but two of the reviewers brought up the "reservoir effect". This could lead to a deviation in radiocarbon dating from the correct age if the two people had been on a high-seafood diet. To measure this reservoir effect, additional Nitrogen-dating techniques had to be applied. These proved difficult and time consuming, but after more than one year, the results were finally coming in. Indeed, there had been a measurable reservoir effect for both tested skulls, albeit not to a degree that would change the main conclusions of the study. Yesterday, almost 2 years after the initial manuscript had been submitted, the paper was finally published and I think both DNA and dating measurements are as accurate as they can possibly be, given today's technology. These measurements show that it is highly unlikely that the two skulls kept as relics by the Catholic church are the ones from St. Birgitta and her daughter. Most likely, not even one of the skulls comes from the person claimed by the church.


Nilsson, M., Possnert, G., Edlund, H., Budowle, B., Kjellström, A., & Allen, M. (2010). Analysis of the Putative Remains of a European Patron Saint–St. Birgitta PLoS ONE, 5 (2) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008986

Posted on Wednesday 17 February 2010 - 03:52:45 comment: 5
St. Birgitta   relics   church   religion   DNA   radiocarbon   genetics   

This post was chosen as an Editor's Selection for ResearchBlogging.orgClouds, the sun, volcanoes, the earth's orbit around the sun, ill-defined 'natural cycles' - all have been brought up recently by a range of non-scientists arguing against the current scientific consensus that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for the global warming observed in the last century. I'm a neurobiologist, so my knowledge about climatology is rather limited, which means I don't really understand too much of the complex mechanisms underlying climate variabilities and trends. However, I find it conspicuous that these arguments are being publicized as if nobody had thought of them before. I find it hard to believe that a bunch of amateurs should come up with serious stumbling blocks for a mature science such as climatology.
But, one never knows. So I went to one of the most easily accessible archives of scientific communication, the journal Nature, and searched for "global warming". I sorted the list of publications from oldest to newest and hand-picked according to my own, subjective judgment what seemed like interesting titles and went through the most easy to follow parts of the papers. The list shows an ongoing debate among climatologists going back as far as the 1950s. As far as I could tell, all the usual suspects have been covered decades before any blogger has brought them up. Well, decades before the internet. Given that now, after basically a whole generation of debate, most climatologists are coming to a consensus (a rare event among scientists!), any amateur who thinks they can come up with something that hasn't been thought of before, should have a good and thorough read of the literature covering the last 60 odd years. This short list (and the references therein) should provide some good starters:

1950s:
The ice ages and past variations of the earth's climate
Twentieth century man against antarctica
1960s:
The new look of climatology
1970s:
CO2 versus aerosols
Man-made carbon dioxide and the "greenhouse" effect
Wither climate now?
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels as indicated by the stable isotope record in wood
Glacial advance relative to volcanic activity since 1500 AD
Fluctuations in climate
Aerosol and climate: hotter or cooler?
Causes of climatic change
Cause and effect of global cooling
Volcanic triggering of glaciation
Ocean temperatures and large scale atmospheric variations
Man's influence not yet felt by climate
New data on climatic trends
West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster
Volcanic dust and changes in Northern Hemisphere temperatures

Climatololgy supplement 1978, e.g.:
Predicting temperature trend in the Northern Hemisphere to the year 2000
Solar-terrestrial influences on weather and climate

Clouds and the long-term stability of the Earth's atmosphere and climate
Impact of CO2 on cooling of snow and water surfaces
An empirical determination of the heating of the Earth by the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect

1980-1985:
Scenario for a warm, high-CO2 world
Coupled effects of atmospheric N2O and O3 on the Earth's climate
Albedo change by man: test of climatic effects
Global warming?
Detecting CO2-induced cliamtic change
Surface temperature sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2
Ice core sample measurements give atmospheric CO2 content during the past 40,000 yr
Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and its consequences
Changes in the solar constant and climatic effects
Global production of methane by termites
El Nino Southern Oscillation phenomenon
Marine biological controls on atmospheric CO2 and climate
Two views on whether more means doom
Volcanic, CO2, and solar forcing of Northern and Southern Hemisphere surface air temperatures
Modelling the global climate response to orbital forcing and atmospheric carbon dioxide changes
Does the ocean-atmosphere system have more than one stable mode of operation?
Analytical solution for the effect of increasing CO2 on global mean temperature
A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
Future global warming from atmospheric trace gases


I stopped collecting after this last review from January 1986, because the number of papers was just getting way too large. This is not my field of expertise, but it seems to me that all the arguments which are currently being brought up are known in the climatology community for at least 30 years, some of them have been debated for as far back as 60 years. Given such a thorough debate for such a long period of time, I trust that the current consensus of my climatologist colleagues is the best possible we can currently do. That doesn't mean it won't change, it most certainly will, that is the hallmark of science. However, given this track record, it seems unlikely that such new development will come from some blogger on the internet. Indeed, as always, there is a lively debate among climatologists, it's just not about such basics any more. Heck, I'm sure, in the next 30-60 years, some blogger will come with an argument currently being hotly debated among climatologists.


SAWYER, J. (1972). Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse” Effect Nature, 239 (5366), 23-26 DOI: 10.1038/239023a0

Posted on Tuesday 16 February 2010 - 14:20:32 comment: 3
greenhouse gases   greenhouse effect   climate change   global warming   carbon dioxide   

Now that came totally unexpected, as I hardly use Twitter. However, I do feed all my FriendFeed activity into Twitter, so for people who use Twitter, they'd see all my contributions to the scientific discussions going on at FriendFeed. I've posted before why I think FriendFeed goes way beyond Twitter in usefulness for scientific communication.

Thanks for including me on that list!

Posted on Monday 15 February 2010 - 10:47:38 comment: 0
Twitter   FriendFeed   web 2.0   

This post was chosen as an Editor's Selection for ResearchBlogging.orgIt is a long-standing argument among religious believers that religiosity were necessary for morality. In a recent Trends in Cognitive Sciences article (requires subscription), Pyysiäinen and Hauser argue that morality can arise and indeed can be found without and before any religious education and thus religion is a by-product of pre-existing cognitive properties of the brain. Indeed, religion is not ubiquitous, as for instance the Hadza's religion has been described as 'minimal', and yet, cooperation and morality are - as in all human cultures - thriving. In fact, there is a clear negative correlation between socioeconomic status and supernatural beliefs, further arguing that religiosity is not really all that important for morality to evolve or to persist. Pyysiäinen and Hauser cite a series of studies in moral psychology showing that moral judgments for unfamiliar moral dilemmas are unaffected in individuals without any religious background. In their press release, the authors conclude:
"This supports the theory that religion did not originally emerge as a biological adaptation for cooperation, but evolved as a separate by-product of pre-existing cognitive functions that evolved from non-religious functions," says Dr. Pyysiäinen. "However, although it appears as if cooperation is made possible by mental mechanisms that are not specific to religion, religion can play a role in facilitating and stabilizing cooperation between groups."
Perhaps this may help to explain the complex association between morality and religion. "It seems that in many cultures religious concepts and beliefs have become the standard way of conceptualizing moral intuitions. Although, as we discuss in our paper, this link is not a necessary one, many people have become so accustomed to using it, that criticism targeted at religion is experienced as a fundamental threat to our moral existence," concludes Dr. Hauser.
This leaves open some other, less social cognitive factors contributing to the origin of religiosity, to which to authors allude towards the middle of their article: "[...] the concept of God is based on extending to non-embodied agents the standard capacity of attributing beliefs and desires to embodied agents. According to this view, religious beliefs are a by-product of evolved cognitive mechanisms." The authors are referring to 'theory of mind'. Besides this, still social capacity, there are several other factors contributing to the origins of religion. One such factor is of course our concept of causality and our hunt for last causes. However, the factor that is, of course, closest to my own field of research is that religion works as an operant behavior. This means that religion, for instance, can provide us with a feeling of control where, ultimately, there is none (think rain dance). This is not counter-intuitive and so I'm not the only person who has realized that this may be an important contributing cognitive factor. There is even prior evidence that when experiencing or remembering an experience of lack of control, these cognitive capacities for imagining control and order are enhanced.

These insights leave us with a set of pre-existing cognitive abilities providing a fertile ground on which the evolution of religion could occur as a by-product: Our capacity to detect agency (so helpful in our social interactions that we see it even in non-living objects), together with the concept of causality imply that everything happens for a reason and that this reason is the intention of someone. This someone can be controlled using certain rituals as evidenced, for instance, by the rain occurring after a rain-dance. This someone obviously punishes you if you do not perform these rituals, so of course this someone will also punish you if you do not cooperate or otherwise violate the rules of the in-group. In this way, religion provides you with a sense of order and controllability in an uncontrollable world which, in turn, keeps you sane, your society functioning and thus competitive and alive. As one of the commenters on the press release noted, 'competitive' may be the key word here, with religion providing a further tool for promoting self-sacrifice and suicidal fighting which might have provided some particularly religious groups with a competitive advantage.
Methinks it's about time for someone to develop a computer model for the evolution of religion, the data are starting to provide enough parameters for such a project.

Also in reply to one of the comments on the authors' press release, a very pertinent video via Pharyngula:

Ilkka Pyysiäinen, & Marc Hauser (2010). The origins of religion: evolved adaptation or by-product? Trends in Cognitive Sciences : doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.007

Posted on Tuesday 09 February 2010 - 05:20:05 comment: 4
evolution of religion   religion   evolution   morality   Hauser   


visited 23 states (10.2%)
Create your own visited map of The World

Posted on Monday 08 February 2010 - 11:01:27 comment: 2
travel   

People in the US have pretty much agreed that 43,000 deaths annually is an ok price to pay as long as the survivors get to drive their cars. One may think that safety-minded Europeans would never allow such a toll on their streets. Alas, they live happily with three times as many fatalities, or about 127,000 people dead in traffic accidents every year. Yet, nobody seriously questions the usefulness of individual transportation. These sound like a lot of people and it is, but at the same time it's only about 0.03% of the population (US and Europe combined), a tiny fraction by any standard.

Every new technology comes with dangers and the potential for injuries and fatalities. The internet is no exception, even though it may seem so blissfully trivial with Amazon, Apple and Ebay. The nefarious sides of social web technology are only now, slowly getting clearer. Examples of information perpetuated by social web technology directly or indirectly threatening human lives seem to accumulate at an increasing rate, the two most prominent at the moment being the anti-vaccine movement and climate denialism. In the end, these movements, if they continue to gain momentum, will cause deaths, the anti-vaccine movement has already caused deaths. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt, that the benefits of social web technology by far outweigh these costs. So far.

The psychology behind these phenomena is highly interesting. What they have in common is that their main statements contradict the available evidence. Besides the above two, there is a lot more of such baseless nonsense floating around: rapture in 2009 (now updated to April 2010), creationism, Geocentrism, 9/11 trutherism, birthers, flat earthers, holocaust denialism, etc. I'm sure you can find many more examples of such weird and often quite silly beliefs. Of course, each one claims that they're the only sane ones among this list. Why do people believe in such weird things? Obviously, such weird ideas have been floating around since the dawn of mankind. What, if anything, does social web technology have to do with it? With currently just under two billion internet users, even the most crazy and outlandish idea is bound to gather hundreds if not thousands of followers. For instance, 0.003% of internet users (so only 10% of the traffic death rate) is still 60,000 people. Following the 90-9-1 principle, this would mean that you have a group of 600 hard-core believers actively contributing to an idea in which only 0.003% of people believe, with about 60,000 users visiting the site. This sort of site, while in objective terms on the very fringe of today's culture, would be one of the more visible and prominent sites currently using social media. Of course, everybody participating in that site would have, quite correctly, the impression that there are hundreds if not thousands of like-minded people around. They can't all be wrong, can they? Of course they can! But that is hard to accept with hundreds and thousands of people constantly confirming each other's far-out opinions. Sometimes these fringes get picked up by the general media, whose employees are - not surspisingly - impressed that thousands of people are discussing such weird ideas. "There's got to be something to it, I smell a story". If politics are involved, money soon follows the media (or even the other way around). The rest, as they say, is history. That's for instance, how the US tea-bag movement started. A bunch of whackos with 18th century fantasies, a hearty dose of superstition, religion and consipracy theories together with a lack of knowledge about history and some of the most basic facts, pimped up by the rich playing the undereducated for their own power games. There is no doubt that this movement also belongs in the category in which traffic accidents belong: dangerous and sometimes lethal consequences of an otherwise useful and beneficial technology.

Social media are a great technology and we haven't even scratched the surface of its potential, yet. Given the pernicious side of the human psyche and its propensity to fulfill Murphy's Law, we better come up with a working solution to curb the influence of obvious kooks and nutcases on the overwhelming majority. Because if money starts flowing, the danger of information cannot be overestimated. I'm not sure what kind of technology could be developed to cushion against such phenomena. Where's the speed-limit, the seat-belt, the helmet and the air-bag of social web technology? Unfortunately, as of yet, this technology does not exist. However, given that these ideas are in many respects similar to organized religion, a letter to the journal Science contains some helpful insights on more traditional remedies:
The News Focus story "On the origin of religion" (E. Culotta, 6 November 2009, p. 784) did not incorporate the growing body of psychosociological research that is revealing the crucial role of socioeconomics in the origin and popularity of religion, as well as in creationism (16). Some hunter-gatherers have minimal religion (7), and those who do not believe in the gods and an afterlife have spontaneously expanded in prosperous democracies until they are the majority in some nations, such as France, Sweden, and Denmark (1, 3, 4). Because religion is not universal, as implied in the News Focus article, serious religiosity cannot be the strongly genetically programmed result of major selective evolutionary pressures such as social cohesion (8).
In modern nations, nonreligion and the acceptance of evolution become popular when the middle class majority feels sufficiently secure and safe, thanks to low income inequality, universal health care, job and retirement security, and low rates of lethal crime; this has occurred to greater and lesser degrees in most first-world countries, from Japan to Scandinavia (16). Religion thrives when the majority seek the aid and protection of supernatural powers because they are impoverished, as in the third- and second-world countries or, in the case of the United States (the most religious and creationist first-world country), because the majority of Americans fear losing their middle-class status as a result of limited government support, high levels of social pathology, and intense economic competition and income disparity (16). Prosperous modernity is proving to be the nemesis of religion.

Gregory S. Paul
E-mail: GSP1954@aol.com
3109 N. Calvert Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.

References
  • 1. G. Paul, Evol. Psychol. 7, 398 (2009); www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07398441_c.pdf.
  • 2. T. Rees, J. Relig. Soc. 11 (2009); moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2009/2009-17.html.
  • 3. P. Zuckerman, Soc. Compass 3, 949 (2009). [CrossRef]
  • 4. P. Norris, R. Inghelart, Sacred and Secular (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2004).
  • 5. A. Gill, E. Lundsgaarde, Rational. Soc. 16, 399 (2004). [CrossRef]
  • 6. S. Verweii, P. Ester, R. Naata, J. Sci. Study Relig. 36, 309 (1997). [CrossRef] [Web of Science]
  • 7. F. Marlowe, in Ethnicity, Hunter-Gatherers, and the "Other," S. Kent , Ed. (Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC, 2002), pp. 247–281.
  • 8. C. N. Wade, The Faith Instinct (Penguin, New York, 2009).




Posted on Monday 08 February 2010 - 09:36:58 comment: 3
social web   web 2.0   kooks   

This post was prompted by a whole host of events this morning. First, I was interviewed for a regional radio station RBB about our recent research on ADHD in flies (hear the 6min interview here). Then I read a tweet from Beatrice Lugger about this blog post by Richard Grant. The interview, the tweet and the blog post all reminded me that it was high time to give a shout out and promote the best science-y audio the web has to offer. It's been about 5 years since I've last done that, so it's about time! Here are my favorite podcasts which I listen to every week:



Posted on Tuesday 02 February 2010 - 05:37:45 comment: 2
podcast   interview   

Today's scholarly publishing system is full of anachronisms. While people still dwell endlessly on such prominent anachronisms as journal rankings, so far only few people are debating the anachronism of the widespread deployment of 'supplementary material'. If you are not convinced that 'supplementary material' is an anachronism, just head over to the Nature Methods website. This journal specializes in publishing scientific methods, yet you won't find any methods in the printed publications. The methods are published as supplements, which you have to download separately from the printed material. In other words, if you really want to read the essential information in Nature Methods, you can safely ignore the journal itself and head straight for the supplements. Now if this isn't absurd, I don't know what is.

Given that publishers are developing online article formats, it seems to me that the concept of 'supplements' is diametrically opposite to the way one would design a modern research article. With most researchers accessing their literature online, shouldn't the modern research article contain the full details and information together with the raw data? Personally, if I read an article online (and not just the abstract in a database), I want access to everything on the very first page of the article, and the cell.beta version linked to above comes pretty close. Since there is virtually unlimited space, there is no need for a separate supplement with additional data or methods. In most cases, what currently is in the supplement is essential information for the reader and should be worked into the publication, especially if the readability is enhanced using web-native formatting. In this context, a supplement could be written by the authors in which the research is summarized on one to three or so pages, to appear in the printed version. Some people are known to use the printed versions in very particular locations, for which concise summaries would be more adequate than more elaborate treatises anyway:

Uh oh - at the bday party of Anna - daughter of Mike Eisen - ... on Twitpic

For these reasons I have now updated all the downloadable local copies of my research papers which had a supplement such that the supplement is in the same PDF file as the main text, just appended at the end. This means you get all the information with a single click, the way it should be.

Posted on Thursday 28 January 2010 - 07:39:57 comment: 0
supplementary material   science publishing   science politics   

ResearchBlogging.orgBlogging about one's own research always feels good: the amount of your work has accumulated enough to at least provide sufficient material for a story and some figures. It has passed the first hurdle of scientific scrutiny, peer review. On the other hand, now an exciting time begins: what will the colleagues say? Will people find the one major flaw that neither you, your co-authors, the people who proof-read the drafts before submission nor the reviewers caught? Will the results lead to new, exciting collaborations, will it be cited or will it just be met with utter apathy and complete indifference? After all, with about 1.5 million scholarly publications in approx. 24.000 journals, it's not at all unlikely that your paper just simply never is found by anyone who might be interested in it.

All this of course applies to our latest paper as well. However, for those who do read it, I'm sure it will be a fascinating read. It is, without exaggeration, the craziest scientific story I've ever been involved in, an example of serendipity in science if ever there was one. Here's how it all happened. Shortly after we published our mathematical analysis of spontaneous turning behavior in stationary flying Drosophila, Bruno van Swinderen contacted me about a collaboration. I knew Bruno from before (see here and here), but we had never worked together on a project. So I was very excited to hear that he wanted me to test some of his flies in the Drosophila flight simulator, using the exact same techniques we just had published. The initial idea was to use these mathematical analyses to test his mutant flies for any abnormalities in their spontaneous behavior. However, it turned out that the mutant flies that he had sent me, radish, didn't really fly all that well, at least not well enough to generate enough data to run our mathematics on them. Neither did Bruno tell me about his results, we wanted that I should be blind as to the deficits he had found in radish. I knew radish was a memory mutant for olfactory conditioning, but that it could learn visual patterns just fine. Beyond that, nobody knew what other behavioral phenotypes this strain would exhibit.

So I went on to test a whole bunch of other things for which I had the experimental setups readily available. Of all these experiments, I picked the simplest one and sent Bruno the raw data back. I just measured the flies' spontaneous turning attempts without any visual stimulation for as long as I could get the flies to fly continuously, which was six minutes. As a control experiment, the flies' behavior was measured in a flight simulator-like situation, where they could control their flight direction with respect to four visual landmarks (but still tethered, of course). I sent Bruno the data in blind, which means he didn't know which group was the wildtype control and which was the mutant group. He immediately wrote back accurately identifying the mutant group. I had no idea how he could have figured out which group was which so quickly and the experiments were basically concluded, so he started to show me his data.

Bruno does something very few people on this planet are doing: he can put tiny little electrodes in the flies' brains and record their brain waves. Now with this particular mutant strain, he found that they had a peak in the power spectrum of their brain waves at around 1.6 Hz. Stunningly, when he computed the power spectrum of their turning behavior (i.e., my data), he also found a peak at about 1.6 Hz, but only when the flies were flying with the four visual landmarks. The peak was much less pronounced when there were no explicit stimuli in their environment. It was by this peak that he had recognized the mutants so quickly. But what could this peak mean? One thing it could mean is that the mutant flies become fidgety, if there's something in the environment they need to pay attention to. About one and a half times per second, the flies are initiating some turning maneuver, which can be seen as a peak in the power spectrum. In other words, the flies are hyperactive or fidgety, in this very well-defined, oscillatory kind of way. He then went on to tell me that they also were more easily distractable than the wildtype controls, both in behavior and by inferring from their brain waves when presenting them with various competing visual stimuli.

I thought this was really quite amazing. Flies which are known for their memory loss are both hyperactive and have an attention deficit. I immediately thought of people with attention deficit / hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). They also have learning problems. As a joke, I suggested we put the flies on Ritalin, the drug used to treat patients with ADHD. Bruno replied that these data were actually intended for a different publication, but they indeed would fit very well with this one, too. I was flabbergasted! He had already done the experiments with methylphenidate (Ritalin is just the trade name). To my utter astonishment, the flies on methylphenidate performed like their wildtype counterparts in almost all of the tests we subjected them to. This is even more amazing when you consider that the mutated gene, radish, is required during brain development (late during pupation) and not during the behavioral test. In other words, methylphenidate rescues a deficit in adulthood that even a healthy copy of the originally mutated gene cannot rescue any more.

I find it absolutely crazy to find a fly model for a human psychiatric disorder. On top of that, Ritalin, the drug used to treat ADHD in humans actually also successfully treated the flies. It's even more crazy to find all that by accident, without even looking for it! All we wanted was to study some interesting fly mutants to learn more about some basic brain function. How can it be possible to find something like this just by serendipity? My favorite hypothesis is that there are some fundamental principles about how all brains work and we have stumbled across one of them. We still don't know what it is or how it works, only that it has to do with how brain allocate attention to different processing streams. It is tempting to speculate that this process has to do with switching of activity between separate networks, but there currently is no data to tell either way.

I do have plenty of other interesting results from this mutant, both in flight and in walking. However, I cannot make much sense of them, yet, so a lot of further research is required before part two of this story can be presented.

Of course, as usual, I have a copy of the paper, together with all the supplementary material, on the download page.


van Swinderen, B., & Brembs, B. (2010). Attention-Like Deficit and Hyperactivity in a Drosophila Memory Mutant Journal of Neuroscience, 30 (3), 1003-1014 DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4516-09.2010

Posted on Monday 25 January 2010 - 08:32:50 comment: 3
van Swinderen   Drosophila   ADHD   ritalin   flight   hyperactivity   

Daniel Margulies gave a talk last night entitled "Mapping neuroanatomy with resting-state functional connectivity fMRI". This is the video he showed after his presentation:


This is the abstract of his talk:
The delineation of discrete regions of cortex---whether through characterizing micro-architecture, topography, connectivity, or function---has persisted as a focus of neuroscience research since the past century. While the introduction of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) into the toolbox of cognitive neuroscience enabled remarkable strides in functional localization, the description of anatomy nonetheless continues to rely on standard anatomical maps with cytoarchitectonically-defined subdivisions. Though fruitful, such parcellation maps are inherently independent of the brains under investigation. A promising alternative comes from a long-recognized defining feature of neural structure: connectivity. Parcellation based on differential connectivity has been prolific in describing macaque monkey cortex, and emerging non-invasive techniques now enable such mapping of human neuroanatomy.
After briefly reviewing the history of cortical mapping, I will describe the emergence and methodologies of a non-invasive connectivity mapping technique: resting-state functional connectivity with fMRI (rsfc-fMRI). Based on correlations of spontaneous intrinsic fluctuations in BOLD signal, rsfc-fMRI provides a means of describing functional connectivity that is highly consistent with anatomical connectivity (using diffusion tensor imaging) and tract tracing studies in the macaque monkey. The advantage of a short acquisition time (~5 minutes) and the absence of task demands also facilitate application to clinical and developmental questions, as well as cross-species comparative studies. I will present connectivity-based subdivisions which have been observed in functionally heterogeneous regions such as the anterior cingulate and precuneus, as well as research on the variability of large-scale networks across individuals.

The talk will conclude with a short video addressing the history and controversies within resting-state fMRI research.


Posted on Friday 22 January 2010 - 13:12:58 comment: 0
fMRI   default network   resting-state   brain activity   spontaneous activity   spontaneity   

Well, the title may be a little 'overcondensed' but it captures our essential results. We have discovered that fruit flies with the well-known memory mutant radish exhibit symptoms that are reminiscent of ADHD (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder) in humans. If these flies are treated with methylphenidate ("Ritalin"), most of the symptoms go away. Read all about it in the Journal of Neuroscience (or get it complete with the supplementary material from our download section).

Abstract:
The primary function of a brain is to produce adaptive behavioral choices by selecting the right action at the right time. In humans, attention determines action selection as well as memory formation, whereas memories also guide which external stimuli should be attended to (Chun and Turk-Browne, 2007). The complex codependence of attention, memory, and action selection makes approaching the neurobiological basis of these interactions difficult in higher animals. Therefore, a successful reductionist approach is to turn to simpler systems for unraveling such complex biological problems. In a constantly changing environment, even simple animals have evolved attention-like processes to effectively filter incoming sensory stimuli. These processes can be studied in the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, by a variety of behavioral and electrophysiological techniques. Recent work has shown that mutations affecting olfactory memory formation in Drosophila also produce distinct defects in visual attention-like behavior (van Swinderen, 2007; van Swinderen et al., 2009). In this study, we extend those results to describe visual attention-like defects in the Drosophila memory consolidation mutant radish1. In both behavioral and brain-recording assays, radish mutant flies consistently displayed responses characteristic of a reduced attention span, with more frequent perceptual alternations and more random behavior compared with wild-type flies. Some attention-like defects were successfully rescued by administering a drug commonly used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in humans, methylphenidate. Our results suggest that a balance between persistence and flexibility is crucial for adaptive action selection in flies and that this balance requires radish gene function.


Posted on Thursday 21 January 2010 - 11:32:25 comment: 0
radish   Drosophila   ADHD   attention   ritalin   

worthit.jpg
via Pharyngula.

Posted on Wednesday 20 January 2010 - 13:23:02 comment: 0
religion   creationism   

On January 12, 2010, an expert panel of librarians, library scientists, publishers, and university academic leaders from the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable issued a press release, calling on on federal agencies that fund research to develop and implement policies that ensure free public access to the results of the research they fund “as soon as possible after those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.” This panel was convened last summer by the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology, in collaboration with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

On January 15, 2010, the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM) has issued their reply in their own press release. Here are my comments on some excerpts:
STM believes the goal of US agencies in establishing a “global publishing system” is redundant and wasteful and ignores the essentially international nature of STM publishing, which has, without any government assistance anywhere in the world, enabled more access to more people than at any time in history.
This sounds to me like "we've reluctantly offered the wealthiest libraries in the world some third-rate access to an arbitrary subset of all the publicly funded research results, which the library users themselves have produced. We siphon off 4 billion in tax dollars annually as our personal profit and this entitles us to tell you what kind of further access you will get to your own research. At the moment, we think the kind if half-assed, technologically backwards and crippling access you have right now is good enough for you." Personally, I don't like billion-dollar corporastions which parasitize on tax funds for researchers should have any say whatsoever in how researchers get access to their own research. IMHO, if researchers are not happy with their access, publishers have a duty to make that access happen, without any further charge to increase their already sky-high profits. Once STM publishers start loosing money, I'd be willing to negotiate this situation (as is the case, for instance, with JoVE).
it is through this final version – and the creation and maintenance of their authoritative journals – that STM publishers provide significant added value; to make final published articles (VoRs - Version of Record) free immediately upon publication must involve some mechanism of financial compensation.
Apparently, STM thinks posting a file to the internet is worth a 400% price hike in the last 20 years. Do these guys really believe we don't read their own financial reports? What could STM possibly do that a library couldn't for a fraction of the cost? Do they really believe they're so irreplaceable they're in any position to make such demands for taxpayer money in a time of financial crisis while they post record profits?

From their press relrease: "STM is an international association of about 100 scientific, technical, medical and scholarly publishers, collectively responsible for more than 60% of the global annual output of research articles, 55% of the active research journals and the publication of tens of thousands of print and electronic books, reference works and databases. We are the only international trade association equally representing all types of STM publishers ‐ large and small companies, not for profit organizations, learned societies, traditional, primary, secondary publishers and new entrants to global publishing."

Sometimes it's difficult to decide what bugs me more: the gall of these corporate publishers or the sheepish apathy of some of my fellow scientists with which they let themselves be suckered into this travesty of a professional service. This is such a Monty-Python-esque situation, only that nobody's laughing because we're in it, not watching.


Hat-tip: Jill.


Posted on Tuesday 19 January 2010 - 11:36:12 comment: 0
open access   STM   scholarly publishing   

I picked up Sathish from the airport yesterday and took him in a tour de force from office to office: sign the work contract, register with the local authorities, move into new aparment. Then we got him a new keyboard and mouse with his new computer and he installed his OS. Today, we got him a bank account, health insurance and filled in some more forms he'll need to submit in the coming days. Not bad for day one and two! Especially when you're coming from balmy southern India to a Berlin of a couple of degrees below freezing and have temperature shock in addition to culture shock and jet-lag tongue.png

Sathish's is our new graduate student and his project will be to study the spontaneous turning behavior of wildtype, mutant and transgenic flies in stationary flight. He will use mathematical tools to analyze the temporal structure of the behavior in order to localize the brain regions in the fly brain which are important for proper decision-making. He will thus learn basic Drosophila genetics as well as behavioral biology, data evaluation and some programming besides the neuroscience which is the basis of all our work here in the department. The project is the next step after our initial study on spontaneous behavior in the fruit fly Drosophila.

Welcome Sathish!

UPDATE: I can't believe I forgot to mention the blog post about one of Sathish's competitors for the position. Needless to say, if Sathish is dreaming about a Nobel Prize, he hasn't told me about it (yet?). devilmad.png


Posted on Friday 15 January 2010 - 12:31:03 comment: 3
Raja   lab.brembs.net   

ResearchBlogging.org
It's not information overload, it's filter failure (Clay Shirky)

Bonetta (2009) gave an excellent introduction to the micro-blogging service Twitter and its uses and limitations for scientific communication. We believe that other social networking tools merit a similar introduction, especially those that provide more effective filtering of scientifically relevant information than Twitter. We find that FriendFeed (already mentioned in the first online comment on the article, by Jo Badge) shares all of the features of Twitter but few of its limitations and provides many additional features valuable for scientists. Bonetta quotes Jonathan Weissman, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at the University of California, San Francisco: "I could see something similar to Twitter might be useful as a way for a group of scientists to share information. To ask questions like 'Does anyone have a good antibody?' 'How much does everyone pay for oligos?' 'Does anyone have experience with this technique?'" It is precisely for such and many more purposes that scientists use FriendFeed, which allows the collection of many kinds of contributions, not just short text messages. 

Also in contrast to Twitter, comments to each contribution are archived in that context (and without a time limit), providing a solid base for fruitful, threaded discussions. In your user profile, you can choose to aggregate any number of individual RSS or Atom 'feeds', including scientific publications you bookmark in your online reference manager (e.g. CiteULike or Connotea), your blog entries, social bookmarks (Google Reader, del.icio.us, etc.), and Tweets; and any other items you wish to post directly to your feed. You then look for other users whose profile is relevant to your work and subscribe to them. Every individual item posted in your subscriptions will then appear on your personalized FriendFeed homepage, plus optionally a configurable subset of the feeds you subscribed to. You can choose to bookmark ('like') any of these items (Facebook copied this 'like' functionality just before it bought FriendFeed), comment on them, and share discussion threads in various ways.

At first, this aggregation of information and threaded discussions might seem daunting. However, the stream of information can be channeled by organizing it into separate sub-channels ('lists'; similar to but more versatile than 'folders' in email), according to your personal preferences (e.g. one for search alerts). In addition to individual users, you can also subscribe to 'rooms' that revolve around particular topics. For example, the "The Life Scientists" room currently has 1,267 members and imports one feed.

The feature that makes FriendFeed truly useful is its social filtering system. Active discussions move to the top of your FriendFeed homepage with each new addition, which automatically brings them to the attention of you and everyone else who reads those feeds. In a sense, the most current and the most popular entries compete for attention at the top, making notifications unnecessary. This means that your choice of both rooms and subscriptions affects and filters the content you see. In that way, for instance, you could set your preferences such that you would only see papers with a certain minimum number of 'likes' among your colleagues. Alternatively, you can opt to hide items with zero likes or comments, ensuring that only those that someone found interesting will reach you. Thanks to a very fine-grained search functionality, threads also remain easily retrievable.

  Some of the synergistic effects of the many scientists interacting on FriendFeed are already apparent at this early stage of adoption. FriendFeed provides a convenient way to microblog from conferences by means of dedicated threads or discussion rooms created for the event, thus allowing to share comments within and across sessions, or even with people not physically present at the meeting. Such conference coverage has even received direct (e.g. ISMB09, BioSysBio09) or indirect (e.g. ISMB08) support from the conference organizers.

Above and beyond conference coverage, scientists use FriendFeed to share papers, experiences on laboratory equipment, resources for teaching, or anything else commonly asked at mailing lists. A number of real-world scientific collaborations have already been sparked from such interactions. Collaborative grant proposals have been initiated, submitted and some of them approved after the idea was passed around and discussed on FriendFeed. Several bioinformatics problems have been solved by code-sharing and advice. Articles in scientific journals have been published by FriendFeed users after meeting and discussing on the platform [1-5].

Of course, since FriendFeed was not designed for scientists, there is room for improvement in terms of usability for scientific purposes. For instance, files can only be uploaded upon starting a thread, not while commenting on it, and there is currently no functionality which infers a measure of reputation to a user from his/her contributions (though the wide-spread use of real names somewhat allows that to be imported). As with all online contributions, citability and long-term archiving are unresolved issues, as is the permanence of services whose source code is not public. Fortunately, the development of social networks tailored to the needs of scientists is actively being pursued from various angles. The Polymath projects, in which researchers collaborate online to solve mathematical problems, provide a number of examples. The recent award of two NIH grants of over $US10M each for exactly such purposes is another. Ultimately, the continued enthusiastic adoption of the sophisticated variants of social filtering tools by a broad community of researchers interested in sharing their science will only increase the usefulness for and thus the capabilities of the online scientific community.

References:
  1. Lister, A., Charoensawan, V., De, S., James, K., Janga, S. C. C., Huppert, J.,   2009. Interfacing systems biology and synthetic biology. Genome biology. 10 (6), 309+.  http://genomebiology.com/2009/10/6/309
  2. Saunders N, Beltr‹o P, Jensen L, Jurczak D, Krause R, et al. (2009) Microblogging the ISMB: A New Approach to Conference Reporting. PLoS Comput Biol 5(1): e1000263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000263
  3. Neylon C, Wu S (2009) Article-Level Metrics and the Evolution of Scientific Impact. PLoS Biol 7(11): e1000242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000242
  4. Daub J, Gardner PP, Tate J, Ramskšld D, Manske M, Scott WG, Weinberg Z, Griffiths-Jones S, Bateman A. (2008): The RNA WikiProject: community annotation of RNA families. RNA. 14(12):2462-4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1261/rna.1200508
  5. Huss & al. The Gene Wiki: community intelligence applied to human gene annotation. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp760
Acknowledgment: This comment has received input from a number of FriendFeed users, as detailed in this thread, and was jointly blogged today by Björn Brembs (Friendfeed, this blog post), Allyson Lister (FriendFeed, blog post) and Daniel Mietchen (FriendFeed, blog post).


Bonetta, L. (2009). Should You Be Tweeting? Cell, 139 (3), 452-453 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.10.017

Posted on Thursday 07 January 2010 - 11:11:37 comment: 0
FriendFeed   Twitter   Facebook   scholarly communication   social filtering   Web 2.0   

ResearchBlogging.orgA quote from Nobel Laureate Eric Kandel in the December 11 issue of Science reminded me of a short article by David Glanzman covering a remarkable paper on pan-neuronal (aka 'intrinsic') plasticity and its involvement in learning and memory. Here is the quote:
Q: Synaptic plasticity is a central concept in your work on memory. You've been working with Aplysia since 1962. What else do you think we can learn from these lowly snails?

With almost all kinds of synaptic changes, there is a parallel change in the excitability of nerve cells. For example, in Aplysia, a number of neurons fire spontaneously, in bursts. If you [stimulate] a bursting cell [synaptically], you can change its bursting activity for long periods of time [which implies plasticity not only in the synapse but the neuron itself]. This just blew me away. [But] I've never come back to it.
I received this quote from my postdoc advisor John Byrne. He traced Eric Kandel's mention back to an old finding in Aplysia published in 1977. By now, of course, intrinsic plasticity is a well-documented phenomenon, but its complexity has so far hampered research into the relationship of synapse-specific plasticity and neuron-wide, intrinsic plasticity. Moreover, some forms of intrinsic plasticity appear to be somewhat input-specific, for instance, if the affect only certain branches of the neuron, containing many synapses. Now, Jack Byrne and my then fellow postdoc in his lab Riccardo Mozzachiodi have published a very timely review on our current understanding of intrinsic plasticity with regards to synaptic plasticity, entitled "More than synaptic plasticity: role of nonsynaptic plasticity in learning and memory".The review covers many examples from both vertebrate and invertebrate model systems and is a great primer into the 'other' learning mechanism. The review does of course not yet include the paper on the involvement of Na/K pumps in intrinsic plasticity as this paper came out just now, a few weeks after Mozzachiodi and Byrne was published. This new paper shows that not only ion-channels contribute to intrinsic plasticity, but even such seemingly 'boring' molecules as Na/K-ATPases.


I became interested in intrinsic plasticity since evidence started to come in that operant conditioning was relying on intrinsic plasticity in Aplysia. Now that also in Drosophila it appears that a completely different set of genes is required for modifying behavioral circuits during operant conditioning (or self-learning, as we have recently defined it), while the well-known synaptic plasticity genes are not required. Maybe this differential genetic requirement reflects the mechanisms also differentially affecting synaptic vs. intrinsic plasticity? Could it be that intrinsic plasticity allows to modify the firing properties of a central neuron in a behaviorally relevant network and thereby affecting the entire network, rather than just some small-scale property in it? If this were the case, it would make a lot of sense to regulate such far-reaching network alterations and only allow them after sufficient training - which is exactly what we just found in Drosophila. Thus, there is quite some circumstantial evidence suggesting that synaptic and intrinsic plasticity may also be behaviorally differentiable. However, no clear direct experimental evidence is available, yet.


Interestingly, a PubMed search for "Intrinsic plasticity" OR "intrinsic excitability" yields only 274 articles (with only a handful of papers before 2000), while a search for "synaptic plasticity" yields 8564. Anybody out there looking for a cutting-edge research field?


Pulver, S., & Griffith, L. (2009). Spike integration and cellular memory in a rhythmic network from Na+/K+ pump current dynamics Nature Neuroscience, 13 (1), 53-59 DOI: 10.1038/nn.2444
Mozzachiodi, R., & Byrne, J. (2009). More than synaptic plasticity: role of nonsynaptic plasticity in learning and memory Trends in Neurosciences DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2009.10.001

Posted on Sunday 27 December 2009 - 11:15:04 comment: 0
intrinsic plasticity   synaptic plasticity   learning   operant   Byrne   Mozzachiodi   

Our article entitled "The biology of psychology: Simple conditioning?" has just appeared in Communicative & Integrative Biology. It is an open access article, so it's free. My postdoc Julien Colomb and I wrote it after I was invited to write an "Addendum" article for my recent Current Biology paper. It summarizes the latest progress on the biological learning mechanisms occuring during operant conditioning and proposes two new terms for these mechanisms. It's only 1000 words long. Here's the abstract:
Operant (instrumental) and classical (Pavlovian) conditioning are taught as the simplest forms of associative learning. Recent research in several invertebrate model systems has now accumulated evidence that the dichotomy is not as simple as it seemed. During operant conditioning in the fruit fly Drosophila, at least two genetically distinct learning systems interact dynamically. Inspired by analogous results in three other research fields, we propose to term one of these systems world-learning (assigning value to sensory stimuli) and the other self-learning (assigning value to a specific action or movement). During the goal-directed phase of operant conditioning, world-learning inhibits self-learning (in Drosophila via the mushroom-body neuropil), to allow for flexible generalization. Extended training overcomes this inhibition in a phase transition akin to habit formation in vertebrates, allowing self-learning to transform spontaneous actions to habitual responses. In part, these insights were achieved by reducing operant experiments beyond the traditional set-ups (i.e., ‘pure’ operant learning) and using modern, molecular and/or genetic model systems.
We'll see what people think of this nomenclature and whatever else may come from this really short paper. Apart from the journal website, you can also get the PDF from the download section.


Posted on Wednesday 16 December 2009 - 11:44:25 comment: 0
operant   drosophila   world-learning   self-learning   habit formation   

Go to page       >>  
Render time: 1.0786 sec, 0.5353 of that for queries.