“How Did That Get There?” - Foreign Objects in the Brain

The brain is our inner sanctum, containing every experience of consciousness, sensation, and memory. It’s cradled in the skull, meninges and dura mater, as well as aggressively defended by a special wing of the immune system. There is no way that anything should get in (or out). However, because of this very organ, humans are ingenious creatures and always can find ways to do incredibly stupid things. This article is not for the faint of heart.

“But I saw it on the internet….”
As I was researching this article, I quickly learned (to slight disappointment) that many stories entitled ‘Man or Woman had XYZ in Brain’ had pretty dodgy concepts of anatomy. We will start with the obvious: the brain is encased in the skull, and has no immediate access to the outside world. Some routes may be shorter than others, like the thin sheet of bone above the nasal cavity, but without blunt trauma they’re tightly sealed.
For example (apologies in advance to all arachnophobes), spiders can very easily wander into or lay eggs in your ears. However, to make it to the brain, they would have to make a hole in the eardrum, wander all the way through the cochlea and somehow squeeze their way along the auditory nerve. So the stories that you may hear about referring to ant colonies growing in an individual’s brain? Undoubtedly fake.

Misplaced Objects
As one might suspect, a lot of foreign objects find their way into the brain via tragic or unfortunate circumstances. For example, two Turkish neurologists reported a seemingly normal man who was discovered late in life to have three needles in his brain. His only symptom? A few headaches. The authors suspected that the needles were from a failed homicide attempt when the man was an infant. He survived the removal surgery, and presumably went on with his life [1].
As with other types of surgeries, it is also possible for tools, gauze, or other implements to be left behind in the brain. Tissue grows around these foreign bodies, and infection or abscesses may occur if not caught in time (usually by neurological symptoms). Most (but not all!) of the time these remnants can be removed, and one may assume that a malpractice lawsuit soon follows.
One of the more famous examples of foreign objects in the brain came from a man named Dante Autullo in 2012 [2]. He was using a nail gun to fix a shed, and somehow misfired it into his own head. His friend cleaned up what looked like a surface wound, and they continued building. The next day Autullo was feeling slightly nauseous, and a trip to the doctor ended with him getting a nail removed from his brain. He survived without further impairment. Compare this with the very famous case of railroad worker Phineas Gage, who took an iron rod to the head. He, too, survived without neurological symptoms, but his peers noticed a massive change in personality until he died twelve years after the accident [4].

Radiology Picture of the Day, Courtesy Dr. Laughlin Dawes. Pictured is a CT scan of a patient who pushed a ballpoint pen through the eye socket (and survived).

Squirm-Inducing
Apart from trauma, there is a more insidious and infinitely more gross way that things can get into your brain: parasites. For example, the pork tapeworm Taenia solium can enter the bloodstream from poorly-cooked food, and invade the skin, eyes, and brain. The danger here is not acute, but rather builds up over time as the body forms cysts trying to isolate the parasite from brain tissue [3]. Depending on where these cysts develop, this can cause seizures or other neurological complications. In developing countries, it is estimated that up to a relatively high percentage of the general population is a carrier of the tapeworm, but the fraction of those burden with neurological problems is unknown. Treatment of these brain invaders is also complicated, as the most common antiparasitic drugs cause severe tissue inflammation, which in the brain can be fatal. Often, surgical excision of the cysts is the only option [5].

The brain lesion was... moving.

But for the maximum gross-out factor, let’s also spend a moment talking about larger critters. In 2010, a British man visited the doctor complaining of headaches, strange smells, pain and other vague symptoms. He was tested for just about every neurological disease under the sun, including dozens of brain scans, but doctors couldn’t figure out what was wrong. It was only when a neurologist compared the scans over time that they noticed that a small brain lesion was… moving. Yes. He had a living worm in his brain. It turned out to be a rare type of frog parasite, and was genotyped in the hope of better diagnosing infected patients in the future [6]. Cases like his are (thankfully!) extremely rare, but do still pop up from time to time...

No Entry
In short, having anything in your brain besides neurons, glia and supportive cells is bad news. It takes a keen eye and a good neurologist to spot and deal with the problem, and all of us are better off avoiding these situations all together. So, keep pointy objects away from your head and cook your food well.
Oh, and don’t believe everything that you read online.

Constance Holman
PhD Student, AG Schmitz

[1] Pelin and Kaner, Neurol Int 2012
[2] https://bit.ly/2jNy3vL
[3] https://bit.ly/2rxLsvq
[4] https://bit.ly/2L4vhPc
[5] White, J Infect Dis 2009
[6] Bennett et al., Genome Biol 2014



Like what you see? Interested in contributing? We are always looking for new authors and submission on anything related to the topic of (neuro)science. Pitch us an article, or send us some beautiful shots from your microscope, poems to claudia.willmes@charite.de!   

New Issue Out Now: BRAIN INVASION

The brain is an amazing thing: it allows to think, feel, create and do lots of other less-glamorous things like breathe and digest your lunch. But what's even more amazing is the system that our body has involved to keep it that way. This issue of the newsletter is all about how things can find their way inside our heads- for better or for worse!

 

https://bit.ly/2LwCVRU

First off, have a look at our primer on the different ways in, intracortical implants to poorly cooked food (page 3), and learn more about the body's first line of defense (page 7-8). We also have a first-hand account of a particularly sneaky invader (page 4), as well as clinical reports of foreign objects turning up where they definitely shouldn't be (page 9)! But it's not all bad news! Recent developments have meant that our senses can be augmented (or even repaired, pages 5 and 10), and optogenetics has "illuminated" a whole new realm of experimental possibilities (page 13-14). Are we ready for blending our brains and technology? We have two stories examining the ways authors play with the idea of cyborgs (pages 11-12), as well as providing some thought-provoking watching material (page 7).
Of course, we also have stories from the here and now on campus. What's the point of publishing negative results (page 19)? Are MSc students treated fairly (page 18)? What is it like to work for a big pharma company (page 16)? And, most importantly: what the heck is going on with those yellow buses all over campus (page 21)?

Happy reading, dear readers! We hope that this issue will stick in your head.

Constance Holman and Claudia Willmes
Editors-in-Chief

A Makeover for the Newsletter?

Shortly before the winter holidays, the CNS newsletter team had the privilege to attend a scientific writing workshop hosted by Dr. Jochen Müller, a neuroscientist now working in consulting and scientific communication. Together with Jochen, we critically evaluated the last few issues of the newsletter and talked about ways in which we can expand our readership.

Although the CNS newsletter is a 100% volunteer-driven initiative, we still pride ourselves on trying to produce stories that are informative, original, and educational, even if readers don't have a background in neuroscience. As Jochen pointed out, one of our strengths is covering a topic -  for example Neuroaesthetics -  from a variety of different angles. However, we were encouraged to move beyond purely covering "textbook-style" knowledge, and delve deeper into stories where we can provide a unique perspective.

Please fill out a short reader survey!

To this end, we are going to try and write more about our number one area of expertise: being neuroscience students in Berlin! For example, in this issue, we have collected on-the-ground interviews with students (page 18), as well as covering advice on how to find a career entry after graduation (page 24), and taking a long, critical look at funding schemes for PhDs (page 22).
For upcoming issues, we have some new and interesting article types up our sleeve: "behind-the-scenes" of scientific discoveries in Berlin, critiques of neuroscience in books and on TV, debates on Big Questions of the field, and so much more. We're really looking forward to sharing it with you!

A key part of our strategy to improve the newsletter depends on finding out more about YOU, dear reader. Please fill out a short reader survey. It will help us to plan our future issues, and it takes less than five minutes!

Constance Holman (on behalf of the CNS newsletter editorial team)


Link to Reader Survey: https://goo.gl/forms/CVQrDaMZOm1ecS0k2
Learn more about Dr. Müller's work and writing philosophy here: http://www.jochen-mueller.net/

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.

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"

Sleep Deprivation: One-way ticket to a speedy death?

Calm down: If you could actually die of moderate sleep deprivation (SD), PhD students would be an endangered species. So you can put your fears to rest. Severe SD, however, is an entirely different matter…

We all know what a missing night of sleep (or two!) feels like: concentration problems, aching joints, short temper. All unpleasant but manageable. SD, both in acute and chronic forms is a common feature of modern life. But several individuals have taken it to the extreme: the longest scientifically-confirmed voluntary period without sleep was 264 hours (11 days), completed by Randy Gardner in 1977 [1]. Towards the end of the study, Mr. Gardner experienced dramatic memory loss, and experienced florid psychosis, on par with other less systematic reports of SD. Beyond this, there is not much that scientists know about the effects of extreme sleep loss in a controlled setting. However, we do know this: if you prevent an animal from sleeping long enough, it will die. The strange thing is, we don’t know why.

The Case of The Sleepless Rats
In the lab, there are several rather nasty experimental paradigms to prevent animals from getting either deep REM sleep, or sleep at all. For example, animals are placed on a small platform in a tank of water. Whenever they start showing signs of relaxing, sometimes visualized by EEG of EMG changes, they are gently handled by experimenters or simply allowed to fall into the water [2].
If you prevent a rat from having any sleep at all, they die within 2-3 weeks [2]. But what if you only block periods of deep, REM sleep? Well, they still die, but manage to hold out just over a month.
What happens to the animals during this time? Rats’ mental states are not so easily queried as humans’, so we can only judge their cognitive health based on (decreasing) performance on behavioral tests [3]. But after a short period, the animals start exhibiting a range of physical and physiological changes, too. Body temperature drops, as does the animals’ weight (despite increased appetite), and they start exhibiting skin lesions. Bacteria flood the intestine, and the immune system becomes overburdened. Then… they die [2,4]. There are several theories about why this happens, for example, that animals have irreversible hypothermia, or severe sepsis. However, rats that are kept warm or given antibiotics still succumb [4].

IF YOU PREVENT A RAT FROM SLEEPING, IT DIES WITHIN 2-3 WEEKS

It’s not entirely clear whether death in this experimental setting is most easily ascribed to severe stress from the environment, total immune failure, brain damage, or some combination of the three [4]. For example, pigeons and mice subjected to the same paradigm have much better physiological outcomes [5], though it seems that the animals in these studies were euthanized before they became as ill as the rats above. Nowadays, researchers seem to be more interested in the subtler effects of SD on things like metabolism and cancer resistance (which are worth a full article [or issue of the newsletter] in their own right) [4, 6].

Image source: Alyssa L. Miller via flickr

The Case of the Unlucky Insomniacs
There is one final type of death-by-SD worth considering, though it leaves open just about as many questions as it answers: Fatal Familial Insomnia (FFI) [7]. This is an exceedingly rare disorder which, yes, affects (and kills) humans. 26 families worldwide carry an autosomal dominant gene variant which causes the condition, while only 9 sporadic cases have ever been recorded [9]. This mutation causes changes on PrP, the gene responsible for prion protein and the devastating effects of Creutzfeld-Jakob (aka Mad Cow) disease (CJD). Patients begin exhibiting anxiety and behavioral changes around age 50, which quickly transitions to ever-decreasing periods of sleep and eventually total insomnia. Dementia follows, and patients usually die within a year from complications such as pneumonia [8,9].

YOU ARE EXTREMELY UNLIKELY TO DIE DIRECTLY BY SLEEP DEPRIVATION

Thus, patients with FFI don’t really die of SD per se, rather of generalized brain atrophy accompanied by approximately 6 months without sleep [8,9]. Much like CJD, this disease causes the brain to become riddled with mutant prions and causes atrophy in several areas, notably the frontal cortices and thalamus (the most likely candidate for sleep-related problems) [7,8]. Due to the extremely low number of cases worldwide, there is not a great deal more information, although a mouse model was produced in the late 2000s that recapitulates many features of the human condition [9].

Something to Keep You Up At Night
I’ve been writing for the newsletter for about 4 years now, covering more than a dozen topics. And this article was far and above one of the most grim to research. Real SD is truly the stuff of nightmares (and legally-sanctioned torture [4]). But I digress! The good news here is that most humans are extremely unlikely to die directly by SD. However, there are a host of dangers associated with SD. First and foremost, accidents caused by nodding off or being distracted while doing things like driving. There is also a growing body of evidence linking SD to metabolic problems like obesity and diabetes.
To put it bluntly, SD will catch up with you. It’s just a question of how quickly…

by Constance Holman, PhD Student AG Schmitz
This article originally appeared December 2017 in CNS Volume 10, Issue 04, Sleep 



[1] http://bit.ly/1GWPboW
[2] http://bit.ly/1ccEe6e
[3] Alhola and Pola-Kantola, Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat20017
[4] http://slate.me/1WTz4Oe
[5] Newman et al., Physiol Behav 2008
[6] Knutson et al., Sleep Med Rev 2007
[7] http://bit.ly/2z8wwHB
[8] Schenkein and Montagna, MedGenMed 2006
[9] http://bit.ly/2z73PL1

White Bears, Written Words

What did you get for Christmas, maybe you got a book? As books are one of the most popular Christmas gifts we ask in today's article "Can Reading Harness Brain Plasticity?"

“Once upon a time in Uzbekistan” is not a way that many neuroscience stories begin. But for this issue on nature and nurture, a key narrative began there that would come to influence debates up to the present day.
Alexander Luria, a Soviet neuropsychologist keenly interested in the relationship between culture and the mind, studied the influence of literacy on styles of argumentation. He wanted to test whether cultural experiences could affect thought patterns. By working with illiterate peasants, he uncovered fascinating examples of how written language seemed to be necessary for abstract thought patterns. His most famous example went something like this:

Luria: “In the North, there is snow, and all bears are white. Novaya Zemlya is in the far North. What color are the bears there?”

Peasant: “I don’t know. I’ve never been to the far North. I saw a black bear here once.”

Many more such examples (dealing with everything from describing shapes to objects to self-reference) were collected in Luria’s bestseller, Cognitive Development: its Social and Cultural Foundations [1]. It went on to be a fundamental text in both neuroscience and anthropology.

via Wikimedia Commons

Putting Text in Context
Although literacy has developed too recently to alter the human genome, it is an integral part of most human societies. For example, if you are on your computer today, you will probably scan more than 500,000 words (not to mention what you see in your time offline) [2]! Furthermore, the practice of reading makes a fascinating case study for the effect of a very special type of nurture on the brain.
Reading text is a multimodal exercise, incorporating visual, auditory, and cognitive/predictive elements of language comprehension. Luria argued (and many today agree) that reading was necessary to provide a scaffold for certain types of abstract thought [1,3]. While fascinating on a purely ethnographic basis, studies such as these still leave many questions to ponder. Though literacy underlies many human interactions, it has only developed on a widespread basis in the last few hundred years. Could this relatively new type of cognitive processing be sufficient to make changes in our brain?

Reading the Signals from Neuroimaging
The hills of Uzbekistan are distant from the labs of today, and indeed, so are the approaches that are used. Although many groups worldwide still do not use written language, they generally aren’t accessible with an MRI scanner in tow. So what do we do now?
Today, our primary knowledge about the effects of reading on the brain comes from longitudinal studies in school-age children. These studies [cf 4,5] demonstrate that literacy appears to co-opt pre-existing language networks in the brain. Notably, the left superior temporal sulcus and inferior frontal areas show robust activation, correlating well with development of reading abilities. These findings are intriguing, but not entirely conclusive. In the countries where these studies were performed, children are legally obligated to go to school and receive formalized instruction. Therefore, a non-literate control group cannot be used to provide more definitive answers about the effects of literacy on the brain.

by Mark Larson via Flickr, "Use your library often!"

Recently, researchers have found a way around these challenges, to examine the development of reading skills in a more controlled setting. For example, a group in France has published a set of studies examining the neural correlates of the development of literacy in adults. Essentially, the scientists scanned the brains of adults who had learned to read in childhood using diffusion tensor imaging. They compared them with the brains of adults who had only recently acquired literacy skills. Vast tissue tracts were affected, with literacy acquisition leading to elaboration of tempero-parietal connectivity [6].
A separate study which compared two groups of illiterate adults, one of which received a reading intervention program, found evidence of reading-mediated changes in early visual processing [7]. Other evidence of literacy’s effects on the brain come from people who have reading disorders such as dyslexia. These individuals, contrary to their normally-reading peers, have been shown to demonstrate hypoactivation of several superior temporal areas typically associated with word processing and semantic retrieval [8,9]. Taken together, this work suggests a tightly interlinked series of regions in the brain that are altered through learning to read and whose malfunction may underlie a failure to do so.

Literacy: A Thoroughly Complicated Business
So can we still stand by Luria 80 years later? Yes and no. Although it appears that literacy skills do foster changes in activation and connectivity, we are still a long way from understanding how these changes might underlie certain types of abstract thought (and beliefs about polar bears). Moreover, there are several obstacles to getting the full picture about reading and the brain. At the end of the day, reading is a fundamentally culture-bound phenomenon. It is deeply influenced by the values and educational emphases of the society in which it develops.
As neuroimaging studies progress, we should not forget where all these questions started. Though a trip through the wilderness is certainly not for the faint of heart, it may still be the best way to integrate neuroscientific, ethnographic, and linguistic inquiry. And with a business as complicated as understanding literacy, it may be where we need to return.

[1] Luria, Cognitive Development: Its Cultural and Social Foundations, 1976
[2] Bunz, “Is the link economy of UK news sites managing or making abundance?” in PDA: The digital content blog, Nov 2, 2009
[3] Nell, Neuropsych Rev, 1999
[4] Berl et al, Brain Lang, 2010
[5] Horowitz-Kraus et al, Front Hum Neurosci, 2014
[6] de Schotten et al, Cereb Cort, 2014
[7] Boltzmann and Rüsseler, BMC Neuroscience, 2014
[8] Christodoulou et al, PloS One, 2014
[9] Eicher and Gruen, Mol Genet Metab, 2013

by Constance Holman, PhD Student AG Schmitz
This article originally appeared 2014 in CNS Volume 7, Issue 3, Nature vs Nurture 

New Issue Out Now! SLEEP

“I have too much to do. I can sleep when I’m dead.” Sounds familiar? Why do we even bother spending a third of our lives unconscious? In this issue of the Snoozeletter (sorry for the pun), we drift off to dreamland to explore one of the most mysterious neurological phenomena of all time.

access the full magazine

Have you ever wondered whether your pets dream (about you, hopefully) (pages 4-5)? Or whether skipping a few hours of shuteye is a good idea? Spoiler alert: it’s not! You need it to remember (page 6), to develop (page 11), and work on your fine motor skills (page 13). And with enough sleep deprivation, you will also learn how things go downhill really fast (pages 9 and 14). Think that your sleeping patterns probably don’t match a 9 to 5 schedule? Check out our article on social jetlag (page 7). We cover this year’s Nobel laureates’ work (page 6) and how it could affect treatment of medical illnesses (page 10). So perhaps you shouldn’t feel so guilty for having that session of Napflix & Chill.

Sounds interesting? Well, we also talked to researchers working in a sleep lab (13), as sleep consultants (14), and even studying lucid dreaming (8). From the busiest human to the humble jellyfi sh (page 5), we all need our shuteye. Or perhaps you are dreaming a new collaborative research project? Hear about this year’s exciting DESIRE conference from our correspondent Aliénor Ragot (14).

So put on your pyjamas, crawl into bed with a glass of Glühwein, and get into December hibernation-mode with some great writing from the Berlin neuroscience community. Happy reading, and enjoy the winter holidays!

Constance Holman & Helge Hasselmann

Co-editors-in-chief

Faith and Perspective: an Interview With Three Berlin Neuroscientists

With the upcoming holidays in mind, we are talking about faith and  being a scientist in today's post. Recently, we sat down for a chat with three researchers of the Neuroscience community in Berlin, the topic ranging from juggling neuroscience and faith to common misconceptions about religion. Here’s what they had to say.

Could you please tell us a little about your faith?
I am a Christian, as were my parents. When I was in grade 12, I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior and converted to Evangelical Christianity. And I would say during my stay in the university, I came much closer to God. I started seeking him with all my heart; the more I know Him, the more I reflect His character: love and kindness.

I'm basically born into a Hindu family. I have been practicing Hinduism since childhood. During the course of my studies and my PhD in neuroscience, I have started to question both religion and science – specifically whether either of them can fully answer questions on consciousness.

I was born in a Muslim family and had the privilege of having parents that loved to read and had a large collection of books on religion (mainly Islamic) as well as comparative religion-oriented. They encouraged me to read and I spent a great deal of time combing through books at my home. During my childhood, much like other kids, I practiced religion more out of watching what my parents and grandparents did. As a teenager, I became more inquisitive, and started practicing my religion with more reason, intent, and curiosity.

How does your faith help or influence you as a neuroscientist?
My faith shapes every part of my life, and everything I do is based on principles from the Bible. For example, I am faithful – faithful to God, faithful to the people standing next to me in the lab, faithful in everything that I do. I believe that God is watching, hence, I do whatever I do with all my heart. And I consider the opportunities I have got as an immense privilege that I should nurture and care for. Besides, living in harmony with God lets me have internal peace and keep me secure no matter what happens around.

The concept of Hinduism urges one to ask questions about one's inner self/consciousness (also known as Advaita philosophy) which helps me as a neuroscientist to shape and ask questions about workings of the brain leading to conscious behavior.

In our holy book, the Quran, there are hundreds of verses which encourage us to study and ponder. In fact, in the very first verse, where the truth about Allah is revealed to the prophet Muhammad, the first divine command is “Read!”. A quest for knowledge is thus one of the most important pursuits that one can have in life. Many people in different religions are taught that they cannot contest what is written or preached, but I believe that Islam teaches us always to be skeptical and build strong counterarguments, or put things to the test. Using this type of reasoning is extremely important for me as a neuroscientist. Furthermore, Islam teaches us that we should gain our livelihood through righteous means. That means if you happen to be a researcher, do research with a purpose and rationale behind it. We are held accountable after death for how we used our health, knowledge and time during life. Therefore, whatever we do has to be legitimate and meaningful. So, in that sense, faith definitely influences neuroscience in that it gives me a purpose behind the daily struggles of research because I know that even if I fail, I learn a lot more and that all these efforts are not futile.

What do you believe your faith can teach you about neuroscience?
I know that God has placed eternity in our heart and mindset to seek and explore what has been done under heaven. But, there are questions that science is not able to answer; about creation and existence, purpose of life, etc. People might seek and try lots of things, but there is always a void inside our heart that God can only fill. The Bible teaches us that we were uniquely, fearfully, and wonderfully created as part of a perfect system. It is fascinating to see how the universe operates by itself. Hence, being a scientist (as well as a Christian) gives me great appreciation for how intricate biological systems are perfectly made, and work together in harmony. And this makes me wonder how one can perceive it as a random event.

Hindu scriptures like Vedas and Upanishads have dealt with mind and brain in depth. For example, there are concepts of divisions of mind like Buddhi (intellect/logical part of brain), Manas (emotional parts) and Indriyas (senses). Furthermore, these texts have a lot of insights on how senses interact with the mind.

The Quran teaches us that our intelligence is what sets us apart from animals – the ability to think and reason. Islam instills in an individual that he or she is so much more than the sum of all their synapses or microbiome. Of course, with great power comes great responsibility – we shouldn’t take it all for granted. Islam thus teaches us that to lead a meaningful life, we need to use our brains!

Has neuroscience changed the way that you see your faith?
If anything, I think it’s the other way around!

Neuroscience has definitely helped me form more solid ideas of mind and brain combining the aspects of mind mentioned in Vedas.

Yes. Science is all about inquiry, and established knowledge changes fast. This has helped me be more enquiring and skeptical about my own faith. In my everyday life, I try to reason with myself a lot about the how’s and why’s of the lifestyle I follow. Neuroscience reinforces this habit.

Has anyone ever challenged you about your faith as a scientist?
Well, I am having discussions with colleagues all the time, and I think sometimes they might get perplexed with my faith. Scientists are always looking for concrete proof, something tangible to prove things about God and the universe. But faith is something that has to be experienced – it’s something that I personally have experienced, and it is something that no one can take away from me. To help you understand, look at the concept of love. It’s something that I (and most other people) have experienced, yet is completely intangible and needs to be felt to be believed. It can’t be measured!

Actually, I never felt a clash between ideas in Hinduism and neuroscience. Hinduism encourages one to seek answers for questions on 'Paramatma' which is the 'Primordial Self'. In my opinion, that is also the ultimate goal of neuroscience – to understand perception and consciousness.

Oh yes, I am challenged all the time! I have lots of friends from different religions, including some who identify as atheists. Discussing religion and science with them is a favorite topic of mine. Having your beliefs questioned is also refreshing in the sense in that it teaches you that beliefs or ideas that form your core personality may not have any significance for others – and that’s ok. Or the fact that one need not believe in a theistic religion to go out and do good in society or some seriously awesome science. I firmly believe that if the Quran is a divine miracle, its prophecies or claims will be testable and could not be falsified. My knowledge regarding both religion and neuroscience is fairly basic but this very reason motivates me to question both and improve my understanding.

Are there any misconceptions that you feel people have about your faith?
The biggest misconception I have faced is ‘faith and science are considered incompatible’. When I tell people I am a Christian, I have been asked how do you believe and be a scientist at the same time. With science, I try to understand and discover what is already there. My faith gives me the bigger picture, the purpose for life. Being a Christian is not also having certain religious practices and rituals. Faith is all about having a personal relationship with God. To me, having faith and being a religious person are not the same thing! Religion is something based on rules: do this, don’t do that. To me, being a Christian is personally experiencing God and walking the walk of life with Him through the ups and downs.

Well, it’s not specifically neuroscientific, but whenever I say I'm from India, people ask "are you a vegetarian?". I am actually, but not all Hindus are [laughs]. Some confusion also arises about the number of Gods that we have. Even though we have millions of Gods as a way of placing and expressing faith, we all believe in Paramatma, 'Primordial Self'.

There are two misconceptions that I’ve noticed a lot. First, that Islam hinders scientific progress as it’s just a set of rituals from the 7^th century. This is absurd and any hindrances to science per se are products of people’s actions (combine less education and in depth study of religion + science) rather than their faith. This also extends to people’s take on women and STEM. Despite societal constraints on women in some Muslim countries, there have also been some remarkable outcomes. If you look at countries like Iran or Pakistan, they have some of the highest number of women in STEM professions in the Muslim world. A second big misconception is that Islamic teachings are rigid, set in stone and cannot be challenged. Also not true. In fact, the Quran openly challenges people to bring a counter argument against its verses and claims to promote a lifestyle model that can adapt to the change in time.

What do you think is the most important thing for people to understand about your faith?
Faith and science are not incompatible. It just takes an open heart to experience God like love. It is not something you can validate and understand with logic. It is not rocket science either, if we genuinely and humbly seek God with an open heart, we will find Him. He is not hidden or somewhere far away, He is around revealing himself in one or another way throughout our journey. Believing in Christ gives eternal life, internal peace, meaning to life and a positive way to look at everything. A life worth living is a life with meaning and purpose. God loves you!

 People have thought about understanding the brain since many centuries, which is reflected in the religious scriptures like Vedas. Perhaps one could get answers by reading these scriptures!

As I mentioned before, the concept of skepticism and inquiry is very important. As far as scientific research is concerned, Islam encourages people to do that as it may be one way of recognizing the common design involved behind the universe and the man. For modern day issues like organ-donation and blood transfusion for instance, it encourages ‘’ijtihad’’ (thorough exertion of a jurist's mental faculty in finding a solution to a legal question). Finally, Islam stresses that acquiring knowledge and then having the wisdom to act on that knowledge is what makes us distinct from our relatives in the animal kingdom. In the Quran, the reader is warned that not acting on acquired wisdom (be it through religious books or years spent in scientific training) will demote the status of its believers. Herein lies the key problem, and the majority of Muslims who passively follow Islam like a religion of rituals and obligations don’t bother to treat it as an all-encompassing lifestyle that could be so much more beyond prayer and supplications. Believing in Quran and its writer (the Almighty) do not automatically entitle anyone to any kind of superiority (religious or educational) over others who don’t. Success in any walk of life is guaranteed to those who work hard for it.

A big thank you to all interviewees!

Content has been edited lightly for clarity and length with participants’ permission.

by Constance Holman, PhD Student AG Schmitz
this article originally appeared 2017 in CNS Volume 10, Issue 3, Spirituality in Science

Glory with the Silly Bits Left In - Neuroscience and the Ig Nobels

Costumes. Sing-alongs. The Win-a-Date-With-a-Nobel-Laureate contest. The truth is that the annual Ig Nobel prizes are probably the best scientific awards ceremony around. Every year in Cambridge, Massachusetts, distinguished members of the scientific community (including a handful of real Nobel Laureates) gather to celebrate some of the weirdest research around. What must one do to earn such a prestigious honor? The Ig Nobel Prize has two simple requirements: the project in question must make people laugh. But then, it must make them think.

 

 Momentous History
The Ig Nobel prize was founded in 1991 as a spin-off of the Annals of Improbable Research. This scientific journal (and today, blog) published by Harvard, collects examples of the strangest, most useless, and poorly thought-out research on the planet. But faced with a surplus of such work, they needed a way to honor the best of the best (or perhaps the worst of the worst?). As such, the Ig Nobel Prize was born.
So just what kind of research makes one laugh, then think? Well, the laughter is simple, but the thinking falls into two categories. Sometimes, prize-winners’ research will cause deep existential thoughts. For example, the 1995 Ig Nobel for Psychology went to Watanabe and colleagues for teaching pigeons to differentiate between paintings by Picasso and Monet [1]. However, other thoughts are of the “how-on-earth-did-they-get-funding-for-that?” nature. 2013’s physics prize went to a group who determined that humans are capable of running on the surface of a pond... if the pond and the people are on the moon [2].

Conrad von Soest, Source: wikicommons

Thankfully, the Ig Nobel does not discriminate between disciplines, and members of all walks of life are equally “honored”. To avoid undue embarrassment, winners are contacted privately and offered the chance to decline their Ig Nobel. The number of refusals is a tightly-guarded secret, but all published winners seem to accept the reward with good grace. For some, however, it’s just bad press: the prestigious Ig Nobel for Peace was awarded to president Viktor Lukashenko of Belarus for outlawing applause in public, and to the Belarusian State Police for arresting a one-armed man for breaking the new law. Sadly, you can’t make this stuff up [3].

“Innovation” in Brain-Based Disciplines
But enough background. This newsletter is a space for the brain! 2014 was a marvelous year for many reasons. It was also the year in which an exciting Ig Nobel for Neuroscience was awarded, spurred by ground-breaking work on what happens in people’s brains when they see the face of Jesus in their toast [4]. However, there have been many, many prizes in closely related fields. For example, the Cognitive Science prize was awarded to a certain Dr. Nakagaki, for demonstrating that a species of mold can solve puzzles. It should be noted that the award-winning paper was published in Nature [5]. In 2005, the Peace prize was given to a team who monitored neural activity in a locust while it watched Star Wars [6].
A common theme among neuro-related Ig Nobels is pain, specifically the kind where study participants probably need to be generously compensated. Are you concerned about traumatic brain injuries? Never fear! Bolliger and colleagues won a Peace Ig Nobel for studying whether it is better to be smashed over the head by an empty or a full beer bottle [7]. What about the burgeoning field of neuro-aesthetics? Well, de Tommaso and colleagues combined art contemplation with zapping subjects with a powerful (and presumably painful) laser to showcase modulation of the nociceptive response [8]. Of course, the Ig Nobels are not simple violence-mongers. In 2010, a group from the UK was awarded the Peace Ig Nobel for scientifically proving that swearing helps relieve pain [9].

Eternal Questions
The Ig Nobels have occasionally waded into real scientific controversy. For example, in 2012, a winning team led by Craig Bennett used a very fancy MRI machine and very simple statistics to find amazing activity-related correlations… in a dead salmon [10]. The study was meant as a tongue-in-cheek criticism of poor statistical practices in functional neuroimaging, but instead, infuriated many members of the community. Other studies, which seem rather silly at first glance, have actually been incredibly important. Eleanor Maguire and colleagues got an Ig in 2000 for showing that the hippocampi of London cab drivers are more developed than those of other professionals [11]. This work was one of the first hints that brains could substantially develop and rewire themselves in adulthood. No laughing matter at all for the neuroscience community…

Making you laugh. Then making you think.

Still, as a young researcher in an immensely serious field, I'd like to believe that we are capable of finding humor in neuroscience. The Ig Nobels, while quite silly and (delightfully) overblown are a fun tool for reminding ourselves that science is meant to answer people’s questions. Even if those questions are as frivolous as “why does needing to urinate change decision-making capability?” [12]. Yes, the scientific community can stand to learn a lot from the Ig Nobels. Even if it is only to keep one’s own research in perspective, and approach all discoveries with an open mind and good sense of humor.

[1] Watanabe et al, J Exp Anal Behav, 1995
[2] Minetti et al, PLoS One, 2012
[3] Barry, New York Times, 2011
[4] Liu et al, Cortex, 2013
[5] Nakagaki et al, Nature, 2000
[6] Rind and Simmons, J Neurophysiol, 1992
[7] Bolliger et al, J Forensic Leg Med, 2009
[8] de Tommaso et al, Conscious Cogn, 2008
[9] Stevens et al, Neuroreport, 2009
[10] Bennett et al, 2010, JSUR
[11] Maguire et al, PNAS, 2000
[12] Tuk et al, Psych Sci, 2011

Constance Holman, PhD student AG Schmitz
This article originally appeared 2015 in CNS Volume 8, Issue 1, Humor

A New Experience for the Adventurous Neuroscientist

In anticipation of Halloween, today's article is about an unusual type of meal.

When I heard that the MedNeuro newsletter was doing an issue on food and the brain, I naturally jumped at the chance to write an article. The excitement! The fun! The opportunity to explore a new frontier… in culinary arts. Yes, dear reader, this is an article all about cooking and eating brains.

But Are Brains Edible?
The short answer is “of course”! Like almost every other part of the body, the brain and spinal cord may be used from an animal to prepare various dishes. In fact, brain consumption in one form or another is practiced by groups worldwide. In Western Europe and North America, brain consumption is decreasing, as more desirable cuts of meat become more widespread and affordable. While you may not be able to find brain at the local Lidl or Netto, specialty butchers in Berlin will occasionally have calf brains for sale. Elsewhere in the world, brain still forms an important part of a traditional diet. For example, in Mexico, one can sometimes find “tacos de sesos”, while in parts of Indonesia, “gulai otak” (beef brain curry) is very popular.

Photo Giddy, "Brain Candy"

But Are Brains Safe to Eat?
In addition to changing demand for more “user-friendly” types of meat, brain consumption has decreased to concerns about its safety. Most readers are probably familiar with the string of deaths linked to Mad Cow (aka Creutzfeld-Jakob) Disease in the mid-1990s. This condition is still poorly understood, but is believed to stem from proliferation of prions in the brains and spinal cords of cattle that were fed remnants of other animals who died of the disease [1]. Humans who also ate meat from these animals became ill with neurological symptoms, and then swiftly died of generalized brain atrophy. Since the time of the first outbreak, most governments have taken aggressive steps to curtail the use of cattle byproducts as livestock feed, but cases still occasionally pop up every few years.

Consider yourself warned

 By and large, consumption of brain in Europe and North America should be relatively safe.
Another question of brain safety is worth mentioning, though is quite unlikely to apply to most would-be brain consumers: In the 1950s, a strange neurological disease was first noticed among the Fore region of Papua New Guinea. Eventually, the disease later christened “Kuru” was traced to practices of mortuary cannibalism, where family members of a recently deceased person would consume their remains in a gesture of respect. It was later determined to be another form of prion spongiform encephalopathy, much like Creutzfeld-Jakob [1]. These days, outbreaks are much more rare, but due to a long incubation period (2-20 years), cases still pop up [2]. So in case you are considering trying out human brain, consider yourself warned…

But Are They Good for You?
Ironically, brains are probably most dangerous in terms of their nutritional content. As any good neuroscientist knows, a good deal of the brain is formed by fatty myelin-covered axons. Thus, with small differences across species and methods of brain preparation, brain is extremely high in fat and cholesterol! For example, a serving of “pork brains in milk gravy” contains an estimated 1170% of daily-recommended cholesterol intake [3]! On the other hand, brains are also rich in omega fatty acids such as DHA [4]. All of this really takes “brain food” (see"The ABCs of Brain Foods - How to Eat Smart") to a whole new level.

Brain is extremely high in fat

But Are They Tasty?
The most important question of all! Although I’ve eaten some pretty “interesting” dishes in my life, I can’t say that I’ve ever (knowingly) tried brain. I’m a vegetarian, but I’m also quite curious. Hmmm… Perhaps the best thing to do is leave this here for exploratory purposes:

Swabian Brain Soup (Schwaebische Hirnsuppe)

  (adapted from http://eatsmarter.de/rezepte/schwaebische-hirnsuppe)

Please note: The editors of the MedNeuro newsletter hold no responsibility for the safety, nutritional value, or tastiness of the following recipe suggestion!

Ingredients:

• 1 onion
• 2 tbs butter
• 2 tbs flour
• 750 ml water or beef stock
• 1 tsp salt
• 0.5 tsp grated nutmeg
• 125 ml milk or cream
• 2 tbs chopped parsley or chives
• 1 egg yolk
• 1 veal brain

Instructions:

1. Rinse brain with hot water to remove blood and other connective tissue. Chop into small cubes.
2. Peel and chop the onion. Saute with butter until golden-brown in a large pot and stir in flour. Pour in water/stock and simmer for 40 minutes. Add salt, nutmeg, and brain, and simmer for a further 10 minutes.
3. Finally, add milk/cream, parsley/chives, and stir in the egg yolk. Serve soup hot with crusty bread.

Guten Appetit, and let us know how it goes!

[1] Wadsworth et al, PNAS, 2008
[2] Collinge et al, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 2008
[3] http://bit.ly/1g5qTPN
[4] http://bit.ly/1CVhbcw

by Constance Holman, PhD student AG Schmitz

This article originally appeared 2015 in CNS Volume 8, Issue 3, Food for Thought. 

New Issue Out Now! SPIRITUALITY IN SCIENCE

Is spirituality a topic that neuroscience should shun? We don’t think so! That’s why the September issue of the CNS newsletter is taking a closer look. 

click here to read

Besides exploring what religiosity looks like in your brain (pages 3 and 13), we invite you on a journey through the world of psychoactive drugs and plants (pages 6 and 7). But, as our frequent readers know, that’s not where we stop. We looked at what religion itself (page 11) and several “spiritual” practices can do for your mental (and physical) health, including fasting (page 14), meditation (page 5) and yoga (page 12). As a special treat for you, we also sat down with neuroscientists from Berlin to find out how they relate to faith (pages 8-9).
While some people struggle with bringing the spiritual and the worldly together in the workplace, we don't! In fact, this issue features one of the longest career sections in the history of our newsletter. We are excited to cover an interview with a neuroscientist-turned-yoga-teacher (pages 16-17), a recap of this year’s BioBusiness Summer School and annual Neurasmus meeting (page 18) and show you how to use activating teaching methods (page 19). And if you don’t agree with our take, we will even show you how to call BS (page 20).

Want to find out more? Stay tuned for the next postings!

Amen, Namaste, Salem Aleikum, Shalom and happy reading!

Helge Hasselmann Constance Holman
Co-editors-in-chief

This editorial originally appeared September 2017 in CNS Volume 10, Issue 3, Spirituality in Science

Piracy Ahoy: Hackers Get (Neuro)scientific

Working at a large, wealthy institution like the Charité, we are mostly insulated from the frustrations of academic paywalls. Multi-million euro academic subscription fees assure that works published in most large biomedical databases are easily within reach, and not being able to access a publication is the exception. However, in other places, a publisher paywall can literally make or break an academic career. A single paper typically costs around 20-30 euros to purchase, while some websites cheekily offer “rentals”. Imagine yourself considering what you can afford to read. In science, information is power, and corralling this information behind paywalls means a steep imbalance in who gets to set the tone of the cutting-edge research.

Introducing Sci-Hub
If the digitization of scientific knowledge is feeding an ever-growing problem, could it also provide some solutions? Some self-proclaimed scientific data pirates are using big data to beat online scientific publishing at its own game. Enter Sci-Hub [1], the “Pirate Bay of Scientific Publishing”. On this site, not unlike PubMed, anyone can search and download texts pertaining to their scientific field. It’s free, simple, and incredibly popular worldwide. Understandably, the publishers hate it.
A few quick facts and figures [2]: Sci-Hub handles about 200,000 paper requests per day, coming from all over the world and most academic disciplines. The heaviest use of the site is in Iran, but other nations aren’t far behind. The publisher arguably being hit hardest by these illegal downloads is Elsevier, though analysis found that Sci-Hub was only diverting about 5% of its legal traffic. Thus far, more than 6 million papers have been accessed through the site, and these numbers continue to grow. The number one downloaded paper so far was a piece on wind turbine testing [3], followed by a paper on glioma [4].
Sci-Hub was the brainchild of 22-year old Kazakh computer science and neuroscience student Alexandra Elbakyan. Frustrated by the lack of availability of scientific resources in her home country and with a knack for hacking, she created the site in the hopes of leveling the playing field for academics worldwide [5]. She’s widely been celebrated as a game-changer in the field of digital media, but her whereabouts are currently unknown… Due to ongoing legal proceedings, being found could mean imprisonment.

via Wikimedia Commons

The Publishers Strike Back
In 2015, the publication group Elsevier sued the website for unlawful use of copyrighted material [1]. Despite Elbakyan invoking the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which calls on signatory parties to "to share in scientific advancement and its benefits", Sci-Hub lost, and the website was promptly taken down. However, thanks to a sophisticated team of hackers and administrators involved in the project, it was up again in no time, and has since appeared under several different domain names. In the age of Big Data, Sci-Hub is not disappearing anytime soon.
Recently, Science magazine undertook an official study on the use of Sci-Hub, and the results were surprising. Whereas the study authors expected that use of the site would be most popular in less developed countries, it seems that the site was also being heavily used in Europe and North America [2]. Site critics seized on this point, claiming that for most, data piracy was an issue of convenience, rather than necessity. In some sense, they’re right: Science’s analysis of the site found that a large number of open-access articles (which theoretically anyone, anywhere can access) were being pulled from the site.

Leverage and Loopholes
There are other reasons why some are skeptical of Sci-Hub. One argument is that official publishers often keep track of downloads and usage statistics for individual works – something that Sci-Hub doesn't do. These statistics are increasingly being used as career metrics for researchers. Without facts and figures about journal readership/downloads, institutions or smaller publishers may cut ties with periodicals that are immensely popular and useful to the community [6].
A final argument from the publishing industry is that many large companies already have lots of ways to get free access to articles in their collections. For example, after users register with the journal Science, they can access all articles that were published more than a year ago for free [6]. However, not all journals are as generous with their materials, and the loopholes that researchers have to jump through make the process cumbersome, and still occasionally expensive. The heavy use of Sci-Hub in less wealthy countries suggests that (a) most researchers don’t know about these special channels to access manuscripts behind paywalls, or (b) they don’t work as advertised [2,6]. Whether a matter of education or logistics, it’s clear that there is still significant work to be done on the part of the journals.

Piracy or Cooperative Change?
However, one point remains a fact: publishing companies are not immune to change. Ten years ago, open access publishing for scientific articles was still in its infancy, and today represents a major step forward in the democratization of scientific knowledge. This happened through public pressure together with cooperation of the companies. But will publishing companies ever be able to deal with scientific data piracy in a productive manner? Peter Suber from the Office of Scholarly Communications at Harvard put it succinctly when interviewed in Science: “Lawful open access forces publishers to adapt […], unlawful open access invites them to sue instead.” [2].

by Constance Holman, PhD Student AG Schmitz


[1] http://bit.ly/1UI574H
[2] http://bit.ly/1STnFAv
[3] Osgood et al. Proceedings of the IMAC-XXVIII, 2010
[4] Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, NEJM 2015
[5] http://bit.ly/1SIgci8
[6] http://bit.ly/1NO7qSS

NEW ISSUE OUT NOW!

Big data (and big changes!) on the horizon! 

Welcome to our June edition of the newsletter, celebrating and critiquing the digitalization of (neuro)science. And it’s everywhere- both on (page 15 and 17), in (page 13), and around you (page 3). For some, digitalization may be a saving grace for medicine (pages 9 and 13), while to others, the physical and societal cons (pages 8 and 16, respectively) outweigh the pros. We also get to the burning questions on everyone’s mind: Can I fall in love with a robot (page 5)? Will machine learning steal my job (page 14)? And how much time is TOO much time online (page 18)?

One thing you have likely notice is our new look, made possible by the good people at Charité’s internal design service. We are excited to work with them, and help the newsletter reach a whole new audience. 

Finally, the CNS newsletter is spreading outside of Berlin! This issue, please welcome new contributor Alena Deuerlein, an MSc student from Goethe University Frankfurt, as well as Apoorva Madipakkam, now based at the Univeristy of Lübeck. A big thanks as well to the newest member of our editorial team, Silvina Romero Suárez. All of this brought to you by the wonderful world of digital communication and networking.

Happy reading!

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