Showing posts with label science communication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science communication. Show all posts

27 January 2010

27 January 2010

Dear readers, I'm acutely aware that my blog has stagnated. I blame FriendFeed and Facebook, where people actually INTERACT with my links and loose thoughts, but the real reason is simply contentment: life is going well at the moment, all things considered, and so I have nothing to say, no tensions to sublimate or at least whine about. Fear not though, I intend to create NEW TENSIONS by having an ABSOLUTELY ALCOHOL-FREE FEBRUARY!

In the meantime, here is the original version of a column I wrote, which, after some peculiar mangling by the editors, was recently published in the local student paper. Readers of this blog will find the text annoyingly simplistic, or at least old hat; I post it here simply to stress that I would never - ever - make such use of question- and exclamation-marks.

The most important thing in life
Christopher Harris

What fascinates me most about the brain is its motivation, the fact that it wants and desires. I'm also acutely aware of the limits of my own free will: eat less, exercise more, study more, be more social, dare to do this, stop doing that; it's like a never-ending struggle with my own will, and I know I'm not the only one frustrated by this experience, especially now, with new year's resolutions failing left and right. So what's going on?

In the middle of your brain you have half a million neurons that release dopamine into your frontal lobes. These neurons form the core of your brain's reward system, which generates your motivation. Rewards, like food, drink, play, sex and addictive drugs, raise dopamine concentrations in your brain, as do learned rewards like money. Unexpected rewards are particularly effective, and dopamine builds up in anticipation of uncertain rewards, making everyone at the bus stop stare at the bend where the bus will appear. Low dopamine concentrations on the other hand make you distracted and disinterested.



Different behaviours are produced by different groups of neurons in the frontal lobes. These neuronal groups run on dopamine, and so the behaviour you feel most motivated to perform at any given moment is that of the group that generates the most dopamine. Eating sweets is easy: with a few simple muscle movements it activates your dopamine neurons through your taste buds. Studying for a distant exam is hard: it requires your full attention and activates your dopamine neurons only indirectly, through your prefrontal cortex, which simultaneously has to inhibit more immediate urges like surfing the web, going out or watching a film. You may have heard of Phineas Gage, who destroyed his prefrontal cortex in an accident and lost his impulse control and his ability to follow plans for the future.

New year's resolutions fail because we make them considering only the wonderful goal, which by itself produces plenty of dopamine, especially when it's new and feels like a fresh start. We don't realize how hard it will be for our prefrontal cortices to provide the new neuronal groups with enough dopamine to make us runregularly, or read in the library, or go to the gym, or in any way compete with the entrenched neuronal groups that have us sit on the couch, or over-eat, or smoke. On a normal day, the further away a goal is, the less attractive it seems, because the further away a reward is, the less dopamine it generates. So the trick to keeping new year's resolutions: be nice to your prefrontal cortex.

There's more to motivation of course, the reward system is enormously complex. This is how I like to think about it though, and it's worked so far. It helped me quit smoking, knowing that the urge was strong because dopamine neurons are covered in nicotine receptors, but that the brain would 'forget' this in a few months and the urge would go away. It helps me understand all kinds of thoughts, habits, excitements and hang-ups. It helps me understand my own brain. Check in next week for another bit of this story, and join the dopamine fan page on Facebook for references and more information.

See you February.

12 September 2009

At the International Neuromodulation Society conference in Seoul 2

05.40. Lesson 1: if you're flying east and have to be up at 5 local time the second morning, do give yourself more than two days to re-set your bodyclock. got maybe 4 hrs sleep. should be interesting. shit. on a train now, practising the talk and wondering whether there really will be 'continental breakfast' at the conference centre.

10.02. The conference is small compared to SfN of course. Maybe 200-250 people here, not enough to fill either of the two 400 seat conference halls where all talks take place. However! There's free coffee and excellent food! And comfy tables in front of the chairs in the conference halls. There's another big hall packed with mammoth booths by Medtroic, St Jude Neuromodulation, Boston Scientific etc. St Jude serves good coffee.











09 December 2008

How compliant do we want our children to be?

Deep tip of the hat to Laura for sharing this seminal paper, due to appear in Nature on Dec 11.

Greely, Shakain, Harris, Kessler, Gazzaniga, Campbel & Farah (2008) Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature.

I'm obviously thrilled to see a paper like this in such a high-impact journal and with such distinguished authors. Few things seem as capable of speeding up scientific development and the spread of a modern, progressive mind-set as does the prospect of widespread brain enhancement. But I want us to acknowledge how enormous this transition will be. Many social norms will not survive the change and many others will need to be updated.

One issue I'm baffled by is how we will think about the use of drugs to make school-children more attentive and compliant. The authors in the current paper call for policy to prevent coercive use of cognitive enhancers in children. But at the end of the day the fact is that teachers are already doing everything they can (often unsuccessfully) to focus the attention of their pupils. A drug that enhances attention seems like a natural next step. Would it damage creative thinking in children if they went through school on Adderall? I guess that's one of the topics the authors call for more research on, but it's also a social or existential issue: how compliant do we want our children to be? I was a hell-raiser in school; I would have been VERY different on Adderall and would be a different person now. But maybe this is just our first shaky step into a new era of responsibe, neuroscientific design of children; maybe the next generations of Ritalin, Adderall and Modafinil will be designed specifically to enhance creative thinking and brain growth (BDNF anyone?).

Anyway, it's a great paper, I strongly recomended it.
"The new methods of cognitive enhancement are 'disruptive technologies' that could have a profound effect on human life in the twenty-first century. A laissez-faire approach to these methods will leave us at the mercy of powerful market forces that are bound to be unleashed by the promise of increased productivity and competitive advantage. The concerns about safety, freedom and fairness, just reviewed, may well seem less important than the attractions of enhancement, for sellers and users alike...

We call for a programme of research into the use and impacts of cognitive-enhancing drugs by healthy individuals...

We call for physicians, educators, regulators and others to collaborate in developing policies that address the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by healthy individuals...

We call for information to be broadly disseminated concerning the risks, benefits and alternatives to pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement...

We call for careful and limited legislative action to channel cognitive-enhancement technologies into useful paths..."


The basic amphetamine (Adderall) molecule. Click to interact (requires Java).