reptile-eye-1217

The Lurking Lizard

He has haunted us for more than fifty years – this strange scientist, with his theory of primal reptiles embedded in each of us. And for years I wondered, Could this bizarre hypothesis be true? Might it explain the ancient instincts – so contrary to my intentions – which I felt arising from the depths of my unconscious mind? Could it really be possible that inside my primate brain lurked a vicious lizard mind, a relic from the era when reptiles ruled the earth?

As it turns out… no, actually. The theory – if not the man who coined it – has proven outright insane in light of the latest scientific research. And yet, speakers and writers around the globe continue to trumpet the truth of the idea.

Let me lay the facts bare for you, and explain the enduring appeal of this weird  theory, in my latest article for Scientific American: “Revenge of the Lizard Brain!”

“There’s a scene in Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas in which the writer, high out of his mind on hallucinogens, watches a roomful of casino patrons transform into giant lizards and lunge at each other in bloody combat. Under the veneer of civilization, the scene suggests, we’re all still reptiles, just waiting for the moment to strike.

Like the Fear & Loathing scene, the Triune Brain idea holds a certain allegorical appeal: The primal lizard – a sort of ancestral trickster god – lurking within each of us. But today, writers and speakers are dredging up the corpse of this old theory, dressing it with some smart-sounding jargon, and parading it around as if it’s scientific fact…”

bell-witch-cave

The Listeners from Below

Deep within your brain, they are listening. In still silence, they await signals from afar – dim echoes of distant calls. And when they hear what they’ve been waiting for… they will awaken.

They are known as neural stem cells – and not only are they real; researchers have just made some major discoveries about how they work. Those discoveries demonstrate that what seems like a biological accident may in fact be a crucial component of a delicate process.

Let me tell you the tale, in my new article for Scientific American: “What Your Neural Stem Cells Aren’t Telling You.”

In 2000, a team of neuroscientists put an unusual idea to the test. Stress and depression, they knew, made neurons wither and die – particularly in the hippocampus, a brain area crucial for memory. So the researchers put some stressed-out rats on an antidepressant regimen, hoping the mood boost might protect some of those hippocampal neurons. When they checked in a few weeks later, though, the team found that rats’ hippocampuses hadn’t just survived intact; they’d grown whole new neurons – bundles of them. But that was only the beginning…

Chemistry woman

Brains and Brilliance

Where in the brain, exactly, is intelligence? Is a high I.Q. just a result of a flawed test – or do high-I.Q. brains have specific, measurable differences from others? Answers await, Intrepid Reader – but first we have to make sure we’re asking the right questions.

Let’s start with the big news: a study just published in the Journal of Neuroscience reports that when a certain area of the frontal lobe has unusually wide and active connectivity, a higher I.Q. tends to follow. The trouble is, though, that a high I.Q. only reflects certain types of mental abilities – so what this discovery really means is that a certain functional network in the brain plays a major role in certain kinds of smart thinking.

In fact, it makes perfect sense that the brain region we’re talking about here – the left lateral prefrontal cortex (lPFC) – would be central to the kinds of thought processes that earn you high I.Q. scores: namely, arranging logical steps and figuring out abstract rules. The wider and stronger the lPFC’s connections are, the more neural processes it can involve in its orderly calculations. And yet, while there’s no doubt that those calculations are some of the human brain’s most powerful and effective abilities, they’re only a few of the many skills we recognize as “intelligent.”

The limitations of I.Q. tests are rooted in the 19th century, when British and American scientists began developing the first intelligence tests. In those days, a commonly accepted assumption was that people of European descent had the highest intelligence on earth – so, naturally enough, researchers came up with tests on which well-educated Westerners tended to score the highest. And this might all just be an embarrassing historical footnote – except that today’s I.Q. tests still produce racially and culturally biased results.

The left lateral prefrontal cortex puts on an awesome laser light show for the whole brain.

What’s more, the reasons for those biases aren’t always clear-cut: a person’s individual attitudes about tests, school, and intelligence may influence his or her score as much as any cultural bias in the test questions. (Having grown up in a small town in West Texas, I know firsthand how it feels to be pressured to hide your intellect – even to be ashamed of it.)

Meanwhile, studies have found that it’s fairly easy to “outsmart” an I.Q. test – to teach students tricks and tactics for achieving high scores. This would seem to imply either 1) that a few weeks of practice drills can significantly raise a person’s intelligence, or 2) that the test is just measuring proficiency in a specific set of teachable skills.

In the later half of the 20th century, researchers like David Wechsler tried to expand the range of I.Q. tests, developing much more precise metrics for assessing verbal skills, spatial reasoning, ability to identify patterns, and so on. But by the early 1980s, researchers like Howard Gardner were insisting that some kinds of intelligence – and, in fact, many aspects of what we call “genius” – simply can’t be measured with a system like I.Q. assessment.

Gardner’s theory of “multiple intelligences” distinguishes linguistic and logical types of intelligence – the types that result in high I.Q. scores – from types like musical intelligence (the ability to recognize and compose pitch and rhythm) and intrapersonal intelligence (the ability to understand one’s own motivations and feelings).

Today, though, researchers have narrowed the field down to two intelligences: fluid intelligence (the ability to solve problems in novel situations) and crystallized intelligence (the ability to remember facts and use specific skills). Even so, it’s clear that intelligence isn’t just one attribute, but an interrelated collection of traits.

So when this new study’s co-author, Todd Braver, explains his team’s results, he’s careful not to overstate his case:

Part of what it means to be intelligent is having a lateral prefrontal cortex that does its job well; and part of what that means is that it can effectively communicate with the rest of the brain.

In other words, a well-connected lPFC is a handy thing to have, but it’s just one aspect of intelligence. It’s definitely got its benefits – it keeps you open-minded, and it may even help you stick to a healthier diet. On the other hand, it also makes you more likely to experience anxiety and depression, to develop schizophrenia, to enjoy drugs (especially psychotropics), and to suffer all kinds of expectation frustration. The upside of all these discoveries, though, is that the better we understand this lPFC network, the more precisely we’ll be able to diagnose and treat these kinds of troubles.

As you can see, intelligence (in all its many-splendored forms) isn’t exactly a process or a trait – it’s more a way of connecting; of assembling disparate thoughts, feelings and ideas into Gestalts: wholes that become more than the mere sum of their parts. That connectivity can be both a blessing and a curse – but in any case, it’s one of the core reasons your brain can conceive such strange and unique ideas as art and language – and even turn inward and contemplate itself.

microchip

Memories on a Microchip

Are your memories real? How do you know?

These sound like questions from a mind-bending thriller – Total Recall, say; or Inception. But this isn’t science fiction. Researchers around the world are implanting memories, turning them on and off – and, according to one team, storing them on microchips.

Wow. Okay. Let’s back up here.

Memories, as it turns out, aren’t the most stable things in the world. Our long-term memories are more like scripts for plays than files on a hard drive – and with each new performance, details change. In fact, our brains can easily rewrite our memories to fit with the socially accepted versions of events – we don’t even seem to notice the difference.

Colin Farrell suddenly forgets which room of the maze contains his delicious cheese.

All of which is weird, to be sure. But it gets weirder.

In 2011, researchers at Wake Forest University and the University of Southern California developed “memory chips” that can be used to turn specific memories on and off in a mouse’s brain. With the flick of a switch, a mouse forgets all he knows about how to navigate a maze – and with a flick in the other direction, the little guy recalls everything in a sudden flash of insight.

And in early 2012, scientists at the Scripps Research Institute electronically inserted memories into the brains of mice. In other words, they figured out which specific neurons in a mouse’s brain fire when it recognizes a familiar place – then they inserted a microchip that artificially stimulated those same neurons to fire as the mouse walked into an unfamiliar room.

This resulted in something deeply bizarre:

When an ensemble of neurons for one context (ctxA) was artificially activated during conditioning in a distinct second context (ctxB), mice formed a hybrid memory representation.

In other words, the mice instantly formed a memory of a place they’d never seen before: an artificial hybrid memory. No suit-clad agents or Edith Piaf songs needed. But even that isn’t the really weird part. Are you ready for the really weird part?

The scientists took their memory microchip and put it into another mouse’s brain – and that mouse apparently experienced the same hybrid memories.

Could technology like this be used to restore memory in brain-damaged patients? Could it disarm the emotional pain of a traumatic memory, while leaving the recollection itself intact? Would saving our memories digitally help preserve their original accuracy?

As you can imagine, questions like these have sparked a riot of blog posts declaring that The Matrix is upon us, thought control is now a reality, whole memories and learned behaviors can be transferred from one brain to another – you get the drift. If you want to call a simple “recognition alert” a full-fledged memory… be my guest, I guess – but I want to see what happens when other labs try to replicate this experiment; in particular, I want to see how more complex brains respond.

Most of all, though, I feel a war churning within me when I think about testing this technology on humans. Half of me hopes it doesn’t work at all, and half of me wants to be first in line to try it out. I yearn to understand it from the inside, subjectively; to know how it feels to believe a true falsehood; to examine the memories that compose my “self,” and to see for myself just how fragile it is.

All of which is, of course, terrifying. Which is exactly why it fascinates me.

 

1024+-+eyes

Lying Eyes

Despite what you may have heard, you can’t tell if a person’s lying by watching their eyes. If you’re surprised, you’re not alone – I thought that theory made a lot of sense until I read this new study.

As it turns out, the eye idea just doesn’t line up with the evidence. As far as scientists can tell, there’s no correlation at all between eye direction and lying.

Eye movement and dishonesty do have one connection: Some studies back in the 1970s found links between lying and lack of eye contact. Then again, other studies found that eye contact got stronger as people lied. Anyway, Richard Bandler and John Grinder, two practitioners of a pseudo-science called Neuro-Lingustic Programming (NLP) decided to run with the idea, and began claiming that a look to the left implies fantasy or dishonesty, while a look to the right indicates honest recollection. Google it, and you’ll find loads of pages claiming this is scientific fact.

Scientific research also finds that bugs are icky and vegetables are not good to eat.

But the “scientific” support for this idea is absurdly thin – NLP practitioners claim that a look to the left signals usage of the “left, logical brain” while a look to the right signals usage of the “right, feeling brain.” For one thing, this makes no sense in light of the brain’s actual anatomy – we know that each eye actually sends half its signals to the left hemisphere and the other half to the right – but it also implies that the NLP folks have a wealth of data on the subject… data that simply doesn’t exist.

And now, the journal PloS ONE reports, a team led by Richard Wiseman at the University of Hartfordhsire have put this NLP theory to the test. They recorded the eye movements of dozens of volunteers as they lied or told the truth:

In Study 1 the eye movements of participants who were lying or telling the truth were coded, but did not match the NLP patterning. In Study 2 one group of participants were told about the NLP eye-movement hypothesis whilst a second control group were not… No significant differences emerged between the two groups. Study 3 involved coding the eye movements of both liars and truth tellers taking part in high profile press conferences. Once again, no significant differences were discovered.

In short, the researchers couldn’t find any correlation between lying, truth-relling and eye movement.

So why do so many people feel that they improve at lie detection when they watch a person’s eyes? The researchers have an idea:

One possibility is that people are more confident in their lie detection abilities when they believe that they are following a scientific theoretical framework, such as that seemingly provided by NLP.

And that’s a very good point – belief in your own abilities, whether it’s bolstered by religion, science or pseudo-science, seems to inspire confidence, courage and higher performance on all sorts of tasks. According to psychological evidence, what you place faith in isn’t anywhere near as important as the faith itself.

As some band once said, Don’t Stop Believing – just make sure you know what’s belief, and what’s real science.

 

 

640_FemaleOrgasm

Sexy Neuroscience III

Female orgasm is a topic shrouded in mystery – not just for sexually awkward boyfriends, but for biologists too. We know, for example, that lots of animals have clitorises, yet a surprising number of female mammals don’t seem to experience orgasms at all.

This has led researchers to some new discoveries and debates – and some intriguing new theories – about the “what,” the “when,” and the “why” of the female orgasm.

At first glance, the “why” might seem like the easiest question to answer: We have orgasms because they feel great. But from an evolutionary perspective, the answer isn’t so obvious. Sure, it makes sense for male orgasms to feel great, because males who have lots of orgasms can produce lots of children – but a female doesn’t need to have an orgasm to fertilize her eggs. In fact, it’s in her genes’ best interest for her to fight off most of the sexual advances she gets, so she doesn’t end up carrying the offspring of some random loser.

When we look at what some of the things that happen in a woman’s body during orgasm, though, we start to find some clues about how sexual pleasure actually does help her select mates. For example, the muscle contractions involved in a woman’s orgasm help push sperm up into the uterus – while some studies have found that similar contractions can push sperm away from the uterus if a woman isn’t a huge fan of her partner. In other words, orgasm, or lack thereof, may be a way for women’s bodies to instinctively accept or reject a mate.

Some researchers think another part of the answer may actually lie in male anatomy. For example, in her book “The Case of the Female Orgasm,” Elisabeth Lloyd argues that because male and female sexual anatomy is so structurally similar (the clitoris, for example, is almost identical to the head of the penis), women can have orgasms – essentially – because men can.

It’s a view that’s taken a lotta heat, in both the mainstream press and the scientific community. One counter-argument that’s been gaining traction says that if female orgasm is directly related to male orgasm, we should expect to find very similar orgasmic function in genetically similar opposite-sex pairs – twins, for example – but no one’s yet been able to find any such correlation. In fact, one recent study found that while same-sex twins do share similar orgasmic function, opposite-sex twins don’t. But then again, that study has been criticized for using self-reported data, which means the jury’s still out on that particular angle of the debate.

Another recent self-reported study, by Brendan Zietsch of the University of Queensland and Pekka Santtila of Finland’s Abo Akedemi University, seems to deepen the mystery even further. Zietsch and Santtila found that the ability of a particular woman to have an orgasm doesn’t seem to have anything to do with…well, with much of anything, apparently:

We found zero to weak phenotypic correlations between all three orgasm rates and all other 19 traits examined, including occupational status, social class, educational attainment, extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism, impulsiveness, childhood illness, maternal pregnancy stress, marital status, political liberalism, restrictive attitudes toward sex, libido, lifetime number of sex partners, risky sexual behavior, masculinity, orientation toward uncommitted sex, age of first intercourse, and sexual fantasy. Furthermore, none of the correlations had significant genetic components.

In short, a woman’s orgasm ability doesn’t appear to be statistically correlated with her psychology, financial status, sexual behavior – or even her genes. Looks like we may still be a long way from understanding what makes some women more orgasmic than others.

Maybe some of those women could try ritually appeasing Aphrodite – ya know, in the interest of Science and all.

On the other hand, the question of “when” – i.e., when in our evolutionary history female orgasm became important – may provide some interesting clues to the “what” and “why” puzzles.

Some biologists claim that certain female mammals – pigs and several monkey species, for example – don’t experience orgasm at all. Debates about these questions continue to rage, though, because the definition of female orgasm can be hard to pin down in other species. We can’t exactly ask a gibbon, “Was it good for you?” so we’re left with a hodgepodge of techniques – mostly analyses of vocalizations and other behavioral indicators.

Meanwhile, Concordia University neurochemist Jim Pfaus has found that female rats’ brains respond to clitoral stimulation almost identically to the way human brains do (in answer to your burning question, Pfaus and his grad students pleasure their lady rats with little paintbrushes). And since even reptiles like crocodiles have clitorises, it seems likely that female sexual pleasure – at least, from clitoral stimulation – was hard-wired into vertebrate brains long before mammals even existed.

Since animals with such different bodies seem to respond so similarly to sexual pleasure, what exactly constitutes a female orgasm may depend on a species’ biology – and maybe even on the individual female – more than any hard-and-fast definition can easily accomodate. As just about any woman will tell you, no two women are alike when it comes to sex – and that actually hints at a profound idea about female sexual pleasure: Unlike in males, it’s not so much an incentive to just have sex period, but to have it with the right partners in the right ways.

So if you’re a woman, be proud of your pickyness – it’s built into your biology. And if you’re a sexually awkward boyfriend… well, just remember that learning what she likes is a big part of the fun.

110915091625-large

Aliens in the Lab

Researchers are creating new lifeforms that are chemically unrelated to any other life on earth. In fact, for the first time ever, scientists in Japan have built an artificial synapse, from the molecules up. What?! How can this be? Read on, intrepid voyager of the unknown, and discover for yourself.

The basic idea is that a team of researchers have built an inorganic synapse, and taught it to change its connectivity patterns in response to different sorts of chemical signals.

The “inorganic” part is a big deal, because, as far as we know, all synapses in nature – and in fact, all life on earth – is organic (carbon-based). That means biological chemistry is based on carbon, as well as on elements like hydrogen and nitrogen, which like to interact with carbon in all kinds of badass ways. Lots of other elements on earth – most of them, in fact – are excluded from playing major roles in biochemistry because (for a whole variety of reasons) they don’t play well with carbon. So, while there’s no scientific consensus that life has to be carbon-based, all life on earth certainly does seem to be.

Which brings us to the idea of inorganic life – life that’s not based on carbon. In theory, silicon always looked like the top contender, because it also likes to hook up with hydrogen, in its own kinky range of ways. But for decades, silicon-based life was sci-fi stuff – until, in the past few years, researchers began to have success creating silicon-based cells.

Because deep down, mad scientists really just want to play with LEGO kits.

I gotta make this clear: we’re not talking about using silicon parts (like computer chips) to simulate biological components – no. This is actual working biology, from the molecular level up. These silicon cells are alive. In cutting-edge labs around the world, alien lifeforms are being born.

And now, a Japanese team have tackled silicon-based biochemistry from an intriguing new angle, the journal Advanced Functional Materials reports. Instead of building inorganic cells from scratch, these researchers have focused on synapses – points of contact between neurons, where electrochemical information is exchanged. In the human nervous system, the ions potassium (K+), sodium (Na+), chlorine (Cl-), and calcium (Ca2+) help control the way these signals are passed on (here’s more detail on how this works).

But for silicon-based synapses, the ion of choice is copper sulfide (Cu2S):

The plasticity of the Cu2S inorganic synapse is controlled depending on the interval, amplitude, and width of an input voltage pulse stimulation.

In short, this silicon synapse changes its connections with its neighbors based on the rhythm and power of stimulation it receives – just like organic neurons do. So this isn’t a simulation of a synapse – it actually is a synapse. And it changes and grows just as organic synapses do:

Time-dependent scanning tunneling microscopy images of the Cu-protrusions grown in air and in vacuum provide clear evidence of the influence of air on their stability.

I think that right there is the most incredible part of the whole story – the researchers got the synapse to grow new copper-based connections with its neighbors. In organic nervous systems, this ability to form new connections in response to specific stimuli is what allows organisms to learn. So not only can the silicon synapse communicate with its neighbors – the system as a whole can learn and adapt.

Not bad for a form of life that’s only existed for a few months. Whatever happens with this particular project, our near future is gonna hold some challenging questions about what we really mean when we say “alive”- and about the ever-blurrier boundary between simulation and actuality.

What do you think – can we handle our new-found power?

budgeting-tips-budget-for-the-bad-habits

Podcast 3 – Habits: Making ‘Em & Breaking ‘Em

On episode 3 of the Connectome podcast, Ben digs into our habits: why they form, why they stick, and how to break ‘em. But he also shares some insights on making your habits work for you – to motivate you to stay fit and productive.

Play

 

Click here to subscribe in iTunes.

Here’s a direct link to download the mp3.

Enjoy, and feel free to email us questions and suggestions for next time!

 

(Produced by Devin O’Neill at The Armageddon Club)

Senior man looking in refrigerator at night   Original Filename: 73032480.jpg

Sleep, Stress and Snacks

A lack of sleep makes our brains go nuts for unhealthy food, says a new study.

When sleep-deprived people are shown images of junk food, fMRI scans show that their brains’ reward centers light up with far more intense anticipation than those of people who’ve slept a full night. The Fourthmeal marketing team, I assume, are grinning knowingly.

The relationship between cravings and conscious control is a complex one, and studies have found that the balance between the two can easily be tilted. Under stress, our brains are much more likely to return to old junk-food and drug addictions, as well as other bad habits like nail-biting.

We know this not just from psychological research, but from years of fMRI studies showing that stress weakens activity in areas like the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) – parts of the brain that are crucial for self reflection, regulation of emotions, and conscious decision-making. Meanwhile, studies show that stress changes the connectivity of our brain’s more primitive “reward” areas, such as the nucleus accumbens and the ventral tegmental area.

The overall effect of these changes is that when you’re feeling stressed – whether it’s about money, lack of sleep, or just a feeling of hunger – your normal self control begins to lose the struggle against your desires for quick gratification.

As a matter of fact, the brains of people exposed to chronic stress often lose (or fail to develop) healthy connectivity between the OFC and those ancient reward centers – a trait that’s found in the brains of many psychopaths. So when you’re operating on an empty stomach or four hours of sleep, you could say that your brain has quite literally gone a little bit psycho.

"Hold all my calls, Peggy - I've got to finish this cost/benefit analysis."

This new study, led by Marie-Pierre St-Onge at Columbia University, focused on another type of stress-related change in brain activity: reward centers’ responsiveness to images of healthy vs. unhealthy foods in the brains of sleep-deprived people:

The same brain regions activated when unhealthy foods were presented were not involved when we presented healthy foods. The unhealthy food response was a neuronal pattern specific to restricted sleep.

In other words, even healthy people with strong self control can turn into sugar addicts when they’re running on less than a full night’s sleep. These results also confirm a fact discovered in some earlier studies: that sleep-deprived people eat more, in general, than their well-rested counterparts do.

Indeed, food intake data from this same study showed that participants ate more overall and consumed more fat after a period of sleep restriction compared to regular sleep. The brain imaging data provided the neurocognitive basis for those results.

In short, it’s clear that stress, sleep and eating disorders are all intimately linked – not just psychologically, but also in terms of the brain’s physical structure and functionality.

So if you’re trying to break a bad habit, make sure you’re getting plenty of healthy food and a solid eight hours every night. And if you’re running on less than a full tank today, give yourself the benefit of some extra patience and compassion – the rewards are worth it.

7d1-chk-nf-h-3

Skin Into Brain II

For the first time in history, scientists have reprogrammed a whole batch of skin cells into a self-organizing, functioning network of brain cells, says a new study.

That’s right, y’all – Dr. Sheng Ding at UCSF is blowin’ up the stem cell research game once again – except this time, instead of just reprogramming individual cells at the genetic level, he’s flipped a molecular switch that tells a whole puddle of ‘em to morph into neurons, hook up with their neighbors, and consolidate into a working neural network.

Also, Prometheus came out this weekend. Coincidence? You decide.

[Quick Lil Note: this announcement is so brand-new that the actual paper hasn't even been released online yet - so I'm goin' off the official press release for right now. I'll keep my eye out for the paper, and post updates/corrections/etc. here as soon as Cell Press makes it available for viewing.]

Induced pluripotent stem cell research has really been booming over the past six years or so, ever since Shinya Yamakana demonstrated that adult somatic cells could be artificially induced to transform into stem cells – and those induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) could, in turn, be told to develop into just about any other kind of cell in a mammalian body.

And just like that, the whole big Stem Cell Controversy became about as relevant as an 8-track player, while biologists got to work cookin’ up batches of iPSCs from skin cells and other tissue, and growing their new stem-cell zombie armies into things like very early-stage human embryos, and mice with two genetic fathers. Why? Because Science! That’s why! If ya scared, go to church.

Seriously, though – just picture this scenario: you’ve got a malignant tumor in your heart, and you’ve got two months to live. You’re not famous or wealthy, so your name isn’t at the top of any transplant recipient lists. But if your insurance will pay for it, a cutting-edge lab will grow new heart parts from your own cells – perfectly healthy, good-as-new, and 100 percent guaranteed to be biologically compatible. All that’s left is to remove the tumor, stick in the new bits, and let your body’s natural repair mechanisms take over from there.

Now imagine the same principle holds true for every organ and tissue in your body, and you can see why formidable stacks of cash are being thrown at this field right now.

Anyway, as you might expect from all this meddling with the fabric of life itself, the long-term results haven’t been perfect. For one thing, mice grown from iPSCs have a tendency to develop cancer. The rate is fairly low – around 20 percent – but that’s still enough to raise some yellow flags about using iPSCs to heal human tissue.

Another major hurdle for iPSCs right now is the frustratingly low rate at which ordinary cells can be successfully converted into iPSCs at all – the world’s top-tier teams are getting success rates in the .01-.1 percent range. For the less mathematically inclined, that’s a success rate of less than one percent. It’s improving, but only gradually.

One of the problems that really keeps stem cell researchers up at night, though, is how to create a sustainable batch of induced neural stem cells (iNSCs) – stem cells that can be trained to grow into all sorts of neurons.

This right here? This is a serious neural network. I mean, Ding & Co. need a new target to shoot for now. Just sayin'.

A lot of teams have tried to work with iNSCs – a group led by Su-Chun Zhang at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health made a valiant attempt back in 2010 – but (and here I’m going to use some Official Scientific Jargon, so bear with me) “The cells always just kept doing a bunch of random shit.” In other words, the iNSCs failed to cooperate with the godlike masters who had endowed them with life.

That’s where Sheng Ding and his team at UCSF enter our tale, the journal Cell Stem Cell reports. Over the past couple years, Ding and his team have earned a reputation as world-class iPSC masters – mainly because of their (relatively) high success rates at reprogramming adult cells from humans and mice into iPSCs, and converting those iPSCs to all sorts of other cell types.

So when Dr. Ding heard all this whining about iNSCs, he just stepped right up and threw down, like, “Get on my level!”

Within days [our] skin cells transformed into early-stage brain stem cells, also called induced neural stem cells (iNSCs). These iNSCs began to self-renew, soon maturing into neurons capable of transmitting electrical signals. Within a month, the neurons had developed into neural networks.

How’d he manage to sustain viable iNSCs – not to mention make them cooperate? Wish I knew. I’m still waiting for the actual paper – I’ll post updates as soon as Cell Press releases it and I can read through the details.

Ding says he thinks iNSCs will prove to be beneficial not just for healing brain damage and studying diseases like Parkinsons, but also for growing complex neural networks to precise specifications – then testing and modifying at will.

Which makes me wonder…what if someday soon, we start growing neural networks designed to test, say, pain responses? How might we feel about causing them pain, if we knew this was their purpose? And even more intriguingly, if several teams have already bred viable mice from iPSCs, how long can it be until we’re growing humans from them?

…or just humanoid brains…?

How would you react if you saw the headline, “Working Human Brain Grown in Lab” on the front page of the New York Times one morning? What would it mean to you?

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: free Drupal themes | Thanks to hostgator coupon and cheap hosting
Social links powered by Ecreative Internet Marketing