Happy Anniversary Encephalon!

Double congrats go to Mo the Neurophilosopher. Not only has the Encephalon neuroscience blogging carnival seen it’s first year anniversary, Encephalon masterbrain Mo has been welcomed aboard the scienceblogs.com network! His scienceblog can be found here.

It’s been nearly 3 months since I last wrote anything here and I should probably give a few updates. I was recently in Chicago for every brain imager’s annual favorite, the Organization for Human Brain Mapping conference. All in all, I really enjoyed the conference and the city. A few highlights:

- Marcus Gray from University College London had an interesting poster entitled ‘A cortical potential for cardiac function’ (now in PNAS). From the abstract:

Emotional trauma and psychological stress can precipitate cardiac arrhythmia and sudden death through arrhythmogenic effects of efferent sympathetic drive. Patients with preexisting heart disease are particularly at risk. Moreover, generation of proarrhythmic activity patterns within cerebral autonomic centers may be amplified by afferent feedback from a dysfunctional myocardium. An electrocortical potential reflecting afferent cardiac information has been described, reflecting individual differences in interoceptive sensitivity (awareness of one’s own heartbeats). To inform our understanding of mechanisms underlying arrhythmogenesis, we extended this approach, identifying electrocortical potentials corresponding to the cortical expression of afferent information about the integrity of myocardial function during stress. We measured changes in cardiac response simultaneously with electroencephalography in patients with established ventricular dysfunction.

- Gray’s work is somewhat representative of a general emphasis on biomarkers and predictive imaging at this year’s conference.

- This year, diffusion tensor imaging, (DTI), dynamic causal modelling (DCM), multi-modal imaging, as well as lie-detection were in vogue. I remember resting-state fMRI being the cat’s meow at the 2005 conference in Toronto. Oh the times, they are a changin’…

- I think everyone’s favorite memory from the conference program was that of a video involving monkeys and robots. Enough said.

- On other studies, Dr. Nicholas Schiff had a very interesting talk on limited states of consciousness in the clinic. You may remember Dr. Schiff’s name splashed in the headlines last summer on a very interesting case of a man who ‘woke up’ after being in a minimally conscious state. Yes, DTI pops up here too. Dr. Schiff recently talked at a workshop on neuroethics and limited states of consciousness as part of ongoing work at Stanford’s Neuroethics unit.

There are many more highlights but I should leave off now. What I will leave off with is a note that the 27th edition of Encephalon will be hosted right here in two weeks time. That’s Monday, July 16th. If you’d like to contribute, don’t be shy, send in any post you may have that’s neuro-related!

Send an email to: encephalon[dot]host[at]gmail[dot]com.

Things that I would be particularly interested in reading relate to blogging and funding. If you have an opinion as to how science blogging could be a tool (or not) for raising awareness about the need for funding, or have some interesting statistics, please send it in! The debate over stem cell research is certainly important, but I’d be interested in something that looks at the issue more broadly (many of you out there can sympathize with the penny pinching scientists are forced to endure, or end up finding financial pressures destructive). Another issue that caught my attention at the OHBM town hall meeting involved a debate about whether or not the conference should consider holding a future meeting in Cuba. Posts related to conferences and political pressures would also be well received. i.e. Should scientists be concerned about conferences being held in countries with conflicting political ideals? Could scientific conferences be held in more developing countries to bring attention to overlooked research programs?

And now for some brainial stimulation of the broab:

beyond belief

Well, it’s been some time since I’ve posted anything serious.  Now that I’m studying for exams though I naturally turn back to something distracting while hopefully being somewhat productive in this distraction.

I’ve been watching videos from the Beyond Belief conference at the Salk Institute over the past week or two.  One word:  Yes.  That yes is a fully positive endorsement of this conference and a hope for many more to come.  That said, I’ve been searching for post-BB commentary and came across an opinion piece by Sam Harris.  The wonderful exchange between Scott Atran, Sam Harris, and others on Edge not included (and highly recommended), there seems to be a general glossing over of some thoughtful commentary.  Glossing turned to spin in Harris’ piece posted as an op-ed on the Council for Secular Humanism website.  Let’s take a closer look:

Recently, I attended a three-day conference at the Salk Institute, organized by The Science Network. The conference was titled, Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival and was conducted as a town-hall meeting before an audience of invited guests. Speakers included Steven Weinberg, Harold Kroto, Richard Dawkins, and many other scientists and philosophers who have been, and remain, energetic opponents of religious unreason. And then there were other esteemed participants and audience members who proved themselves to be eager purveyors of American-style religious bewilderment.

And the spin begins…

It was a room full of bright, scientifically literate people—molecular biologists, anthropologists, physicists, engineers—and yet, three days were insufficient to force agreement on whether or not there is any conflict between religion and science.

You mean, after hundreds of years of debate on science and religion, this three day conference didn’t solve the relationship between these two massive enterprises?  You’re kidding!

While at Salk, I witnessed scientists giving voice to some of the most unctuous religious apologies I have ever heard. It is one thing to be told that the pope is a great champion of reason and that his opposition to embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with religious dogmatism; it is quite another to be told this by a Stanford physician who sits on the President’s Council on Bioethics.

Oh, what’s that in your pocket Sam?  Oh yes, it’s a bunch of embryonic stem cells.  You love to whip those little guys out whenever you have a chance.  Mr. Harris, your characterization of Dr. William Hurlbut’s comments (and note that you only named people on your side of the argument throughout this piece) is quite inappropriate Hurlbut’s comments did not center on stem cells.  Hurlbut’s comments were in the spirit of having an understanding of any given dogma before criticizing it.  And not just a read through with untutored eyes.  A skeptical read, but a read open to more than a literal interpretation.  This seems to me something you would want more people, believers or not, to do.  Further, for someone seemingly so familiar with Buddhist traditions, it seems rather odd that the distinction between esoteric (Vajrayana) and exoteric (Mahayana) texts and practices has not even popped up in the midst of discussion.  And what about the ideals of a Bodhisattva?  Prajna (wisdom), virya (warriors spirit), and upaya (skillful means)?  Mr. Harris’ argument certainly shows plenty of warriors spirit but seems to be lacking skillful means.

Over the course of the meeting, I had the pleasure of hearing that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were examples of secularism run amok,

No. Examples of dogmas as or more deadly than religion.

that the doctrines of martyrdom and jihad have nothing whatsoever to do with Muslim terrorism,

Just watch the back-and-forth between Sam Harris and Scott Atran to see that this is not so.

that people can never be argued out of their beliefs because we live in an irrational world,

Another hyperbolic comment!  Scott Atran’s comments were to the effect of dealing with rationality in a fundamentally irrational world, not that it is a lost cause to challenge people on contentious beliefs.

that science has made no important contributions to our ethical lives,

Stop Sam.  Stop!  Listen to yourself!  Anyone who cares enough to know what was actually said can download the entire conference.  Doing so, and particularly after watching Susan Neiman’s talk, one sees a different ethos.  One that welcomes empirical data and wishes for more empiricism in informing ethical and moral decision making but contending that this tells us what ‘is’ while the ‘ought to be’ remains impoverished by such means.  Far from being one sided, this was then challenged by the Churchlands with thoughtful criticism.  It’s a great exchange of ideas, apparently so great Mr. Harris has kindly cherry picked it from his memory and squashed it on the floor.

and that it is not the job of scientists “to take away people’s hope”—all from atheist scientists, happily trading in the most abject and paralyzing shibboleths of academic political correctness.

Heck, even Richard Dawkins said he would not challenge someone’s beliefs on their deathbed…

There were several moments during our panel discussions that brought to mind the final scene of Invasion of the Body Snatchers—people who looked like scientists, had published as scientists, and would soon be returning to their labs nevertheless gave voice to the alien hiss of religious lunacy at the slightest prodding. In case anyone thought that the front lines in our culture wars could be found at the entrance to a megachurch, I am here to report that we still have considerable work to do in a nearby trench.

For all the frustration I felt at this meeting,

…receiving thoughtful criticism of your arguments, being called on repeated arguments and abuse of language…

it seemed like the perfect forum in which to resolve the centuries-old collision between reason and faith. If reputable scientists cannot be made to agree that there are important intellectual and moral differences between knowing something and pretending to know it, we are doomed.

Argumentum ad Bacculum.

Happily, the meeting at Salk will be convened again next fall. Perhaps then it will be possible to rule out the Virgin Birth of Jesus as a valid scientific hypothesis.

Sam continues, giving four questions he’d like answered.  Unfortunately I do not have the time to go through this and formulate a thoughtful response.  Biochemistry awaits…

I’ll finish off by pointing out that as much as Sam Harris argues for corrections of ‘problems of discourse’ and ‘intellectual honesty’ during the Beyond Belief conference, he seems to take these concerns off like a coat as he takes the time to write pieces like this which perpetuate the problem of discourse and veil what actually happened.  Despite this opinion piece though, Harris made some very good points at the Salk.  There is every reason to challenge beliefs that can reduce someone to resembling something like this.  And for all the heavy arguments and bruised egos, it is quite stimulating to watch or listen to the proceedings, particularly Neil de Grasse Tyson’s equally inspiring and hilarious lecture, and I would encourage anyone who has made it this far in the post to check it out.  Certainly don’t take this post as the word on the conference, and equally so, do not take Mr. Harris’ opinion as a full synopsis either.

P.S.  Has anyone found any articles by Sam Harris in a scholarly science journal or a poster at a conference?  I can’t seem to find any.

synapse13

is a neuroscience carnival devoted to all areas of neuroscience, including neurobiology, psychology, psychiatry, and neural systems — healthy brains to perverse minds — neurotransmitters to theories of mind.

To kick off the final installment of The Synapse before the new year, Corpus Callosum gets a little Popperian on the falsification of hypotheses and the connection between antidepressants and suicide. In the same vein, the Neurocritic bites into an antidepressant study and outlines why some of the claims being made are hard to swallow.

Bearing in mind Corpus Callosum’s reiteration that ‘correlation does not imply causation’, we turn to Vaughan’s submission of an fMRI study related to psychopathy at Mind Hacks.  Non Causa Pro Causa has interesting implications for the old nature/nurture debate and makes neuroimaging studies all the more nuanced. For more on psychopathy, I’d recommend Inside the Mind of a Psychopath on CBC’s Quirks & Quarks.

On Autism, Dr. Deborah Serani, host of the previous Synapse, highlights a paper on genetic mutation and its link to the risk of Autism.

Musings on Neurology and Lenitives In Simplistic Art outlines his top 5 strategic areas for research in neuroscience. Is the NIH accepting grant proposals in blog format? While quite broad in scope, there are some sympathies on this end to neuroinformatics and making conversion between file formats easier or potentially adopting a more standard format (imaging people, I know you sympathize. Oh, to be back in the DICOM days). Hat tip on Neuroethics, look north.

On touching brains in a bad way, the Neurophilosopher elaborates on every neuroscientist’s perennial favourite:  Phineas Gage.  A lot seems to fall out of rod-shaped objects piercing one’s head, although tamping irons may not be that common these days.  What, you ask, might be?  Chopsticks of course!

Could a young man like this (and his chopsticks) be a key contributor to stem cell research? Shelley at Retrospectacle says yes! 

On touching brains in a good way, Jake at Pure Pedantry looks at brain stimulation and the therapeutic value of brain stimulation for Parkinsonism.  For coverage of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS), including a talk by a Parkinson’s patient, check out the Dana Centre’s webcast on DBS during the 2006 Brain Awareness Week at the Science Museum in London.

Transcranial direct current stimuliation (tDCS) is another good touch, albeit less invasive.  The Fibromyalgia Research Blog reviews a paper on tDCS as a treatment for fibromyalgia pain.

For a more magnetic touch, consider the Neurocritic’s post on repetative transcranial magnetic stimulation, or rTMS.

Alvaro at SharpBrains interviews Dr. Elkhonon Goldberg on brain fitness and cognitive training and looks at what successful traders and students have in common. I concur on the point of bloated textbooks here in North America. That said, if you’d really like to know what Penfield or Newton thought, read them! Don’t just read a synopsis in a textbook! It’s unfortunate that there are not more programs like St. John’s Great Books program out there.

Outside of print, I Am A Scientist! caught up with Dr. Mary Harrington from Smith College at the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) conference in Atlanta this past October.  Listen to a discussion on the Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience live online, Sunday, December 10th at Noon (GMT -0600) on CKUW 95.9 FM.  Unable to listen?  The show will be archived on the show website.  In the meantime, lend your ears to another discussion at SfN, this time with Dr. Gladys Maestre from the University of Zulia in Maracaibo, Venezuela on neuroscience and developing countries.  Part 1 / Part 2 (MP3).

And heck, I’ll be hosting The Motel 6 later this morning (sigh, it’s late) live on CKUW 95.9 FM and ckuw.ca starting at 10AM (GMT -0600) on Sunday. Tune in!

Should you listen to the interview with Dr. Harrington, circadian rhythms will likely be on your mind. A Blog Around The Clock points to the refinement of questions in circadian rhythm research.

And, speaking of the molecular level, PZ Myers gives a near textbook explanation of the notch receptor.

While Sandy at The Mouse Trap makes his conjectures on the evolutionary trajectory of colour vision, Pete at Brain Hammer brings us back to philosophy and reminds us that a scientific theory, necessarily being falsifiable, is only as good as the predictive power it holds.

And it looks like that’s a wrap folks. Thanks for stopping by, see you in the new year, and in the words of the infamous Ivan Hrvatska, See you at party!

Weeee!

UPDATE
Synapse and Encephalon are consolidating! Regular and potential contributors to The Synapse are encouraged to submit posts here or by emailing encephalon.host at gmail.com. The next Encephalon will be held at Neurotopia on December 18th.

Home. SFN Catch-up.

Over the past 48 hours I cut through the eastern half of the U.S., half by rail, half by air, accompanied by ‘psychics’, ranch owners, and some guy. It felt absolutely wonderful to sleep in my own bed last night. That said, I’m recalling the train circling around New York City and the man outside Union Station in Washington inquiring about the name of the second toe, the one right next to the big toe, and feel quite glad to have taken the extra excursion after the Society for Neuroscience conference.

More soon.

MIT

I’m sitting in the Brain and Cognitive Sciences building at MIT right now, looking over railroad tracks. I picked up a biography of A. J. Ayer at Harvard Square earlier and just finished looking through the photos–oh Freddie. I arrived in Boston last night, by train, from Washington. A grandma sat next to me after leaving Penn Station in NYC, was in the city to collect books for a library she’s making for her grandchildren. What a great idea! A dentist from Boston sat next to me for the remainder of the trip.

I was on the MIT website before leaving Winnipeg and saw a seminar on Nuclear and Particle Physics listed for today. I’ll be attending that as well, but I just discovered that there is a ‘Brain Lunch’ right next to the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, a seminar on modeling and methods for electrophysiologcal data. Seeing as I’ve never been involved in electrophysiology work before, everything will likely be over my head. I will absolutely die if Nancy Kanwisher walks in though *academic crush*.

I do have my digital camera in my pocket and will take some shots of the campus shortly. Interestingly enough, the Gehry building, the crazy one (well, they’re all crazy), is right next door. Too weird seeing it on powerpoint at SFN and now sitting right next to it. A lot of photos of this building coming up too!

**Update**

Well, well, well. Turns out the electrophysiology talk was understandable. The physics talk, not so much. Granted my background in particle physics is only one introductory 4th year course, but this was nuts! The talk was on Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) and the level of discussion, or rather grilling, was something I had never seen before. So many people at conferences nod their heads and mutter words like ‘of course!’ and ‘yes!’. These guys did too, but you knew they meant it. The lecture was supposedly open to the general public, although it was far from a generalists grasp in physics, let alone a generalist from the public. Still, very interesting to see.

Without further ado, pictures from MIT:

The view from the Brain and Cognitive Sciences Building.

SFN Sunday

I’m back at the corner of Luckie and Broad, this time across the street, having another coffee and killing time before my train leaves for Washington DC. I met a mother and her daughter when I was waiting for the bus to bring me back downtown. She said she was from Alabama and that they were out here to prepare a few things as they were moving to Atlanta. Then a bee interrupted our conversation. No bees here, it’s to windy, and a little chilly.

I finally met up with Shelley, Jake, and Mr. Evil Monkey on Saturday night.

Sunday is somewhat of a blur to me. Actually, most of the conference is a blur to me. Rows and rows of posters, gadgets, books, bad coffee, and ugly carpet tends to distract. I do recall interviewing Elaine Snell from the Dana Alliance in Europe for my radio show. There some really neat things going on in London, so if you’re in the area, or will be soon, check out the Dana Centre. There are also webcasts of several presentations. A few that look interesting: a panel on science and religion, one on laughter, and another on Thrills, complete with fair grounds on-site! It felt quite official, Elaine snuck me into the Press Room and we had our own booth, it sounds excellent! Again, I’ll update this with the time the interview airs.

Later in the evening I attended the Brain Awareness Social and noticed what were becoming familiar faces. There’s a lot more in public outreach than I realized. There was a comment from the audience about metrics for determining the success of Brain Awareness campaigns. This was said to be a likely focus of the next meeting in San Diego.

In between these two events, I have no recollection of what happened. Let’s just assume I wandered around the poster session.

So, neat posters: I have a friend in Bergen, Norway that I have not seen for a very long time. I didn’t even realize the researcher was from Bergen, but now as I look at this paper I’m taken back to Australia where we met. Anyways, the poster was from the Bergen fMRI Group and was titled ‘Computation of the fractal dimension in patients with schizophrenia using MR images’. This was cool. I had never heard of using fractals in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before. Fractals are mathematical rules that create pretty pictures like the Mandelbrot set. The beauty in fractals isn’t simply the images the create though. Fractals can be used for data compression, which has implications for a lot of things, especially now that things are increasingly becoming digital. In this case, fractals were used to study the brain morphometry, the measurement of the shape of regions of the brain, in controls and schizophrenics. Typically, after an MR image has been acquired, a researcher, i.e. their underling, strips the skull from the image using one of a host of algorithms. The shape of the brain can then be characterized and volumes for the entire brain or specific regions of interest can be determined. Now, what’s typically done is the shape is defined in Euclidean space. Using fractals, the guys out in Bergen were able to detect differences in the shape of control and schizophrenic brains. It’s not the whole answer, but it might be another tool to help in characterizing structural differences for brains in healthy and disease states.

Alright, so I am in another place yet again, this time a European bakery, ducking the cold wind outside and still waiting for my train. By the time I post this I will likely be in Washington.

SFN Saturday Continued.

I’m under an overcast sky on the corner of Broad and Luckie in Atlanta, drinking coffee and sitting. Finally sitting. It seems pleasant enough to write here as pigeons swirl around the intersection and cute university girls pass by.

To reminisce:

I attended the Frank Gehry talk last Saturday. I went to the Neuroethics Symposium shortly thereafter and was quite impressed with the lineup of speakers. When all was said and done, there was a lot less talk about philosophy than I had thought would be the case, save for one incident in which an attendee spoke up during the question period only to call Colin Blakemore naive for saying that his approach to ethics has been from a reductionist perspective. To some extent I understand where the attendee was coming from, at least in considering the whole person in ethical matters, but I’m quite positive Blakemore would have talked more to this effect if time constraints weren’t operating. This was not the time to voice such concerns, let alone call names. More constructively, a philosopher stood up and asked what role philosophers might play in neuroethics. The answer was a call for dialogue between philosophers, bioethicists, scientists, physicians, etc, and while this is a basic statement, is still quite important to have such a statement brought forward.

Judy Illes from Stanford gave the first talk. Opening with a review of beta blockers and a vignette illustrating a traveller passing through a security checkpoint at an airport and unfortunately remarking ‘this is where you get your brain scanned’, Illes reiterated Howard Gardner’s hope for neuroeducators with research experience and pedagogical training to engage the public in an informed dialogue about the implications of neuroscience. The linear process of research moving from researchers to the media and finally to the public was discussed and the replacement of such a linear process with a circular one was hoped for. In fact, shifts in the way the application and consequences of neuroscience proceeds seems to have been a major theme of the conference. From the presidential lectures to these talks on neuroethics, an engagement of clinical observation as a means to inform basic research and an engagement of the public to inform neuroethics kept popping up.

Back to the talk, Illes discussed the profound effect false-positives and small-n research can have on patients and their families when such studies are taken to heart. At the end, Illes called for large-scale, longitudinal, multi-modal studies, clear clinical goals, and an examination of the consequences of neuroscience, both positive (say, neuroimaging as a means of mitigating stigma for certain disorders) and negative (small-n studies that need further follow up before something definitive can be said).

Gladys Maestre, a research clinician from Maracaibo, Venezuela gave the next talk. I won’t go too much into the details now as the rain has forced me into the Atlanta Public Library and I’m starting to think about having dinner soon. I will say that I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Maestre for my radio show on CKUW and will update my blog with the date the interview will air as soon as I know myself.

It might just be more informative if I post this blurb from the meeting planner:

Even in its young life, neuroethics has established itself firmly in the history of neuroscience. Much of the early activity has been driven by the intersection of neuroscience and biomedical ethics in the United States, but a significant emphasis is now visible worldwide in both developed and developing countries. The specific objectives of this symposium are to explore the landscape of activity in neuroethics on an international scale, the ethical, legal and social impact of neuroethics across country and cultural boundaries, and strategies for expanding neuroethics activity worldwide.

To achieve our goals we will draw on a number of themes. In regenerative medicine, for example, where does therapy stop and enhancement start? Will this technology give rise to a cognitive divide between those with and without access and a declining tolerance of those on the tails of the cognitive bell curve? In seeking ways in which neuroscience can better improve brain health in developing countries such as Venezuela, imperatives include establishing clear priorities, strengthening the capacity of local institutions, and meeting health needs. But, as many of the translational approaches of neuroscience involve sophisticated technology, will neuroscience unintentionally contribute to the “science divide” between rich and poor countries? In Japan, government efforts to promote research in the development and maintenance of brain function are focused on both ends of the life spectrum. The drive to improve function is pressing in this culture, but an overriding ethical issue is that no one yet knows what an optimal brain should be. Nurturing core neural functions while respecting individual differences is a vast challenge. In mental health research in the UK for example, and on a global scale, the interplay of genetics, development and environment poses yet other challenges. Knowledge of the origins of pathology have the potential to lead to early intervention and treatment decisions, but advances also raise concerns about poor uses of risk data and the medicalisation of human traits. How can neuroethics, neuroscientists and sponsors of research best foster debate and wise decision-making? Overall, how can the academic community and the public both become better engaged with neuroscience? Drawing on an emerging Canadian model, we will call for a paradigm shift that embraces the early and proactive inclusion of all types of experts - neuroscientists and geneticists, ethicists, philosophers and others - in the research process.

Three cheers for the Canadian model!

The pangs are hitting me and there’s an interesting book called ‘Design 1935-1965: What Modern Was’ lying next to me. I think I’ll read this for a bit and then fill my belly and haul the offical SFN murse around a little more.

SFN Visuals

The conference is officially over and I finally have time to digest the copious amounts of acronyms and graphs that have been impinging on my eyes over the past week. Beyond the poster sessions, there were a few other things that caught my eye.

One of the many hallways.

The Massive B1 lecture hall.

The Grad and Post-Doc Social.

Centennial Park and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society’s Light the Night campaign.

A few more.

A Brazilian bakery for birthday cake purposes and late-night sandwiches.

The area where my hotel is in is largely hispanic, with most of the signs in Spanish. I did my laundry last night and the owner could not speak English. Her son, not more than 8 years old, had to translate for her. Needless to say the area differs a bit from the CNN Center. I like it out here.

And of course random smattering of odd SFN postering during the last minutes of the conference.

SFN: Friday and Saturday. Some of it.

I figured it was time to write this, although I will be travelling back in time slightly.

Friday, October 13

Neurobiology of Disease: So, my alarm didn’t work. Surprisingly I was still up by 8 AM. This didn’t cut it for making it to the workshop on time, however. After figuring out the MARTA system I arrived late and walked in just as an ALS patient was describing her condition. Unfortunately I missed the patient with SMA. The overall tone of the workshop was technical and given my background is heavily weighted to neuroimaging, all the signaling pathways tended to go over my head.

I was particularly bad and started to put the finishing touches on my NSERC application during the workshop. The plan was to dine and dash during the lunch and get everything finished, but the arrangement of the tables were so pretty and we had the chance to sit with lecturers who were running mini-talks after the lunch, so I headed to the table with Dr. Jeremy Shefner from New York and Dr. Martin Turner from Oxford.

Both Dr. Shefner and Martin lead the discussion wonderfully and although the emphasis was on the physiology of ALS, there was some neuroimaging. I mentioned people (read: superiors whose projects I’m quite removed from) at my lab are working on DTI of the spinal cord. This looks to be a very interesting field, and as Dr. Martin mentioned, a biomarker for ALS is need. DTI could be the answer. It might just be, as these things tend to go, that an accident in the lab yields something to this effect, much like the current drug Rilutek was discovered when some floor cleaner was walloped and contaminated a chemical sample lying on the bench.

Naturally I asked Dr. Martin about Oxford. He said Worcester College is beautiful and that I should go even if the Rhodes drops away. Damnit! Why do you have to be so inspiring and yet so debt-inducing!

I skipped out on the second talk and reception to finish my NSERC application for graduate neuroscience. Unfortunately the Kinkos/FedEx was closed by the time I wrapped things up. I sent the package the following morning, but it will only be arriving in Ottawa Monday morning, a day after the deadline. I’m hoping the online application is counted as meeting the deadline, while the paper is just a required hard copy. But it can’t help my application. Regardless, thanks to Dr. Martin I don’t care as much if the application doesn’t go through. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

Saturday, October 14

The day started off late. I had made plans to meet Shelley by the giant peach, but phone problems and rail connections promptly snuffed that plan out. I spent a lot of time wandering around, staring aimlessly at the massive crowds. Frank Gehry’s talk was the first lecture of the day that I attended. The thing is, I’m a fan of architecture discussions, provided it isn’t too post-modern, and although Gehry’s work is weird, I kind of like it. So, whatever came out of the man’s mouth, I was going to enjoy it. I had seen snippets of the documentary on Frank Gehry before leaving Winnipeg, so it felt somewhat homely walking in the massive B1 Exhibit hall and seeing the documentary being played on massive screens. Somewhat. Gehry went through his buildings, giving the audience a photo tour of his work and the process that gets him there. I was taken aback though at the lack of neuroscience in the talk. There was tremendous opportunity to touch on perception, on acoustics, on geometry, and the only major questions coming from the audience and Rusty Gage were about creativity.

I headed to the International symposium on Neuroethics after Gehry’s talk. After being squeezed through the doors of B1 like a sardine, of course. The attendance at the symposium was a lot lower than I had expected, but I found it fascinating nonetheless.

More to come, but I must prepare to present my poster tomorrow and get ready for the Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience Social.

And sleep. Yes, that too.

SFN: Preamble

It’s done. Rhodes application, check. Commonwealth application, check. UCAS application, check. NSERC application, check. Poster not lost yet, check. I can now finally relax and enjoy the conference. I’d like to post about the Neurobiology of Disease workshop I participated in this morning but it looks like one last early morning for me. More tomorrow.