The answer must surely be that the brain is causally connected to the mind and the mind contains and processes information. That is, a conscious subject has knowledge, memory, perception, and the power of reason—I have various kinds of information at my disposal. No doubt I have this information because of activity in my brain, but it doesn’t follow that my brain also has such information, still less microscopic bits of it. Why do we say that telephone lines convey information? Not because they are intrinsically informational, but because conscious subjects are at either end of them, exchanging information in the ordinary sense. Without the conscious subjects and their informational states, wires and neurons would not warrant being described in informational terms.”
The popular interest in the brain means that we increasingly have a “folk neuroscience” that is strongly linked to personal identity and subjective experience. Like folk psychology it is not necessarily very precise, and sometimes wildly inaccurate, but it allows us to use neuroscience in everyday language in a way that wasn’t previously credible for non-specialists.
Folk neuroscience comes with the additional benefit that it relies on concepts that are not easily challenged with subjective experience. When someone says “James is depressed because he can’t find a job”, this may be dismissed by personal experience, perhaps by mentioning a friend who was unemployed but didn’t get depressed. When someone says that “James is depressed because of a chemical imbalance in his brain”, personal experience is no longer relevant and the claim feels as if it is backed up by the authority of science. Neither usefully accounts for the complex ways in which our social world and neurobiology affect our mood but in non-specialist debate that rarely matters. As politicians have discovered it’s the force of your argument that matters and in rhetorical terms, neuroscience is a force-multiplier, even when it’s misfiring.
”Our brains, and how they’re not as simple as we think | Science | The Observer
By the way of ayjay.
(via ayjay)
‘Different kind of stem cell’ possesses attributes favoring regenerative medicine
A research team at Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center say the new and powerful cells they first created in the laboratory a year ago constitute a new stem-like state of adult epithelial cells. They say these cells have attributes that may make regenerative medicine truly possible.
In the November 19 online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), they report that these new stem-like cells do not express the same genes as embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) do. That explains why they don’t produce tumors when they grow in the laboratory, as the other stem cells do, and why they are stable, producing the kind of cells researchers want them to.
“These seem to be exactly the kind of cells that we need to make regenerative medicine a reality,” says the study’s senior investigator, chairman of the department of pathology at Georgetown Lombardi, a part of Georgetown University Medical Center.
This study is a continuation of work that led to a breakthrough in December 2011 when Schlegel and his colleagues demonstrated that he and his team had designed a laboratory technique that keep both normal as well as cancer cells alive indefinitely — which previously had not been possible.
They had discovered that adding two different substances to these cells (a Rho kinase inhibitor and fibroblast feeder cells) pushes them to morph into stem-like cells that stay alive indefinitely. When the two substances are withdrawn from the cells, they revert back to the type of cell that they once were. They dubbed these cells conditionally reprogrammed cells (CRCs).
(via neurosciencestuff)
THIS fall, science writers have made sport of yet another instance of bad neuroscience. The culprit this time is Naomi Wolf; her new book, “Vagina,” has been roundly drubbed for misrepresenting the brain and neurochemicals like dopamine and oxytocin. Earlier in the year, Chris Mooney raised similar ire with the book “The Republican Brain,” which claims that Republicans are genetically different from — and, many readers deduced, lesser to — Democrats. “If Mooney’s argument sounds familiar to you, it should,” scoffed two science writers. “It’s called ‘eugenics,’ and it was based on the belief that some humans are genetically inferior.” Sharp words from disapproving science writers are but the tip of the hippocampus: today’s pop neuroscience, coarsened for mass audiences, is under a much larger attack. Meet the “neuro doubters.” The neuro doubter may like neuroscience but does not like what he or she considers its bastardization by glib, sometimes ill-informed, popularizers.
![neurosciencestuff:
Expectant mothers are used to fuzzy images on ultrasound monitors and blood tests to screen for potential health problems in their unborn babies. But what if one of those blood tests came back with a readout of the baby’s entire genome? What if a simple test gave parents every nuance of a baby’s genetic makeup before birth?
Recent studies show that it’s possible to decode an entire fetal genome from a sample of the mother’s blood. In the future, doctors may be able to divine a wealth of information about genetic diseases or other characteristics of a fetus from the pregnant mother’s blood. Such tests will raise ethical questions about how to act on such information. But they could also lead to research on treating diseases before birth, and leave parents and their doctors better prepared to care for babies after birth.
Read more
Are you of afraid of neo-eugenics? [Nature]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9kg82lXju1rog5d1o1_400.png)
Expectant mothers are used to fuzzy images on ultrasound monitors and blood tests to screen for potential health problems in their unborn babies. But what if one of those blood tests came back with a readout of the baby’s entire genome? What if a simple test gave parents every nuance of a baby’s genetic makeup before birth?
Recent studies show that it’s possible to decode an entire fetal genome from a sample of the mother’s blood. In the future, doctors may be able to divine a wealth of information about genetic diseases or other characteristics of a fetus from the pregnant mother’s blood. Such tests will raise ethical questions about how to act on such information. But they could also lead to research on treating diseases before birth, and leave parents and their doctors better prepared to care for babies after birth.
Are you of afraid of neo-eugenics? [Nature]
Stephan Jay Gould blog.
People who carry a “G” instead of an “A” at a specific spot in their genetic code have roughly a six-fold higher risk of developing certain types of brain tumors, a Mayo Clinic and University of California, San Francisco study has found. The findings, published online in the journal Nature Genetics, could help researchers identify people at risk of developing certain subtypes of gliomas which account for about 20 percent of new brain cancers diagnosed annually in the U.S. and may lead to better surveillance, diagnosis and treatment.
Researchers still have to confirm whether the spot is the source of tumors, but if it’s not, “it is pretty close,” says senior author Robert Jenkins, M.D., Ph.D., a pathologist at the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. “Based on our findings, we are already starting to think about clinical tests that can tell patients with abnormal brain scans what kind of tumor they have, just by testing their blood.”
And this is why I study genetics, genomics, etc…
