3×5: Psychiatry, Neuroscience, and Culture Weekly Roundup

My five favorite reads for week of 7–14 May 2012 (organized by date of publication):

Psychiatry

NYT 5/8/12: “Psychiatry manual drafters back down on diagnoses

Sciam blog by Edward Shorter 5/9/12: “Trouble at the heart of psychiatry’s revised rule book

NYT 5/11/12 : “Addiction diagnoses may rise under guideline changes

The Amazing World of Psychiatry’s blog post of 5/12/12: DSM-5 APA Roundup

NYT magazine 5/13/12, “Can you call a 9-year-old a psychopath?”

Neuroscience

Tania Singer’s Neuroimage review published online 1/28/12: “The past, present and future of social neuroscience: A European perspective,” in which “the use of a multi-method and multi-disciplinary research approach combining genetic, pharmacological, computational and developmental aspects is advocated and future directions for the study of interactive minds are discussed.”

UCLA’s Naomi Eisenberger and Steve Cole review published online 4/15/12 in Nature Neuroscience: ”Social neuroscience and health: Neurophysiological mechanisms linking social ties with physical health” and in same issue Meyer-Lindenberg and Tost discuss “Neural mechanisms of social risk for psychiatric disorders.”

The Guardian’s 5/7/12 article and accompanying video:”Quest for the connectome: Scientists investigate ways of mapping the brain

Daniel Lende’s 5/10/12 post:  ”Neuroanthropology, applied research, and developing interventions

h-madness 5/10/12 post on “The filedrawer problem: A resource

Culture

New must-reads in May 2012 Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry by Stanford’s Jocelyn Marrow & @tanyaluhrmann ”The zone of social abandonment in cultural geography: On the street in the United States, inside the family in India” and

Mary Picone’s “Suicide and the afterlife: Popular religion and the standardisation of ‘culture’ in Japan”

Eugene Raikhel of Somatosphere’s 5/12/12 post on Ian Hacking: “The new me: What biotechnology may do to personal identity“). Includes link to 15 min talk and excerpt from an interview with Andrew Lackoff.

In a postscript, Eugene added a link to “Hacking’s own most recent updating of his ‘making up people’ concept …  “Kinds of People: Moving Targets,” where he rejects what he calls his own earlier attempts to retain a notion of ‘natural kinds.’”

Finally, Josh Brahinsky’s “Pentecostal body logics: Cultivating a modern sensorium” published online 5/2/12 in latest Cultural Anthropology.

******* BONUS Nature correspondent Eugenie Samuel Reich 5/9/12 on universal grammar and lingusitic variation in which  Uli Sauerland, who works on syntax-semantics interface, takes on Daniel Everett: “War of words over tribal tongue: Debate highlights pitfalls in studying minority languages.” Also, Paul Bloom’s NYT review of E. O. Wilson’s new book, “The Social Conquest of Earth.”

DSM-5: Plus ça change …

UPDATE 5/17/12: Psychiatrists Paul McHugh and Phillip Slavney’s “Mental Illness – Comprehensive Evaluation or Checklist?” [perspective] in New England Journal of Medicine.

John Gever of MedPage Today, has done a terrific summary of the proposed changes to the DSM (“DSM-5: What’s In, What’s Out“).

The umpteenth person just described the DSM-5 process to me as a major rehaul. Is it? Aside from the changes in how we want to sort the world of persons living with psychiatric disorder (and everyone would agree it’s still a flawed taxonomy as long as we don’t understanding cause), there are two interesting developments that presage better things to come for the next next edition.

The first is the inclusion of cross-cutting dimensional assessments ranging from normal to pathological (consider Tanya Luhrmann’s work on the experience of “hearing voices” in her new book, When God Talks Back). As Gever explains:

These are indicators of severity for certain symptoms. They may be common “cross-cutting” features that appear in conjunction with many disorders, such as suicide risk and anxiety. Or they may be specific to a particular disorder, such as the frequency of flashbacks in PTSD.

The second is the use of biomarkers for sleep-related disorders like narcolepsy.

Many sleep-wake disorders in DSM-5 will require polysomnography for a diagnosis. Also, narcolepsy is set to become narcolepsy/hypocretin deficiency, with the latter condition diagnosed on the basis of hypocretin measurements in cerebrospinal fluid.

Otherwise, as historian Edward Shorter argues in a 5/9 sciam blog post. nothing has essentially changed.

According to Shorter, the main difficulty is that the principal diagnoses of psychiatry are “artifacts.” He goes on to discuss major depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder, specifically. All of these disorders are loosely grouped clusters of symptoms for which we currently lack causal explanations. (The interesting exception is melancholia, which doesn’t appear in the current DSM but which may well be an actual category of illness rather than composed of something that can be ranged along a continuum.)

This matters because, Shorter writes, “[y]ou can’t develop drugs for diseases that don’t exist.”

Lessons from Ten Years of Mixed Methods Graduate Training at UCLA

A few weeks ago I went to the 10th reunion of the the FPR-UCLA Center for Culture, Brain, and Developmen, which was founded in 2002 to foster interdisciplinary research and training at the graduate and postdoctoral level at the intersection of culture, social environment, and human brain development, which included CBD alumni and current trainees as well as CBD faculty, including Mirella Dapretto (Neuroscience), Patricia Greenfield (Developmental Psychology), John Schumann (Applied Linguistics), and Tom Weisner (Anthropology). This post summarizes the meeting and ends with a brief section on “lessons learned.”

Meeting Summary

Eighteen creative young scientists shared experiences and insights, as well as the latest data and observations from ongoing research projects involving mixed methods. Particularly notable over the course of two days was the frequency with which CBDers described how the program has contributed to both a broader and deeper grasp of research topics and issues and a concrete set of skills (in, e.g., qualitative ethnographic research, quantitative/statistical analysis, measuring biomarkers, and performing imaging studies) that has enhanced their understanding and opened doors to participating in collaborative interdisciplinary projects in a variety of research settings around the world.

But the group also discussed the realities of interdisciplinary research – the complexity of integrating levels of analysis (particularly brain research) and the technologies involved, difficulties publishing interdisciplinary work or obtaining funding for research projects, and current job market prospects for interdisciplinary academics. The meeting ended with a resolution to create more space and opportunities for past and present trainees to both advance and promote their work to others as well as to communicate with and support one another given that boundaries between disciplines like psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience are likely to recede even further over the next decade.

The CBD program has not only benefited students in terms of exposing them to interdisciplinary research training, but also UCLA faculty, said MirellaDapretto, CBD director, in her opening remarks. “I can say that I would not have collaborated with some of my colleagues here at UCLA had it not been for the students who brought CBD faculty together,” as well as the opportunity of attending CBD events and teaching the interdisciplinary seminar. CBD has offered its trainees many unique benefits, she continued, including mentoring by faculty members from different disciplines, the gift of time in terms of not having to TA “every single quarter,” and research awards, which have allowed students to travel to different field sites, to perform imaging studies, and to conduct many kinds of quantitative and qualitative research. None of this would have been possible, Dr. Dapretto ended, without the vision of FPR founder, UCLA anthropologist, and documentary filmmaker Robert Lemelson.

Patricia Greenfield also extended a warm welcome to the former and current trainees “who represent all five of our participating PHD programs – anthropology, neuroscience, applied linguistics, education, and developmental and clinical psychology.” Students working with an interdisciplinary team of mentors “have created not one paradigm but many creative paradigms for investigating multiple intersections of culture, brain, and human development.” She said that “because of CBD we’ve had psychology students going into the field in Mexico, Burma, and Korea. We’ve had anthropology students doing child development research, we’ve had applied linguistics and education students doing neuroscience research; and neuroscience students doing cross-cultural and developmental research. Without CBD and FPR this would never have happened.” CBD alums are “all over the world,” she continued, “from Paris, Singapore, Jerusalem and Germany to Michigan, Berkeley, Hawaii, Carnegie Mellon, Delaware, UCLA, USC, and the Cal State system.”

Dr. Greenfield described CBDers as “leading the way in developing new research and new theoretical paradigms” along with fellow students and alumni of similar programs at Emory University (biocultural anthropologist Ryan Brown and neuroanthropologist Daniel Lende are alumni), University of Michigan’s Center for Culture, Mind, and Brain (several CBDers have attended Shinobu Kitayama’s Summer Institute in Cultural Neuroscience) and McGill University’s Division of Social and Transcultural Psychiatry, where social neuroscientist Suparna Choudhury of Max Planck, who is co-founder of an interdisciplinary project on cultural neuroscience, was a postdoc.

After a brief introduction by FPR board member Steve Lopez, human development psychologist and affective neuroscientist Mary Helen Immordino-Yang of USC gave a stimulating keynote presentation (“Embodied brains, social minds: Neurobiological correlates of emotion experience in Beijing and Los Angeles”) that exemplified the kind of mixed-methods, cross-cultural comparative and experience-near research that is being nourished by the FPR and the CBD programs. The data included physiological correlates, imaging studies, and interviews that are sensitive to contextual effects and personal experiences, all related to the processing of emotions. Then, from mid-morning to mid-afternoon, CBD alumni and students gave brief (8 minute) overviews of their work and, frequently, some overall perceptions of the training program.

The themes of of work by current grad students and alums included caregiving practices, language, and social and emotional development from a cross-cultural comparative perspective that brought several different strands of research together.

For example, CBD postdoc Monika Abels, who will be moving in July to the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology (Communcation in Social Species), described her research on culture and nonverbal communication between infants and caregivers in India and Germany, including the relationship between socioeconomic status and social communication, using a variety of methods – observations, videos, interviews, questionnaires, as well as early social communication scales.

Others’ work focuses on atypical development. Kristen Gillespie-Lynch, who is moving to the College of Staten Island in the Fall, focuses on the relationship between deficits in early responsiveness to social stimuli like joint attention and autism. In addition she studies the relationship (and tensions) between two emerging “cultures” of autism: one centered around the “medical model,” the other around the neurodiversity movement.

CBD alum/cultural developmental psychologist Adriana Manago (University of Michigan), who has accepted a tenure-track position at Western Washington University, described her mixed method research on gender and sexual socialization, for example, how cultural changes have shifted gender and sexual development in the US and Chiapas, Mexico.

The last session of the day featured two documentary films by psychological anthropologist Robert Lemelson, who has amassed an extraordinarily rich body of ethnographic film work on culture, development, and mental illness that focuses on the same individuals and families living with psychological trauma, psychotic disorder, depressive illness, grief, and gender-based and political violence over the course of several years.

The first film, “Ngaben: Emotion and Restraint in a Balinese Heart,” which was shot in three days, captures the dark currents of a son’s grief and feelings of regret that underlie his participation in a colorful and festive ngaben, or Balinese cremation ceremony, which is being conducted in his father’s honor. The second film, “Standing on the Edge of a Thorn,” follows a family in rural Indonesia over ten years (mostly from the perspective of the couple’s young daughter), as they struggle with poverty, mental illness, and severe social stigma stemming from the couple’s unmarried status and the wife’s participation in the sex trade. The films provided a basis for a wonderful discussion, which ranged from the technical and ethical aspects of ethnographic filmmaking to morality, suffering, and the importance of recognizing the full complexity of persons and the porous boundaries between persons outside laboratory settings.

Lessons Learned

The group reconvened Saturday morning for a panel on interdisciplinary research and professional development. CBD and UCLA have led the way in terms of institutionalizing a method of doing interdisciplinary research compared to other universities, according to David Frederick and other CBD alums. The program has the advantage of teaching students mixed methods, a skill set that Tom Weisner predicted will be in much demand during the next decade. It also gives trainees a “bird’s eye view” of a particular research topic or theme. CBD additionally offers trainees the possibility of interacting with a wide mix of students and faculty and creating projects they otherwise could not have undertaken. Another advantage Steve Lopez pointed out is that the novel insights which emerge from this kind of experimentally rigorous, interdisciplinary research frequently serve to advance knowledge or otherwise benefit the “home discipline,” in which case disciplinary–interdisciplinary research may be best viewed as a continuum, he added. And in fact some of the most compelling work we heard about the day before illustrated how different factors that emerge at different levels of analysis interrelate.

But the group also discussed some common predicaments that seem to revolve around the fact that quite frequently different disciplines (or subdisciplines) aren’t mutually intelligible. (But as, Tom Weisner wrote in a recent post for Anthropology News, the lingua franca is understanding each other’s methods and research designs – rigorous training at the graduate level in mixed methods can achieve fluency in a second and even third language.) Many agreed that while it is possible to publish interdisciplinary studies in mainstream journals (as long as you “understand the concerns of a particular discipline and position your paper accordingly”) it is much harder to get funding, particularly from the government and particularly given the difficulty of operationalizing culture for grant submissions. (Tom Weisner suggested coming up with “two, three, or four features that should be included in any attempt to invoke culture as part of a mental health study” rather than one all-purpose definition.)

Overall, the consensus appeared to be that trainees should be able to leave CBD and related programs with (1) a well honed set of skills (as Dr. Dapretto observed, it’s important to make interdisciplinarity a “glaring strength” on CVs); (2) a good knowledge of or even relationship with other centers doing cross-cultural research (making this even more of a collective process); (3) a good understanding of where this research can be published, including developing relationships with journal editors, colleagues who serve on editorial boards, and colleagues to suggest as reviewers. (As DonFavareau noted, “until interdisciplinarity gets a foothold in publishing, young researchers in particular will be at a disadvantage by pursuing it.” On the other hand, as Tom Weisner noted, editors in particular are under pressure to increase impact factors, and frequently the most downloaded papers are those that have a “broader constituency”); and finally (4) a solid funding strategy (again, this requires ongoing efforts to “educate” funding agencies about the benefits of interdisciplinary research).

An immediate outlet for this group is the newly launched open access Brain and Behavior journal, which is published by Wiley Open Access (CBD alum Kristin McNealy is managing editor). As one of the participants remarked, the journal, which is open to empirical and theoretical articles linking brain and behavior to cultural and social environment, is (like CBD) clearly “the wave of the future.”

References

Yoshikawa, H., Weisner, T.S., Kalil, A., Way, N. (2008). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Developmental Science: Uses and Methodological Choices. Developmental Psychology 44(2): 344–354.


Tom Weisner: “Mixed Methods Should Be a Valued Practice in Anthropology”

This week Anthropology News is featuring a must-read post by UCLA anthropologist Tom Weisner: Mixed Methods Should Be a Valued Practice in Anthropology.

This is in addition to several thoughtful posts and commentary by biocultural anthropologist Kate Clancy and neuroanthropologist Daniel Lende. See also some great comments to Kate Clancy’s post by Greg Downey and others. Links below.

Also, the next FPR-UCLA conference (Culture, Mind, and Brain: Emerging Concepts, Methods, and Applications) is focusing specifically on mixed methods.

Many lines of research on culture, mind, and brain can no longer be neatly separated. Some questions run together, thanks to our growing understanding of the genome and its epigenetic states, the biological roots of human sociality, and the mutual constitution of cultures and selves, as well as the complex interactions between the physical, cultural, and social environments underlying health and illness.

The aim of this 2-day conference is to highlight emerging concepts, methodologies and applications in the study of culture, mind, and brain, with particular attention to: (1) cutting-edge neuroscience research that is successfully incorporating culture and the social world; (2) the context in which methods are used as well as the tacit assumptions that shape research questions; and (3) the kinds and quality of collaborations that can advance interdisciplinary research training.

Clancy, Kate. (2012, May 1). I can out-interdiscipline you: Anthropoogy and the biocultural approach. Retrieved from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2012/05/01/biocultural-approach/

Downey, Greg.  (2012, May 1). Comment. Retrieved from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2012/05/01/biocultural-approach/#comment-621

Lende, Daniel. (2012, May 3). On biocultural anthropology. Retrieved from http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2012/05/03/on-biocultural-anthropology/

Weisner, Tom. (2012, May 1). Mixed methods should be a valued practice in anthropology. Retrieved from http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2012/05/01/mixed-methods-should-be-a-valued-practice-in-anthropology/

Painter Katherine Sherwood: How a Cerebral Hemorrhage Altered My Art

Vesalius's Pump, 2006, 36" x 36", Mixed media on canvas.

Painter and UC Berkeley professor of art Katherine Sherwood has kindly granted permission for us to use one of her works (“Vesalius’s Pump”) as the cover image for our next conference on culture, mind, and brain.

Professor Sherwood, who suffered a massive cerebral hemorrhage in 1997, describes how it affected her art practice in a recent essay published online in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. After receiving a Guggenheim fellowship for 2005–2006, Sherwood decided to focus on

incorporating brain imagery of western neuroanatomy from the sixteenth century to the twenty-first century. I became fascinated by the traditional role of the artist to pictorially represent what the anatomist discovers. In today’s medical imaging technology, the role of the artist is eliminated. The digital process ostensibly avoids intervention, the human hand, and the craftsmanship of printmakers. What happens when the artist comes at the end of this process instead of in the middle, when the emphasis is on interpretation rather than observation or imitation?

She goes on to describe two pieces (“Pump, Drug, Computer” and “Vesalius’s Pump”):
.

In this body of work I shifted my attention to the nervous system. An example is the painting Pump, Drug, Computer (Figure 4). Enlarged digital copies on rice paper of Vesalius’ nervous system are tiled onto the canvas looking at each other. The seal Foras is employed which supposedly makes one happy, wealthy, and wise. It also represents my two fathers. The title of the painting refers to the fact that I had just had a baclofen pump that has a computer within it implanted within my stomach. I laughed with my digital media colleagues that they may be the most adept at using a computer but I am the only one among us that has a computer inside of me. In Vesalius’s Pump (Figure 5) I combine images of his brains with my carotid artery while evoking the seal Sallos which brings love to all that ask.

Katherine Sherwood is a professor in the Department of Art Practice, UC Berkeley, and artist-in-residence at the Helen Wills Institute of Neuroscience at UC Berkeley.


Neal Halfon on Managing Health Care Costs by Focusing on Trajectories Shaped in Childhood

Neal Halfon, director of the UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, and a contributor to our recent book, Formative Experiences: The Interaction of Caregiving, Culture, and Developmental Psychobiology (Cambridge, 2010)  has a new opinion piece in US News & World Report on health care costs that argues against “short-term economic fixes” for (in particular) “costly chronic conditions.”

He argues that:

Individual and population health follow a trajectory. More and more research is clearly showing that early health influences are critical, and that lifelong health trajectories are initiated and programmed in utero, and formulated during the early years—right through adolescence. While the impact of poverty and other social adversity on the health trajectories of young children is well documented, it is not only the poorest children that are at greatest risk for lifelong health problems. Many low income and middle class families are also squeezed by lower wages, higher costs of living, and a lack of adequate education and support services that their children need to arrive at school healthy and ready to learn. Several decades of research shows that children who are deprived of the developmental scaffolding that guarantees a healthy trajectory are more likely to experience school failure, teen pregnancy, criminality, and substance abuse during the second decade; obesity, elevated blood pressure, and depression by the third and fourth decade; coronary artery disease, diabetes, and renal disease by the fifth and sixth decades; and premature aging and memory loss in old age.

His solution is a health care system that focuses on prevention of chronic health conditions in children by “optimizing health and development pathways in the early years,” rather than on the detection of disabilities in the young and disease in the old.

If we are going to really shift the cost curve into a lower trajectory, we need to shift the health curve in to a higher trajectory. The most leveraged and cost effective way to do that is to focus on the time in life when health trajectories are being formed, developed, and launched.

In his chapter (co-authored with biological anthropologist Emily S. Barrett and physician-psychologist Alice Kuo), he likens children to “canaries in the coal mine” in the sense that “children often serve to reflect changes in society, especially those that cause alterations in their health and development.”

Great discussion on Twitter b/w Nature ed Noah Gray and science writer Carl Zimmer

  1. Share
    Gene therapy, epigenetics, and the scientific hype cycle: my review/essay in tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal: online.wsj.com/article/SB1…
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 16:39:50
  2. Share
    “@spellingwitch: @carlzimmer Epigenetics is so fascinating.” Indeed. But also a magnet for squishy thinking.
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 16:42:38
  3. Share
    .@carlzimmer I’d be careful about painting with such a broad brush. Scientists don’t (can’t) drive hype cycles nearly as hard as the media.
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 16:49:33
  4. Share
    @brentdanley @spellingwitch By squishy thinking I mean, “Epigenetics changes EVERYTHING!” See my review for an example. online.wsj.com/article/SB1…
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 16:49:55
  5. Share
    @noahWG Well, no one forces scientists to give over-the-top predictions in interviews! (And no one forces reporters to offer false hope.)
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 16:51:06
  6. Share
    .@carlzimmer And RE: epigenetics driving squishy thinking? Not in my experience amongst most SCIENTISTS. That field is brutal on itself.
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 16:51:11
  7. Share
    @noahWG I didn’t mean to suggest that scientists were doing the squishy thinking about epigenetics. Again, see my review for epigenetics woo
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 16:52:05
  8. Share
    @noahWG See also Jerry Coyne on a tirade against epigenetics-mania from other scientists: whyevolutionistrue.wordpre…
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 16:53:09
  9. Share
    @carlzimmer Let’s estimate a rule: For every over-the-top scientist prediction a journo runs with, there are ~10 sci’s who’ll debunk it.
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 16:54:05
  10. Share
    @carlzimmer I did. It was mainly focused on the well-documented early failures of gene therapy. Epigenetics is hardly equitable at this pt.
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 16:56:07
  11. Share
    @noahWG Let’s get some data on that first before we call it a rule!
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 16:57:57
  12. Share
    @carlzimmer Thanks for the post. It epitomizes a massive disconnect b/t the real sci & external views. Coyne’s fighting a diff fight there.
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 16:58:40
  13. Share
    @carlzimmer If you can get all of your journalism students to collect the data points as they prepare stories, I’ll collate!!
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 17:00:00
  14. Share
    @noahWG “real scientists and external views” on epigenetics? What about this: nature.com/news/2008/10100…
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 17:12:51
  15. Share
    @carlzimmer The NIH has a hit-or-miss track record with their “big biology big money” pet projects. Latest is the human brain connectome.
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 17:15:48
  16. Share
    @carlzimmer But fair enough; I’m just wondering whether it’s part of the hype cycle to criticize epigenetics as part of the hype cycle!
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 17:18:49
  17. Share
    @noahWG Of course! That’s how we get into the trough of disillusionment! ;-) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype…
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 17:19:46
  18. Share
    @carlzimmer You dog! You’re just trying to accelerate the process so we can get right to the Plateau of Productivity. Genius!!
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 17:21:09
  19. Share
    @noahWG You’ll thank me in 5-10 years, when epigenetic drugs let us live forever and have only mild dementia for eternity.
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 17:22:48
  20. Share
    @rkhamsi @carlzimmer Think it’s a concern RE:OVERspending at the expense of other meaningful projects. I assume return quant = always fuzzy!
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 17:25:51
  21. Share
    @ih_C_hi @carlzimmer Glad you enjoyed it because now all it means is I’ll have to read these papers over the weekend to catch up. :(
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 17:28:27
  22. Share
    @BioinfoTools @carlzimmer That’s why sci journos need to ask and engage. And ask. And ask!! And then ask again!! (to diff sci’s, of course.)
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 17:51:25
  23. Share
    Twitter, What I Learned Today #TWILT @carlzimmer taught me about the Hype Cycle pertaining to the complex course of scientific expectations.
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 21:09:20
  24. Share
    #TWILT In the hype cycle, I’m pretty sure my social media persona’s currently in the “Peak of Inflated Disillusionment” j.mp/xjTGMY
    Fri, Mar 09 2012 21:09:45

Steve Cole on Social Regulation of Gene Expression (video and paper links)

Steve Cole of UCLA is chair of a session focusing on sociocultural influences on gene expression at our forthcoming conference on culture, mind, and brain.

He recently spoke at UCLA’s Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture on “Social regulation of gene expression: the primate genome’s social program.” The video and paper have been posted on the center’s website

Link to BEC video: http://www.bec.ucla.edu/presentation.php?id=264

Link to Cole, S. W. (2009). Social regulation of gene expression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 3, 132–137.

Joseph LeDoux “Rethinking the Emotional Brain”

Neuron, Volume 73, Issue 4, 653-676, 23 February 2012
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.004

 Joseph LeDouxsend emailSee Affiliations

I propose a reconceptualization of key phenomena important in the study of emotion—those phenomena that reflect functions and circuits related to survival, and that are shared by humans and other animals. The approach shifts the focus from questions about whether emotions that humans consciously feel are also present in other animals, and toward questions about the extent to which circuits and corresponding functions that are present in other animals (survival circuits and functions) are also present in humans. Survival circuit functions are not causally related to emotional feelings but obviously contribute to these, at least indirectly. The survival circuit concept integrates ideas about emotion, motivation, reinforcement, and arousal in the effort to understand how organisms survive and thrive by detecting and responding to challenges and opportunities in daily life.

Can the “connectome” save psychiatry?

An individual’s “connectome” (Sporns, Tonino, & Klötter, 2005; Hagmann, 2005) is in essence a mathematical object that describes all the neural connections in a nervous system. The word was coined by Olaf Sporns et al. in their 2005 paper and independently by Patric Hagmann in his doctoral dissertation. Sporns describes the 2005 paper as a “manifesto” outlining an ambitious research program in support of a model linking structure and function that the authors felt would have a profound impact on how we understand the brain. (The following excerpts are from Sporns’ 2010 talk at the Allen institute; the full video is embedded in references.)

We had no information until just a few years ago about similar data [about brain networks]  from the human brain. That was a big gap in our understanding of the human brain because we had no good structural model for it. We had a lot of imaging data . . . But it’s very difficult to interpret imaging data if you have no structural model by which it is generated. (Allen Institute, 2010)

Since 2005, data-driven research on the connectome (some of which is under the auspices of the NIH Human Connectome Project) is now being conducted at multiple scales: micro (“single neurons and synapses”), meso (“brain regions and pathways”), and macro (“neuronal populations and their interconnecting circuitry”) using different imaging technologies.

Implications for Psychiatry

What is particularly attractive about the concept of a connectome vis-a-vis psychiatry is that it “naturally fits within a larger theoretical framework and thus links neuroscience to modern developments in network science and complex systems” (Sporns, 2011). In other words, it grounds a longstanding intuition that the brain in general and psychiatric disorders in particular reflect continuous interactions of biological and sociocultural systems (Kirmayer, 2012).

In the network science field, in other contexts – internet, social networks, epidemiology  – perturbations of networks are very important to study because people want to know what happens when we lesion the network, what happens when we disrupt its functionality in terms of the global outcomes that result. I think we have a similar question on the horizon here for these neurological, psychiatric conditions. What is it about the brain that has changed in terms of its network architecture that brings about – or is involved or at least associated with – the function that is being perturbed. (Allen Institute, 2010)

A second factor is its ability to account for plasticity (and individual differences). This is because while, on the one hand, the connectome constrains neural activity – Sebastian Seung (2012) likens it to a streambed that organizes the flow of water [1]  (and Sporns calls it a “structural skeleton”), on the other neural activity (thoughts, feelings, and perceptions) over time can change the connectome.

If we have a structural model of the human brain we can actually damage it in the computer. And we can ask questions about how impactful are certain lesions that we make inside this computational model. We make these lesions by deleting a number of nodes and their connections. And we then observe how the dynamics – in a forward computing sense – of the human brain changes as a result of making these lesions.  We can then compare  our empirical data to data that is obtained from people with stroke and we can ask questions about recovery. What is it about the metrics of global brain connectivity, functional interactions that changes in a good outcome scenario and is there anything we can do on an interventional level with therapeutic or other interventional means that can guide brain repair and recovery in a good direction. The brain really is a complex network. If we make a lesion in our model in any particular spot, it’s not just that that spot is lost, and the rest of the brain just goes on doing what it’s doing, all relationships across all other nodes in the brain change, and that’s because the brain responds as a whole. This is something that becomes very plastic and very graspable if you do computational modeling and it really opens up new horizons . . . for understanding the functional impact of lesions and perhaps other disease states as well. (Allen Institute, 2010)

Notes

[1] Computational neuroscientist Sebastion Seung (MIT), who is studying the connectome from the neuron’s eye view, gave an exuberant talk on the connectome at one of the Ted conferences, and now he’s written an exuberant book on the subject that is, seriously, a page turner that concludes with a section on cryonics and “the ultimate cyber-fantasy” of uploading your brain and “living happily ever after as a computer simluation” (2012, xxi).

 References

Hagmann, P. (2005) From diffusion MRI to brain connectomics (Doctoral dissertation). École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne.

Seung, S. (2012). The connectome: How the brain’s wiring makes us who we are. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Allen Institute (2010). Olaf Sporns: 2010  Allen Institute for Brain Science Symposium. Retrieved 21 February 2012 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oikjPdV7LbU

Sporns, O. (2011). The human connectome: A complex network. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1224, 109–125.

Sporns, O., Tononi, G., & Kötter, R. (2005). The human connectome: A structural description of the human brain. PLoS Computational Biology, 1(4), e42. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010042

CMB 2012 hot topic: “Functional and Clinical Neuroanatomy of Morality”

Alberto Priori of Università degli Studi di Milano, has just sent me an advanced copy of his co-authored review on morality for Brain.  (This was in response to our email blast about the FPR-UCLA 2012 conference, “Culture, Mind, and Brain: Emerging Concepts, Methods, and Applications.”)  Unfortunately, we don’t have the space to give morality its full due in the conference program, but I’m posting the abstract and link since this is sure to be a “hot topic” for discussion and debate at the conference.

Brain. 2012 Feb 13. [Epub ahead of print]

Functional and clinical neuroanatomy of morality.

Source

Dipartimento di Scienze Neurologiche, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milano, Italy.

Abstract

Morality is among the most sophisticated features of human judgement, behaviour and, ultimately, mind. An individual who behaves immorally may violate ethical rules and civil rights, and may threaten others’ individual liberty, sometimes becoming violent and aggressive. In recent years, neuroscience has shown a growing interest in human morality, and has advanced our understanding of the cognitive and emotional processes involved in moral decisions, their anatomical substrates and the neurology of abnormal moral behaviour. In this article, we review research findings that have provided a key insight into the functional and clinical neuroanatomy of the brain areas involved in normal and abnormal moral behaviour. The ‘moral brain’ consists of a large functional network including both cortical and subcortical anatomical structures. Because morality is a complex process, some of these brain structures share their neural circuits with those controlling other behavioural processes, such as emotions and theory of mind. Among the anatomical structures implicated in morality are the frontal, temporal and cingulate cortices. The prefrontal cortex regulates activity in subcortical emotional centres, planning and supervising moral decisions, and when its functionality is altered may lead to impulsive aggression. The temporal lobe is involved in theory of mind and its dysfunction is often implicated in violent psychopathy. The cingulate cortex mediates the conflict between the emotional and the rational components of moral reasoning. Other important structures contributing to moral behaviour include the subcortical nuclei such as the amygdala, hippocampus and basal ganglia. Brain areas participating in moral processing can be influenced also by genetic, endocrine and environmental factors. Hormones can modulate moral behaviour through their effects on the brain. Finally, genetic polymorphisms can predispose to aggressivity and violence, arguing for a genetic-based predisposition to morality. Because abnormal moral behaviour can arise from both functional and structural brain abnormalities that should be diagnosed and treated, the neurology of moral behaviour has potential implications for clinical practice and raises ethical concerns. Last, since research has developed several neuromodulation techniques to improve brain dysfunction (deep brain stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation), knowing more about the ‘moral brain’ might help to develop novel therapeutic strategies for neurologically based abnormal moral behaviour.

Call for Proposals: Cross-disciplinary Conversations around the Neurosciences

From NeuroSelves to NeuroSocieties:
Cross-disciplinary Conversations around the Neurosciences

June 11th & 12th, 2012
An interdisciplinary conference hosted by Hampshire College, Amherst MA and the Foundation for Psychocultural Research-Hampshire College
Program in Culture, Brain & Development

Call for Proposals

Our understandings of self and society are being transformed by the neurosciences. At the same time neuroscience is shaped and driven by social structures such as law, media and education, and informed by fields such as sociology, anthropology, philosophy and evolutionary biology. The emerging fields of neuroethics, neurolaw and neuroeconomics are a testament to the desire to apply a better understanding of the brain to moral and social issues, but also point to a need to understand the myriad ethical, legal and cultural implications of the science itself.

This conference offers an opportunity for cross-disciplinary communication among scholars from many disciplines around how the neurosciences shape – and are shaped by – diverse social forces and cultural ideas.

We invite proposals from faculty and graduate students from a wide range of disciplines and perspectives.

Please submit a proposal that describes your background, interest, and proposed presentation topic.  Participants will be expected to give a short presentation of how their work engages with – or could shed light on – issues at the intersections of law, philosophy, economics, ethics, or some other aspect of the cultural/social/political sphere and the neurosciences. Participants will receive a $500 stipend. Some assistance is available to help with travel costs; applicants are invited to apply for travel funding.

The conference program features two keynote speakers: Dr. Adina Roskies, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Dartmouth College, and Dr. Peter Reiner, Professor, National Core for Neuroethics and the Kinsman Laboratory of Neurological Research, Department of Psychiatry and Brain Research Center, University of British Columbia.

Presentations and panels will be structured around participant interests and proposals. For illustrative purposes only, possible topics might include (but are not limited to): changing conceptions of moral, personal or economic decision-making; diagnosis, treatment and conceptions of mental illness; ethical challenges posed by neuroscience research; art and neuroscience of creativity; social and ethical implications of neuropharmacological interventions; interactions between educational policies, practices, and the neurosciences; questions of free will and human agency; neuroscience of empathy, trust, and sociality; brain imagery and popular media; neuroscientific recasting of social problems such as addiction and violence.

Please go to http://www.hampshire.edu/cbd/22808.htm for more information about the conference and submitting a proposal. The deadline to submit proposals is February 15th, 2012.  Please send proposals and questions to Ryan McLaughlin, CBD coordinator, rmclaughlin@hampshire.edu .

Announcement: UMich 3rd Summer Institute in Cultural Neuroscience (9-20 July 2012)

Co-Directors:  Shinobu Kitayama (kitayama@umich.edu)  and Carolyn Yoon (yoonc@umich.edu)

Application Deadline:  March 15, 2012

We invite you to apply to attend the third annual Summer Institute in Cultural Neuroscience at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. SICN is a two-week program that provides graduate students as well as faculty with an overview of core topics and recent research developments related to cultural neuroscience in order to prepare them to start their own empirical investigations. Attendees will have an opportunity to develop their own research ideas in cultural neuroscience through interactions with peers and faculty members.

SICN lectures on culture, brain, or both will be delivered by world-renowned scholars. Each scholar will discuss his or her work and place it in a broader scholarly context. Lectures will be followed by small group discussions.

The topics to be covered include:

  • Cultural psychology
  • Culture, self, and brain
  • Culture, aging, and brain
  • Neuroeconomics and culture
  • Social neuroscience and culture
  • Co-evolution of culture and genes
  • Mental health and culture
  • Evolution and culture

Faculty lecturers include:

Nalini Ambady, Stanford University

Shihui Han, Peking University

William Gehring, University of Michigan

Joseph Kable, University of Pennyslvania

Hazel Markus, Stanford University

Shinobu Kitayama, University of Michigan

Ethan Kross, University of Michigan

Randy Nesse, University of Michigan

Richard Nisbett, University of Michigan

Denise Park, University of Texas at Dallas

Chandra Sripada, University of Michigan

Stephen Suomi, National Institute of Mental Health

Complete applications are due by midnight on March 15.  You will be notified of the status of your application by March 31, and will have until April 30 for early registration, and June 15 for regular registration.

Participation fees are $1,300 for graduate students or post-docs, and $2,000 for faculty.  Discounted rates for early registration (by March 31) are $1,100 for graduate students or post-docs, and $1,800 for faculty.

Participants are responsible for their own travel and accommodation costs. We do not offer any scholarships or financial assistance.

For application forms and information, go to http://culturalneuroscience.isr.umich.edu/home.htm

or contact:

Natalie Dushane
Center for Culture, Mind, and the Brain
University of Michigan
426 Thompson Street, 5241 ISR
Ann Arbor, MI  48106-1248
(734) 764-4112

Email: nadushan@isr.umich.edu

Society for Psychological Anthropology Deadlines: 2012 Lemelson Student Fellows & Conference Fund

(From Ted Lowe, SPA Secretary Treasurer)

Just a reminder that the deadline for applications for the 2012 Lemelson Student Fellows Program and the Lemelson/SPA Conference Fund is February 15, 2012.

You can learn more about these two programs from the SPA website at
http://www.aaanet.org/sections/spa/?page_id=197

For a direct link to the  2012 Lemelson Student Fellows Program and this year’s application please go to:http://www.aaanet.org/sections/spa/?page_id=94

For a direct link to the Lemelson Conference fund and this year’s application go to:
http://www.aaanet.org/sections/spa/?page_id=99

Sincerely,

Ted Lowe

Secretary Treasurer of the Society for Psychological Anthropology
Director of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Associate Prof. of Anthropology
Soka University of America
1 University Drive
Aliso Viejo CA, 92656

949-480-4387 (Office)

Music and the Brain: Depression and Creativity Symposium

Reblogged from Nou Stuff:

If you’re following this blog, you probably know that I’m very interested in creativity. I was delighted to find this video on YouTube and decided to share it with you:

Kay Redfield Jamison, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Mood Disorders Center at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, convened a discussion of the effects of depression on creativity.

Read more… 245 more words