The Grim Reaper of Rodents

When meeting new people, the question of “What do you do for a living?” will come up. I answer, “I’m a researcher in neurobiology, I look into how the connections are built between neurons”. Then I internally cringe slightly, and wait for the follow up questions, that sometimes lead to “So where do you get the neurons from?”. The fact that I perform animal experiments is not something I like to advertise. I have on more than one occasion, been vehemently attacked for abusing animals because I perform biological research. In my opinion, animal experimentation does not always equate to abuse, but given the latest vitriol that has been tossed my way, I am starting to have my doubts. As scientists we use the word sacrifice, to describe when an animal is killed.  Are we hiding behind a word to hide the fact that as scientists, we are all grim reapers?

My research involves the use of rodents (mice and rats), and they do not retire after my experiments are done, they expire. I do not relish in the fact that their lives are lost for my work. I like rodents, and have even had them as pets – mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits and hamsters. 

As a scientist, I am prone to doing literature searches, so as a consequence, I have been looking at the 'other' side (ie. reading about PETA and animal rights blogs), and taking their arguments seriously.  As a tool for self-reflection, I think it is a worthwhile exercise.  Although prone to sensationalism, these blogs do tell truths. For example, from PETA:

“More than 100 million mice and rats are killed in U.S. laboratories every year. But even though these animals feel pain and suffer as much as dogs, cats, and rabbits do, they are excluded from the meager federal Animal Welfare Act provisions that extend at least some protection to these other species. Because mice and rats are not protected by the law, experimenters don't even have to provide them with pain relief. “

These statements are correct. But I think they miss one point. Even though something may not be required by law -- to provide pain relief, or respect the fact that they are social animals and should not be caged alone -- it does not mean that we as scientists, do not strive to provide it. We are still human, and have heart-strings pulled by those cute furry little guys. 

My goal has been to treat all of my mice and rats with compassion – mice kept together as small groups for social interaction, actions taken when signs of stress or illness are seen, etc. I have even added toys for enrichment, although not required for experimental outcome. Okay, sometimes they were tubes from the spent paper towel rolls, and hand-made paper balls, or ice cubes. But because I have had rodents as pets, I remembered what they liked to play with and acted accordingly, and automatically. And in my experience, there is an incentive to keeping you rodents happy, outside of the innate desire to treat  animals kindly. Although not scientifically tested, happy mice have good neurons, which in turn, are good for my experiments, which means I don’t need to repeat them more than necessary, and that means there is less need for me to kill.

During my career, I have personally been responsible for killing both rats and mice, in what is considered a humane way:  with as little stress or pain possible. That means never killing mice in front of each other (seriously, the horror!), and a lethal dose of sedative before any surgery is started. I then try to make use of every neuron in worthwhile experiments, and hope that the results from those experiments help the greater good of obtaining knowledge; and that in whole karmic balance of the universe, I will be forgiven for being a grim reaper of rodents. 

Turns out I am not alone in this view of karmic balance. To paraphrase his holiness the Dali Lama, when asked at a neuroscience conference if he thought animal experiments were in line with Buddhist beliefs, he replied “Buddhist belief is about searching for knowledge. If animal experiment brings knowledge, okay. But should it also respect the animal, use as few animals as possible, and without pain”.

Is animal experimentation inevitable? In my opinion, yes. Computer models or data mining will NEVER replace my research which looks at fundamental mechanisms. Simply put, we cannot predict that which we do not know. Can I apply the ideals of compassion and respect to the animals that I use? Yes, even if it does mean going above and beyond what is legally required for the humane treatment of animals. Does this mean I can now ignore animal rights activists? No. As a proponent of the rights of animals, they are likely to bring forth new evidence, new ideas about how to keep animals, and help me to find new ways to treat my mice and rats with the due care and respect they deserve. And by funding research into animal-free tools for scientists, these animal activists "put their money where their mouth is", and at least a few more rodents will be able to get away from grim reapers like me. And that, makes me happy.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.

I was in the process of reading through pubmed, when I came across yet another retraction notice. They seem ubiquitous these days, and truth be told, I often don’t pay attention to them. But a name on this one caught my eye: I knew one of the authors. In fact, I considered them a mentor. I was floored. They were the last person I could envision involved in scientific misconduct. Within the details of the retraction it became apparent, as I suspected, that it was warranted, not due to the direct deceit on the behalf of my mentor; but likely due to the actions of the postdoc who was responsible for performing the experiments, who misrepresented their data in order to secure that high impact publication. Luckily, my mentor prevailed with the help of current (and honest) hardworking lab members, and was able solve (and publish) the mystery of the un-reproducible data. How many of us would have the courage and endurance to attack an issue head-on like that? And this brings me back to all those retraction notices on pubmed. They are not just the work of a few students and postdocs starting their career, but can also be the result of principle investigators. Sometimes it is a case of a single honest oversight; sometimes it’s blatant, purposeful, and repeated deception. How has the pursuit of knowledge and truth become fertile ground for deceit?

Scientists depend on the publication of high-profile scientific papers in high-impact journals to receive ongoing support and funding. This has given rise to the imperative to "publish or perish". Clearly, this will apply pressure to motivate desperate (or fame-hungry) scientists to fabricate or ‘massage’ results. This pressure is not for the principle investigator alone. With the ever-growing postdoc population scrambling for the handful of academic positions available (see postdocalypse), this pressure is trickling down the pipeline. Even students lament the lack impact of their publications, when all they should be concentrating on is learning how to perform good science. To this category may also be added paranoia that other scientists are close to success in the same experiment, which puts extra pressure on being the first one. Luckily, there are a few journals who recognize that this need to continually publish novel results actually hurts the efforts of science, and have started to emphasize the publication of reproduced data and negative results. Interestingly, these journals are also often open-resource. I always joked with my colleagues that I needed to edit my own journals --which I lovingly dubbed NADA (NegAtive DatA), and Scooped -- so I could publish all of my results one day. Turns out I'm not the only one.

There are no "scientific police". The community is left, for the greater part, to police itself. Indeed, the main source of detection comes when others fail to reproduce results. However, in many fields, and biology is a particularly good example, results are difficult to reproduce because of factors inherent in biological systems. That means the if a researcher does falsify or 'massage' the data, there is a high chance of being able to get away with it. They can simply shrug it off as biological improbability. Furthermore, reproducing data is costly and there are few granting agencies that give money for 'unoriginal' work. And being second does not win many accolades. Who was the second person climb Mt.Everest? I don't know either, but everyone knows Edmund Hillary was the first (who would have died without his sherpa Tenzing Norgay the unrecognized hero like the postdocs and students in labs that do the research). 

So what do we do? The academic machine is not nimble. Like a large freighter ship, it will take a lot of energy and time to turn it towards a system that rewards good science, regardless of the impact factor of the journal it is published in. In the meantime, I am going to apply the wisdom I found in this video and apply it to science. I will perform research, not with the end in mind (the paper). Instead, I will enjoy every moment along the way.

Science-fiction = Science-reality

The prospect of mind-reading technology has moved a step closer after scientists established the first brain-to-brain connection.

Using electrodes implanted in the brains of two rats, one rodent was able to pass information to another in a cage thousands of miles away – albeit without knowing it was doing so. The experiment, is the first direct communication link between two minds.

This is they type of research, that even neuroscientists like myself, read with absolute amazement ... Science-fiction is becoming more and more of a reality. That being said, where is my hover car already?

Leaning In.

We as scientists have all heard of ‘the leaky pipeline’. The same issue of retaining women in top management positions occurs in business. Both industries lament the loss of women due to child rearing responsibilities. Although not the only factor, it is the most discussed and after at least three decades into this debate, and it seems we are still not much closer to solution. So what else are we doing?

Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, in a recent piece in The New York Times, she is quoted: “We [women] hold ourselves back in ways both big and small, by lacking self-confidence, by not raising our hands, and by pulling back when we should be leaning in.”

This struck a chord with me. Although I don’t always have questions at seminars, when I do have one, I am more likely to sit back and wait to see if someone else will ask it – because I figure like good ideas, more than one person will think of a good question. And what happens if no one else asks it? There is the internal battle of whether to raise my hand, or just let it go because my question is likely trivial. Simply put, I lack the self-confidence. If you met me you would not call me shy, so where this doubt in my abilities comes from, I will leave for the psychologists to debate. In the meantime, I am going to challenge myself to take Sheryl’s advice, and start leaning in.

Why neurobiologists make the best lovers.

In the spirit of Saint Valentine's day, I decided to look into the neurobiological origins of feelings. The neural substrates for feelings can be found at all levels of the nervous system, from individual neurons to subcortical nuclei and cortical regions. Since neurobiologists have insight into the brain, and the brain is responsible for feelings, that should make us all good lovers ... right?

The prime candidates for the neural substrates of feelings are regions concerned with interoception, which is the sense that continuously monitors the internal milieu and provides the CNS with real-time information on the state of the body. If one considers the main contributors to interoception, in terms of the traditional Valentine's day gifts and activities, it becomes clear why they are tried and true. The main contributors to interoception are chemosensation (the lovely smell of roses), thermo-algic sensation for temperature (romantic dip in a hot tub) and pain perception (I will leave that one to your imagination) and visceral sensation (the fullness of a gut after fancy dinner or eating chocolates). Okay, maybe that's a little simplistic. But if you want to read more I recommend checking out the following recent review: 

Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14, 143-152 (February 2013) | doi:10.1038/nrn3403

OPINION:The nature of feelings: evolutionary and neurobiological origins

Antonio Damasio & Gil B. Carvalho

Science: It's a nerd thing.

We have all heard of ‘the leaky pipeline’. This issue of retaining women in top positions is often attributed to child rearing responsibilities. Although not the only factor, it is the most discussed  and after at least three decades into this debate, it seems we are still not much closer to solution.  So what else are we doing?

Recently I have been inspired by forums for advocacy of women in science that try to attack the problem by promoting gender neutral actions and discussions. One of my current favorites includes ScienceGrrl (http://www.sciencegrrl.co.uk/) – a group that started in response to insipid and tragically sexist attempts at attracting girls to science like this:

Simply put, science is for everyone. We don't need to perpetuate stereotypes to get someone to consider a career in science. 

The Art of Science

Look on any academic or biomedical website, and you will see researchers in the midst of ‘performing’ an experiment: Usually pipeting some ubiquitous pink liquid, wearing a crisp white lab coat and safety glasses. These images are used to reinforce the stereotypical view of scientists as calculating, logical, and knowledgeable. Many would be surprised about the creativity commonly found among people in the laboratory. Throughout my career in biomedical research, I have met many scientists whom were also talented musicians, painters, and photographers. I myself, dabbled with the idea of a degree in fine arts, before making the ‘sensible’ decision to enter neuroscience. This link between the creative and empirical is not merely a rejuvenation of the renaissance and Leonardo Di Vinci. The marriage of art and science persists – not because they are complementary components in our culture – but because they tap into the same creative process for their success.

Not surprisingly, that part of our collective unconscious according to Jungian psychology, is the Artist-Scientist archetype: “They are a builder, an inventor, a seeker, a dreamer, and a thinker. Distracted by their own thoughts, they frequently have to be pulled in out of the rain. They are simultaneously vastly knowledgeable and yet innocent, impulsive yet cautious.” This description not only accurately describes every professor I have worked for, but as my friends can attest, is also a good fit for me too.

If art and creativity inspires and complements the efforts of scientists, what about the inverse relationship? Does science inspire art? Custom DNA portraits allows one to “frame your inner beauty”, producing a print to hang on your wall that is as unique as you. Although this example is rather pedestrian, it does exemplify how art is a medium to explore current culture – in this case, it is the culture of genomic research. In more academic circles, the medical research charity the Wellcome Trust in the UK, and STAGE (Scientists, Technologists and Artists Generating Exploration) in the US, actively engages artists and scientists to work together through the funding of collaboration. These projects involve the creation of new artistic work that has biomedical scientific input into the process, either through a scientist taking on an advisory role or through direct collaboration. This has lead to many dynamic and unique working relationships between poets and speech pathologists, composers and rheumatologists, documentary film directors and psychologists.

Some neuroscientists suggest that the fundamental creative urge and key skills of pre- verbal (i.e. creative) thinking are the same regardless of the mode of expression: artistic or scientific. Patterns of activation during an fMR word association task performed by artists and scientists show strikingly similar patterns of activation in multiple regions of association cortex and areas involved in socio-affective processing. Science educators should take note. We are forever lamenting the lack of students, particularly female, entering into fields of math and science. Fostering appreciation and love of art and the creative process, as something that is a part of science -- rather than apart from it, as in the current education system -- could hold the key to this dilemma. Albert Einstein one said, "The greatest scientists are artists as well". But maybe Einstein was just being biased: He was just a musician after all.

Insane in the Chromatophores

It's a movie that has been out for awhile, but it puts a smile on my face every time.

Turn up the volume, and enjoy!

Nerdoscientist - Origins

Hello world. Welcome to Nerdoscientist, the blog about neuroscience with a nerdy edge. 

I am a nerdoscientist. In more contemporary circles I am referred to as a neuroscientist. As a first post, I thought I should explain the origins of this word, it's meaning, and how to observe and interact with nerdoscientists in their natural habitat.

It was my husband who first coined the word nerdoscientist when he was asked by a friend to explain what it is I do at my work. He felt it accurately described in just one word the "biological, brainy, nerdy, experimenty things" that I did all day, "and oh yeah, there are lasers somewhere in there too." He wasn't being dismissive about what I did for living by making it into a joke. I think he was just tired of trying to understand all those papers I would read, and why I was very upset when my neurons died, etc. To be honest and in his defense, I have no idea about what my husband does either.

Almost instantaneously, it started to become part of our vernacular  Some days I was "in full nerdoscientist mode". Or when there was a party my husband would ask, "Is it just a nerdoscientist thing, or will there be other people?"

As a formal definition, nerdoscientist is a noun, referring to a person of the neuro-scientific community who is passionate about their work. The technical and state-of-the-art aspects of neuroscience inspires and excites them. They are often found in the lab, not only performing experiments, but also hunched over a piece of equipment that has been dismantled in an effort to 'improve it'. On rare occasions, the nerdoscientist may migrate to a party or  pub. Generally genial company and adept at great conversation, they enjoy partaking in alcoholic beverages. But be warned, in the presence of more than one nerdoscientist, these evenings almost inevitably will involve 'talking shop'. 

This blog is for all the nerdoscientists out there. It is a forum for discussing issues that effect us, and celebrate the achievements of fellow nerdoscientists -- always with a healthy dose of humor, and inevitably, with a nerdy edge.