When Laughing Is Not Funny: Pseudobulbar Affect

Bursting into laughter disproportionate to the context or even with no apparent reason; you have either experienced this yourself or witnessed it. Imagine this reaction multiplied in intensity, duration, and frequency, but also manifesting emotions from the other end of the emotional spectrum -- uncontrollable laughing and crying.

Pseudobulbar affect (PBA) is a condition occurring in patients with neurological disorders like stroke, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or Alzheimer’s disease. Patients experience exaggerated, uncontrollable, and involuntary outbursts of laughter or crying inappropriate to the context in which they occur [1].

The pathophysiology of PBA is obscure. Neuroimaging [2] and electrophysiological [3] evidence implicates the cortico-pontine-cerebellar circuit (CPCC). The CPCC integrates contextual information from the cortex and provides an accurate and congruent emotional response. Its dysfunction results in inappropriate or unscaled emotional responses.

Crying when happy, laughing when sad

 

The neurotransmitter serotonin, which modulates functions closely associated with mood, sleep, sex, and appetite, and is disturbed in many mood disorders, seems to be closely related to PBA. Based on this, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are often prescribed for PBA [4]. Likewise, glutamate acts on many brain structures around the CPCC and a reduction of its increased excitatory activity may be beneficial for BPA patients [3].

PBA is expected to become more common as the number of patients with neurological disorders increases. This will necessitate a more thorough understanding of its pathophysiology to provide better treatment.

[1] Arciniegas et al, CNS Spectr, 2015

[2] Parvizi et al, J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci, 2009

[3] Haiman et al, J Neurol Sci, 2008

[4] Schiffer and Pope, J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci, 2005

by Andreas Diamantaras, MSc MedNeuro

This article originally appeared  March 2015, Vol. 08, Issue 01, Humour

Beauty and the Art of Perception

Confucius once said wisely “Everything has beauty but not everyone sees it”. It is interesting how Confucius thought beauty is perceived: with the eyes. What are people's most common answers when asked about what beauty means to them? 

Initially, they think about physical attributes, especially of other humans. This probably is a consequence of the media’s focus on what a perfect body or face should look like. This especially seems to resonate with teenagers. Ideally, the older you get, the more beauty is also seen in subtle and, as many would probably agree, more valuable things of life. Beauty can mean a warm hot chocolate after a full day of skiing, the rewarding view from the top of a mountain after an energy-sapping five-hour hike or merely the joy a mother feels when she sees her child smile at her while going crazy on a trampoline. Beauty is conveyed by all different modes of perception: looking at something, but also touching, tasting or listening to it.

The “Aesthetic System”
In the early phase, research in neuroaesthetics restricted itself to visual perception. For example, scientists tried to assess the physical properties of human faces in order to find the basic neural mechanisms underlying our brain's decision that something is beautiful [1, 2]. Key features are average, symmetry and hormones. The first factor that contributes to beauty is average, because it harbors greater genetic diversity and adaptability to the environment. The second factor is symmetry, because developmental abnormalities are often associated with asymmetry, while symmetry is an indicator for health. And the third factor are hormones, because high level of estrogen and testosterone play important roles in shaping features that people find attractive (when we confine ourselves to heterosexual norms).

Picture: By Hector Salazar

I personally think that these features are what describes attractiveness and are partly evolutionary pre-determinations of how we subconsciously choose our life partners. Anyway, let us have a look what happens in the brain: Attractive faces activate a network of areas that range from the back of our brain to the frontal lobes. An area called fusiform gyrus, which is part of our visual cortex and temporal lobe, as well as the lateral occipital complex in the back of the brain are activated. The fusiform gyrus is especially attuned to process faces, while the occipital complex is especially attuned to process objects. In addition, attractive faces activate parts of our reward and pleasure center located in the front and deep in the brain. These areas are the ventral striatum, the orbifrontal cortex and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex [3].

Beauty is in the brain of the beholder

Since the field of neuroaesthetics is a new but rapidly expanding area, recent studies cover also other art forms, like music and performing art [4], as well as other senses, like smell, taste, hearing and touch. One consistently activated region in response to beautiful stimuli in neuroimaging studies was the anterior insula [5]. This small neural area that sits deep within the lateral sulcus of the cerebral cortex is implicated in a wide range of subjective feelings based on interoception, from cigarette craving to maternal love and, as the term interoception implies, integrates bodily sensations. Since tasting a favorite meal, listening to Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 or looking at visually appealing art have all effects on the body, it is not surprising that a region that is meant to give feedback on how much an experience satisfies the physiological needs can also be part of an “aesthetic system” in the brain.

Things that Matter
Interestingly, the sense of beauty seems to require activation in the brain’s reward system. Thus, the brain’s output is a pleased feeling that we sense when we perceive beauty. Sadly, we choose quite often to be blind to beauty because of distraction, worry and daily stress. But it would be very beneficial for each of us to actively predispose ourselves to embrace beauty. Whatever it means for the individual, beauty means happiness at the end. And the good thing is, you decide what’s beautiful, because - if you allow me to adjust the popular saying - beauty is in the brain of the beholder.


[1] Rhodes, Annu. Rev. Psychol., 2006
[2] http://bit.ly/2lYvDJe
[3] Kocsor et. al, Socioaffect Neurosci Psychol, 2013
[4] Cinzia & Vittorio,Curr Opin Neurobiol, 2009
[5] http://bit.ly/2lYvDJe

by Anahita Poshtiban, PhD Student, AG Plested
This article originally appeared March 2018 in Vol 11, Issue 01, "Beauty and the Brain"

Introduction to Neuroaesthetics

Basics of Neuroaesthetics
The concept of aesthetics is about beauty. Neuroaesthetics is a discipline within cognitive neuroscience that is concerned with understanding the biological bases of aesthetic experiences. This means researchers in the field of neuroaethetics want to find out how the experience of art is processed in our brain. The term “neuroaesthetics” was introduced In 1999 by Semir Zeki, bringing together different scientific fields, such as psychology, neuroscience and human evolution [1]. Most of the research done within the past twenty years consists of functional imaging studies of the brain. These studies showed that visual works of art activate specific brain regions that are important for emotions and reward-related processes [2]. This might be an explanation why we can perceive art as beautiful. Neuroaesthetics is a growing discipline and broadens up. New approaches explore specific forms of art, like music, but some researchers are also interested in changes in aesthetic experience in disorders such as dementia [3].

The Association of Neuroaesthetics
The association of neuroaesthetics (AoN) is a platform aiming to cultivate the interdisciplinary efforts in the field of neuroaesthetics and to encourage a cooperation between arts and cognitive sciences. The AoN e.V. is a non-profit organization founded in 2008 in Berlin by neurosurgeon Alexander Abbushi in collaboration with the Charité and a group of leading international neuroscientists and curators from Paris, Munich and London. The association has organized a number of symposia and talk series, inviting both artists and neuroscientists for an interdisciplinary crosstalk. More information can be found on their website: http://aon.neurobureau.org.

http://aon.neurobureau.org/

The Science Part: Semir Zeki
Semir Zeki is Professor of Neuroaesthetics at UCL London and introduced the term “neuroaesthetics” as a neurobiological definition of art. His research focuses on the study of the visual brain, its organization and its functioning in health and in disease [4]. Within the last thirty years, he made many important findings for our understanding of the visual pathway [5,6]. More recently, he showed interest in the impact of visual arts on our brain. As we need our eyes to perceive the visual arts, his own groundwork may lead to a more profound understanding of aesthetic experience. Zeki started to investigate the experience of beauty derived from different emotions, such as sorrow and joy [7].

The Art Part: Mark Stephen Smith
Mark Stephen Smith is Associate Professor at Austin College in Sherman, Texas, but probably better known for his art. He is one example of a growing number of contemporary artists who create a convergence of science and paintings. His works explore fundamental visual analogies between neural functions and self-expression in abstract art. He tries to merge his interest in scientific processes with his dedication to abstract paintings. Smith describes his paintings as a “amalgamation of science, technology and my own hand”. Smith's work has been exhibited at many museums, including the Dallas Museum of Art and Grace Borgnicht Gallery in New York. His recent series of works is called “Quantum States” and is inspired by theoretical physics [8].

Criticism on Neuroaesthetics
Neuroaesthetics emerged to its own research field in the neurosciences. But critics say that the discipline of neuroscience, which looks at events in the brain of individual people and cannot do more than describe and analyze them, may be the wrong empirical science for understanding art [9]. A fundamental question occurs when studying the aesthetic experience of art and how it is processed in our brain. How to define art and beauty? Beauty is not a scientific concept and a universal accepted definition is missing. Aesthetic experience is partly a question of culture and circumstance, and not a fundamental quality of the brain [10]. Researchers in the field of neuroaesthetics try to answer the question of how we perceive art and its beauty. We will see if they overcome the critics and find the explanations.

by Nina Stöberl, MSc Student, MedNeuro
This article originally appeared March 2018 in Vol 11, Issue 01, "Beauty and the Brain"

[1] Bundgaard, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 2015
[2] O’Doherty, Curr Opin Neurobiol, 2014
[3] Silveri et al., J Alzheimers Dis, 2015
[4] http://bit.ly/2oQly4J
[5] Zeki, Nature, 1978
[6] Zeki, Nature, 1980
[7] Ishizu and Zeki, Hum Brain Mapp, 2017
[8] http://bit.ly/2I3fKxj
[9] Conway and Rehding, PLoS Biology, 2013
[10] http://go.nature.com/2Fg4xYs

New Issue Out Now: BEAUTY AND THE BRAIN

The brain is beautiful. From single cells to the sulci and gyri on an MRI, there is a lot to admire. In this issue of the newsletter, we dive into neuroaesthetics, an exciting field studying how beauty is created, understood and valued by the brain. To start things off, why not take a short primer course (page 3), or hear about it straight from the source: scientists working at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics (pages 8-11)? We also take a look at whether beauty is only skin-deep literally (pages 15 and 17) and figuratively (pages 13 and 18-19), and how a pretty face (or not…) impacts your chances in life and academia (pages 5 and 12). Do art and beauty always go hand in hand (pages 16-17 and 20)? What if drugs get into the mixture (page 21)?

As part of a recent scientific writing workshop, we are trying to give the newsletter a ‘makeover’. For this purpose we want to hear from YOU, dear readers! See our survey on the next page, give us your best elevator pitch (page 21) or get involved with writing or editing. On this note, a huge shout-out to new author Nina Stöberl, whose story on page 14 and beautiful image of the neuromuscular junction provided our cover art! Most importantly, we want to cover more topics that are directly relevant to our audience, to that end check out our great front-line reporting and critique on Charité PhD life (pages 22-24).

This issue, we are excited to welcome four new members of our proofreading and editorial team: Bettina Schmerl, Aarti Swaminathan, Malika Renz and Zara Khan. Unfortunately, we also have some sad news as well: Helge, one of co-editors-in-chief is about to finish his PhD, and will transition into the exciting and glamorous world of consulting. Thanks for everything Helge, and thanks for all of your hard work for the newsletter! Replacing Helge and joining Constance as the new EIC is Claudia Willmes, an alumna of AG Eickholt and Schmitz and current editor of our blog. We look forward to working with Claudia and expanding our presence both on the web and the written page.
Beautifully yours,

Constance Holman & Helge Hasselmann co-editors-in-chief

Access the full issue here.

Conference Announcement: I, scientist

https://www.iscientist.de/

Sex Matters - My Winter School Experience

'Sex, Hormones and the Brain' was the title that convinced me to head off to southern Germany and participate in a conference [1].
Being part of it turned out to introduce me to a vibrant research landscape, in Tübingen and beyond. The winter school was organized by the Materiki Network of Universities (MNU) [2], connecting universities across Europe, America and Australia. One of its foci is integrative neuroscience, for which the Center for Integrative Neuroscience (CIN) in Tübingen was a perfect match. The city itself is very picturesque and worth a visit on its own. 

As the first symposium ‘Sex hormones and mood‘ started, I could immediately sense the open-minded and supportive atmosphere. Here, researchers were facing a part of science that often is overlooked elsewhere. I learned how important sex hormone fluctuations and the hormone-brain interface itself can be for mood disorders, cognition, memory and even brain connectivity. Talks and posters ranged from sex differences to gender dysphoria, and from basic brain functions to clinical implications. Not only the topic, but also the participants were open-minded and fostered a warm and welcoming spirit that really showed at a museum dinner party that featured nice food and live music and offered the possibility to closely interact with the speakers.

Their talks were inspiring and included some very well-known scientists like Inger Sundström Poromaa (Uppsala), Ute Habel (Aachen) or Niels Birbaumer (Tübingen). Of three parallel ‘Meet an expert‘ sessions, I chose 'Women in Academia: the path to a successful career and work-life balance'. It offered the wonderful opportunity to meet three successful female scientists at once. Getting to know such role models motivated me a lot and once again pointed out how important it is to help each other in science, rather than to compete.

So, what should you take home from this?
1)   Whenever you start a new project: consider sex and hormones as a crucial influence.
2)   As soon as you see an upcoming neuroscience winter school in Tübingen: register!

by Annika Reinhold, MSc Student MedNeuro


[1] http://bit.ly/2EKn16w
[2]http://bit.ly/2o8syJC

Attention: Driverless Bus Crossing!

A silent humming can be heard these days, when you walk around Charité. And you should watch carefully, when you hear it: Currently, BVG and Charité are testing autonomous busses on our campus! But even if you cross the street absorbed in thought, you won’t be knocked over: The busses have an integrated system that makes them stop as soon as they detect any object crossing their way.

Currently, four driverless shuttles operate at a maximum speed of 20 km/h on defined routes with fixed stops in the two clinic premises Campus Mitte and Campus Virchow. The pilot phase is part of the “Stimulate" project by the Institute for Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Sciences, which aims to answer what options autonomous minibuses offer for future public transport and how driverless vehicles are accepted by users. The project is funded by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, Charité provides the infrastructure, and BVG is responsible vehicle operation.

Ligier EZ-10 autonomous electric minishuttle, via Wikimedia Commons

According to Charité and BVG, the two Charité locations in Mitte and Wedding are particularly well-suited, as they represent a sufficiently large test area, separated from public roads. In addition, there are sidewalks, intersections and road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, cars, trucks, buses and ambulances. Thus they are like "a small image of our city," said Charité CEO Einhäupl. "First, the shuttles have to learn the routes," said BVG board member Henrik Haenecke. The shuttles orient themselves with the help of laser and radar that detect the environment. Only remote monitoring is provided and passengers will not be able to intervene in the steering system. Only braking maneuvers will be allowed.
"We hope that the project will enable us to expand the existing transport offer for our patients, visitors, employees and students in the future," said Einhäupl. According to a Charité press release from last year, passengers are allowed to board from the second quarter of 2018. At first there will be staff on board who can intervene in case of problems. From 2019, the minibuses should operate without accompaniment.

Claudia Willmes
PhD Alumna, AG Eickholt / AG Schmitz

source: Gemeinsame Pressemitteilung von BVG, Charité und Land Berlin

(Available only in German)

The Commission on the Advancement of Women

Perspective by a Member of the Commision, By Carmen Infante-Duarte

Carmen Infante-Duarte, senior scientist and leader of the research group "Experimental Neuroimmunology" is a member of the Commission for Promotion of Women at the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin and will tell us about the structure and tasks of this Commission.

When considering the careers of women in science and academia, Berlin, and the Charité in particular, are exceptional: already in 1912, Lydia Rabinowitsch obtained the first professorship of a woman in Berlin; in 1913 Rahel Hirsch became the first woman in Prussia to be appointed as a Charité professor in medicine; and currently, the faculty of medicine at the Charité is the only German medicine faculty that has been chaired by a female Dean, Prof. Dr. Annette Grüters-Kieslich since 2008. Nevertheless, the situation of women in leading positions at the Charite is far from being optimal. While about 60% of the students at the Charité are female, only about 17% of the professors are woman. Thus, the institutional promotion and support of career of women remains an essential task of the faculty.
The Commission for Promotion of Women at the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Kommission für Frauenförderung, KoFF) was established by the Faculty Council in autumn 2009 and is composed of 8 female full professors (including chairwoman and deputy chairwoman), 8 scientific associates, 4 students and 2 non-scientific representatives. The KoFF works very closely with the officer for Women and equal opportunities at the Charité (Frauen- und Gleichstellungsbeauftragte, http://frauenbeauftragte.charite.de/) and meets once a month, usually the second Tuesday of the month.

The primary goals of the Commission are:

1. To encourage the establishment of equal opportunities for women and men at the Charité at all professional levels.
2. To support the career of female researchers by advocating the establishment of a family friendly Charité.
3. To promote gender studies within medical research and teaching. The first accomplished objectives of the KoFF were the establishment of a regular dinner-meeting (takes place 3-4 times per year) of female Charité professors, including the Dean, to improve scientific networking, and the creation of a comprehensive and informative homepage (http://koff.charite.de/).

On the KoFF homepage, you can find information and links to:
 -         Research and teaching: including extend information on gender-sensitive research and teaching at the Charité.
-         Funding and fellowships: including information on internal and external funding possibilities for women.
Particularly relevant Charité fellowships and programs are the Rahel-Hirsch fellowship, to promote Habilitation of female scientist; the Lydia Rabinowitsch fellowship, to support (re-)integration of female scientists in the Charité, in case they had to reduce or cease their scientific activity for family or social reasons; and the mentoring program, a personal development strategy to support young female scientists in their career planning and development.
-         Family issues: here you will find links to offices and offers at the Charité that should guaranty a framework for a successful balancing of work and family obligations for all students and employees at the Charité. Very important are the links to the "family office" and internal and external child care services.

 In summary, the KoFF is a recently re-established Commission that aims to make the work of women at the Charité more visible, to promote their networking activities and to improve the presence of women in all professional fields in which they are underrepresented, principally in clinical, scientific and also administrative leader positions.

This article originally appeared 2011 in CNS Volume 4, Issue 1, Neuroenhancement

Why women leave academia and why universities should be worried

Despite the high number of female undergraduate and PhD students, most higher positions in academia, namely professorships, are given to men. A recent study in the field of Chemistry aimed to enlighten the underlying reasons [1].

First, it is important to look at the pool of applicants from which universities recruit their top staff. In a prior study, PhD students were asked about their career plans at different stages of their PhD [2]. At the beginning, obviously, both men and women are enthusiastic about pursuing a career as researcher, both in academia and industry: This intention is expressed by 61 % or 72 % of first-year male and female PhD students, respectively. However, in the third year of their PhD, women changed their mind dramatically. Whereas 59 % of men still see research as a career option, only 37 % of women do so.
If one separates between a career intention in industry and in academia, only 12 % of women and 21 % of men see their future in academia. In other words, 88 % of female PhD students and 79 % of their male fellows don't want a career in academia. Curt Rice describes this as an alarming result for universities, as they may no longer be capable of attracting the best and the brightest minds [3].
Both genders, but especially women, regarded an academic career as all-consuming and competitive. First of all, the short-term nature of most post-doctoral positions implies frequent relocation and a lack of security about future employment. The level of competitiveness to achieve a permanent position is seen as very fierce and the impression of young scientists is that it has become harder to get a first foothold on the ladder, especially under the circumstance of a constant hunt for funding [1].

female PhD students felt more affected

However, there are several issues that affect only women keeping them away from academic careers: There is a lack of positive examples, as most women feel that female professors often show a quite masculine behavior and are, in many cases, childless. They do not want to sacrifice their personality and their plans for a family, to an academic career. Whereas both male and female PhD students report poor supervision, frustrating experiences in the research process, and problems within the research group, women feel more affected and restricted by this and are more likely to see this as a personal failure. A relevant number of women also report that they were told that their gender might be a problem for a future academic career [1].
Although these studies were focused on Chemistry, it seems to be likely that it is not much different in other subjects. Obviously, the pool from which universities can recruit their lecturers and professors shrinks, and especially women are not attracted by an academic career. Universities should ask themselves if the working conditions and career paths they offer are suitable to encourage talented young researchers staying in academia. Without young and innovative researchers, cutting-edge research at universities is endangered. But considering recent headlines about the German Max-Planck-Society and its plans to cut PhD students from social security system [4], a fundamental rethink has not yet begun.

By Odilo Engel, PhD Student Medical Neurosciences, AG Clinical Neuroscience

This article originally appeared 2012 in CNS Volume 5, Issue 4, Fat Gut or Fat Brain


References
[1] Jessica Lober Newsome: The chemistry PhD: the impact on women's retention - A report for the UK Resource Centre for Women in SET and the Royal Society of Chemistry. London, 2008. http://bit.ly/JC2T5m
[2] The Career Intentions & First Employment Destinations of Chemistry PhD Students: A Gender-Based Quantitative Analysis, Royal Society of Chemistry: London, 2008.
[3] Curt Rice: Why women leave academia and why universities should be worried. The Guardian - Higher Education Network, May 24, 2012. http://bit.ly/MTWaB9
[4] Sven Grünewald: Forschungsstipendien - Schwarzarbeit in der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft? Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 10, 2012. http://bit.ly/Lrvd7A

Celebrate the Brain! - Brain Awareness Week

Have you ever wondered how the brain works? What the work of brain researchers looks like? How do scientists actually gain new insights that might eventually complete the puzzle?

Especially if you are not a neuroscientist but are fascinated by learning the answers behind these questions, join the annual Brain Awareness Week (BAW) in March! The BAW is a worldwide campaign that invites non-scientists of all ages and backgrounds to celebrate the brain and to learn about the progresses and promises of brain research.

The USA-based campaign was founded in 1996 by the ‘Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives’ and the ‘European Dana Alliance for the Brain’. Today, it spans more than 50 countries in which various partner facilities such as universities, governmental agencies, educational organizations, libraries, research facilities, and more show their unique perspectives and messages about the brain. The program covers a broad spectrum of activities. It offers movies, workshops, lab visits, symposiums, and art exhibitions. 

In Berlin, a neuroscience research center and two neuroscience research schools join forces this year: the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, the Berlin School of Mind and Brain, and the International Graduate Program Medical Neurosciences. They will be presenting a four-hour workshop introducing high school kids to programming and computer simulations of neuronal communication. Their activities also include a talk about how the brain generates illusions and workshops about food and the brain, pain, emotions, and stress.

This year, the BAW will take place every day from March 12th until March 18th. Want to connect with the rest of the world? Check out www.dana.org/BAW/ or join www.facebook.com/BrainAwarenessWeek to see the event calendars and participating partners.

Faster, Higher, Stronger, More Inclusive: The Paralympic Games

Welcome to one of the most exciting and chronically underrated international sporting events of the 21^st century: the International Paralympic Games. The 2018 Winter Paralympics will be held from Mar 8, 2018 – Mar 18, 2018 in Pyeongchang, South Korea.

This Paralympic games, originating in 1948 as a competition for wheelchair-using war veterans today have over 500 medal events, and host thousands of athletes from all over the world [1]. Today, the Paralympic Games occur in the same location as the Olympics, and are scheduled after the main events. To many, this may seem like an afterthought, but in reality is an incredible showcase of human diversity, athletic prowess, and the merits of inclusionary sport.

Meet Your Athletes
Who competes in the Paralympics? According to the official guidelines of the International Paralympic Committee, there are three major categories: visual, intellectual, and physical disabilities. The latter category is also broken down into 8 different subtypes, reflecting muscle function, limb loss/deficiency, and abnormalities in stature [1,2]. It should also be noted that the category of intellectual disability has strict limits about the age and nature of diagnosis. Some readers may be more familiar with the Special Olympics World Games, which are open to a broader range of participants [3].

PARTICIPATION IS BASED ON ABILITY

Up until the 1980s, eligibility for the Paralympics was determined purely by medical diagnosis, i.e. the reasons for a certain disability. Using these guidelines, a person who lost use of their arms due to a neurodegenerative disorder would not be able to compete with another individual whose arms were amputated [1]. However, today most sports include athletes based on ability, i.e. the degree to which an individual can perform an activity and compete fairly with others. The exception to these rules are sports for the visually impaired, where more rigid definitions and thresholds for vision loss are employed [1,2].

Let’s Play
Within most sports in the Paralympics, there are several sub-categories, reflecting different levels of ability. For example, table tennis has two major categories: players who compete using a wheelchair vs. standing. Within these two major categories, there are also subgroups, reflecting impairment in the playing arm, trunk stability, and other physical factor which can affect game outcome [4]. There is also a special class for athletes with an intellectual disability. These classes and categories differ from sport to sport, reflecting the demands of each discipline.
In addition, some sports in the Paralympics use ‘equalizing’ techniques to even the playing field for everyone involved. For example, in wheelchair rugby, individual players are given a score based on their abilities (use and dexterity of limbs, core stability, etc.). These scores are added up, and a team may not have players with more than a cumulative number of points on the field at any time [1].  On the other hand, goalball, a ball-throwing team sport for the visually impaired, requires that all players wear eye coverings to completely block vision. Thus, participants who are totally blind are still on the same level as those with milder visual impairments.

Paralympics, via Wikimedia Commons

Something for Everyone (Maybe Even You?)
The Paralympics thus include very diverse athletes, and a broad range of sporting opportunities. The most famous sports are generally those closest to events in the regular Olympics. For example, wheelchair basketball or Paralympic triathlon are close to Olympic contemporaries, with the addition of mobility-assisting devices such as wheelchairs or prosthetic devices. Other examples include wheelchair fencing, para-snowboarding, or para-equestrian events. However, some Paralympic sports are unique. These include goalball (see above) and boccia, a sport similar to boules or curling.
Interestingly, there is also significant participation of non-disabled athletes at the Paralympics. Indeed, these assistants/guides are an integral part of the team, and receive medals along with their disabled teammates. In boccia, for example, teammates can also help severely disabled athletes prepare for ball throws. Sighted athletes also play a major role in events for visually impaired participants, by running alongside them in track events, or steering a tandem bicycle during cycling races.
In recent years, unfortunately, the Paralympics have not been without controversy: as with other Olympic sports, there have been allegations of doping, along with accusations of ‘understating’ athletes’ level of disability [5]. But a lot of ongoing issues within (and at the fringes of) the Paralympics touch on much more troubling questions. How can the Paralympics be opened up to better funding, recognition, and respect? Should Paralympic athletes be allowed to compete directly against regularly-abled ones (think Oscar Pistorious)? It’s difficult to say exactly where these discussions will lead... but do tune in  Mar 8, 2018 – Mar 18, 2018, and see what all the excitement is about.

[1] http://bit.ly/1MD7zs1
[2] http://bit.ly/1SURPNP
[3] http://bit.ly/1XEy8xF
[4] http://bit.ly/23StO1x
[5] http://bit.ly/26az4jh

by Constance Holman, PhD Student AG Schmitz
this article originally appeared June 2016 in Volume 09 Issue 2 "The Sporty Brain"

Gender Bias Prevails in Academia

It is still an upstream battle for women trying to reach the top of the career ladder in academia. In Germany, 44 % of all doctoral candidates are women, but this number drops sharply down to 25 % at the post-doctoral “on their way to tenure" track. In leadership positions within academia, only 13 % are women [1].

The Council of Canadian Academics reports slightly higher number with 32 % women in faculty positions [2], but the pattern is the same: there is a staggering decline in the percentage of women in higher positions, while the trend is reversed for men. The highest-ranking positions are still being filled by men, and the skewed composition remains discouraging.
One might set aside the choice of lifestyle issue for a moment – that some women simply choose to stay away from the leadership role in order to play a bigger role in family life – and simply consider the matter of how individuals with hiring power perceive one gender over another. Shocking is the statistical evidence that there is still a laden gender bias within our current system: a new study by Moss-Racusin and colleagues has announced that there are prevailing attitudes amongst faculty members when making hiring decisions to fill managerial posts. The study, led by Jo Handelsman from Yale University, looks at academic biology and physics and questions current faculty members' perception of individual candidates in terms of their hireability and starting salary [3]. The surveyed faculty members, a mixed group in terms of gender composition, were shown application materials for a management position. The applications were randomly assigned male or female names. The results were shocking: across all parameters – competence, hireability, inclination to mentor, and salary -- the applications with a male name were ranked significantly and consistently higher. Even female faculty members held these beliefs based on the name of the applicant being either male or female.

Source: Council of Canadian Academies, 2012. Strengthening Canada’s Research Capacity: The Gender Dimension. The Expert Panel of Women in University Research, Council of Canadian Academies. 

Since each individual likely judges their own worth and aptitude based on their perceived ranking and feedback from superiors in any given career field, engrained preference of a male candidate over themselves may discourage women from seeking out higher positions. The study points out powerful cultural norms, which prevail in even the most rational disciplines such as physics or biology.
The results of this study highlight the continued need to strengthen, foster and incentivize women to apply to high-level academic posts in order to counter the current cultural status quo and perception of competence.

By Gina Eom
This article originally appeared 2013 in CNS Volume 6, Issue 1, Gender Differences

[1] BMBF Report on Programme for Women Professors, 2012
[2] Council of Canadian Academics Report in Focus November 2012
[3] Moss-Racusin et al, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2012