Futuristic Brain Implants: Review of the Series "Black Mirror"

Black Mirror is a  British Sci-Fi series created by Charlie Booker which explores diverse day-to-day topics from our obsession with social media (Nosedive, Series 3 Episode 1) to things which we can't even imagine, like placing a person's consciousness in a physical object (Black Museum, Series 4  Episode 6)! They often delve into neuroscience in the not-so-distant future, in particular, the ways in which different sorts of technology change the way that we think and behave.
 

Spoilers ahead!

The episode The Entire History of You (Series 1 Episode 3) is set in an alternate reality where people can have a 'grain' implanted to record every moment of their lives and replay memories on a screen whenever they want. However, replaying memories becomes a nightmare, such as for a man who finds out about his wife's affair! Perhaps forgetting is blessing in disguise! I found the episode Crocodile (Series 4 Episode 3) thrilling, and I am sure this will keep you at the edge of your seat! The main character witnesses a road accident and is interviewed by the insurance company as a witness. During the witness interrogation, the investigator uses a memory recaller device to look at the recent memories of her interview partner. As the main character had previously committed a crime, she fears it will be revealed when the recaller scans her memories, so she starts a string of murders to cover up her crime. The best part is the climax-  with the police turning to a pet guinea pig as witness!

 Welcome to neuroscience in the not-so-distant future

The series has made me thinking about aspects of neuroscience, and there are still many unanswered questions. Could the guinea pig or other animals have better memory recall or intelligence than us, human beings? Or could a memory recall device be feasible in the near future? (It would be great to have, especially to quote papers during lab meetings that you have read and forgotten!) Of course, this would necessitate that we first understand how memory is encoded or replayed. Having consciousness transferred to a physical object poses also the big question: Where is consciousness located in the first place? The reality is that we are far from understanding these problems. This is why we have an exciting time ahead of us to learn more about the brain and invent futuristic devices. For those who have not seen Black Mirror, I would definitely recommend it.

Aarti Swaminathan
PhD Student, AG Schmitz





This article originally appeared June 2018 in CNS Volume 11, Issue 2, Brain Invasion

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

From Academia to the Authorities

Let's start with the basics. My name is Henriette, I am 28 years old and I will soon be an alumna from the MedNeuro MSc and PhD programs at the Charité. 

I started my PhD in 2014 in the group "Experimental Psychiatry" with Prof. Christine Winter. My focus revolved around neuropsychiatric disorders and my daily work contained a mix of performing stereotactic surgeries, behavioral experiments and electrophysiological recordings. My thesis is written and ready to go, the plan is to open the procedure this summer.
However, a lot has happened since I finished lab work in 2017. I moved back to Denmark, mainly with the purpose of getting closer to my family (I am a dane) and finding a job. Luckily, all of this fell into place rather quickly.

Henriette Edemann Callesen

I started looking for jobs a few months before moving back to Denmark. I spent a lot of time figuring out what kind of job I wanted, which wasn’t easy. Moving from research into the “real world" seemed rather daunting. I mainly saw myself as a researcher and was interested in continuing in this field. Yet, after almost three years of working with rats, I wanted to get out of the lab. I did quite a lot of soul searching to figure out what kind of position met my requirements and to understand what qualifications the PhD had given me. In this period, I even wrote an article in the CNS newsletter about this topic – simply because I had to put my own doubts into words and let go of the imposter syndrome.

Let go of the imposter syndrome

I eventually boiled all my qualifications down to a proper CV that included my PhD, but also some organizational work I had been doing on the side. I made sure that the focus was not on my published papers nor my everyday handling with rats, since this is only relevant if you want to stay in academia. Back in Denmark, I sent out a bunch of applications. To make the story short: I am now an Academic Employee at the Danish Health Authorities in Copenhagen.

My Work Has Clinical Impact
My daily work evolves around constructing National Clinical Guidelines. I attend meetings with clinicians to figure out where the problems in their daily work are. For example, we discuss whether there is lack of evidence for the treatments that are being applied, or if one treatment is better than another. Then I go through research publications, critically evaluating its quality (using the so-called GRADE method [1]) in order to find out more about the effects of different treatment options. All of this is then composed into a National Clinical Guideline, which physicians can use in their daily work when doubt arises.

Use your qualifications wisely

And, boy, is this work different from being in the lab! I no longer work with rats, I have normal working hours and I get to drink coffee at my desk, while going through research. I developed competencies in understanding what contains good research (and what not) and I get insight into the challenges doctors face daily. Moreover, my products have clinical impact, which is very motivating.
What I miss, though, is being able to sit down and scientifically analyze and interpret data. I miss the flexibility that comes with being a PhD student, including structuring the day myself. I miss my friends and colleagues in Berlin and the thrill of being abroad. With that said, right now, I would not change it for the world. My new position offers other interesting possibilities and I get to grow in a different direction then what I would have if I had stayed in academia.
So, to all of you currently in academia who are thinking about changing tracks: first of all, yes, your PhD is a valuable asset that can land you a job in the “real world”. However, be aware that when promoting yourself, employers outside academia value other aspects of your work than a potential PI. There are indeed jobs out there, where you can combine research and regular working hours. Seriously, let go of the imposter syndrome that many PhD students have. Use your qualifications wisely, take a leap and go for it.

by Henriette Edemann Callesen, MSc and PhD Alumna, MedNeuro


[1] http://bit.ly/1IQ69Ub

This article originally appeared March 2018, in Beauty and the Brain , Vol 11 - Issue 01

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/

Korean Food: Revamped

The Olympics in South Korea are coming to an end on Sunday. If you got interested in the Korean culture and food, you definitely need to check out these restaurants in Berlin!

via Wikimedia Commons

Korean food has been taking Berlin by storm - it seems to be the trendy thing to enjoy nowadays - kimchi rolls, bulgogi (grilled meat) with a side order of mandu (dumplings), all washed down with some silky soju (rice liqour). If you do happen to be cool enough to be seen in these dining establishments, you are in "the know" of people who enjoy the gastronomic landscape of the city.
But it's not as if Korean restaurants are new to the scene: Gung Jeon for instance is a staple hang out amongst the Korean community, usually packed with expat or exchange students at lunch (with their secret lunch specials) with well beloved classic dishes which remind them of home - a warm bowl of seafood soup, a hearty plate of egg noodles with black bean sauce. Here, they serve the food straight up, with warm service and a homley atmosphere. It might be slightly intimidating for the non-Korean, as the clientele seems to already be in the know-how. German is hardly to be heard. Here, if you're a non-Korean, you must walk in with a poker face of confidence. "I know exactly what I am doing!"

Gung Jeon
Kurfürstendamm 134
10711 Berlin
+49 30 89541892 http://www.gungjeon.de/

Ixhthy's is the more grungy cousin of Gung Jeon - an Imbiss run by three Korean widows, blatantly pushing their Christian faith to every diner by wallpapering every possible inch with verses from the Bible. The Bibimbap - a popular dish amongst novices to Korean food - is exactly how it should be: sizzling hot, spicy to the point where your tongue hurts, and so delicious and satisfying from the generous serving of sesame oil and water spinach that you want to cuddle someone for an hour afterwards.

 Ixhthy
Pallasstrasse 21
10781 Berlin
+49 30 81474769

The new kids on the block take on a more sleek angle. Stylized décor, red lipsticked clientele with asymmetrical haircuts and an unseemly snooty gaze. This is the new Korean food scene in town. A well beloved establishment among this crowd of hipster joints is Kimchi Princess in Kreuzberg. Unmistakable Korean cookery is at work (I checked: the kitchen IS staffed with Korean cooks though I could have told you without having peeked), while the service staff is more international. The owner is half Korean himself, born in Germany. In a dimly lit high-ceilinged space with cool simple décor and red lighting, this is indeed the place to be nowadays. Just don't even think about walking in without having made a reservation first, and be aware that service on weekends can be slow from the many orders from packed tables. Kimchi Princess offers Korean food on steroids: delicious, sexy, young and hip. 

 Kimchi Princess
Skalitzer Str. 36
10999 Berlin, Germany
+49 163 4580203

By Gina Eom
This article originally appeared in Vol. 04 - Issue 3 - Brain Stimulation

Of the Importance to Publish Negative Results

I had a rough time during my PhD with many experiments that did not support a common hypothesis in my field of research. However, I was able to successfully submit a manuscript describing my negative data. Recently I even won a prize for publishing them.

When scientists embark on a new study, they formulate a hypothesis that they want to test. Sometimes the experiments do not support the hypothesis the researchers set out to test. If the obtained data are unable to confirm a hypothesis or replicate previous results, they are called negative results. Sometimes they are also called NULL results, as the Null hypothesis H₀ (the hypothesis that there will be no difference between experimental and control group) was not rejected. Most of the time, negative results are more accurate and give more informative than results that support a new hypothesis. 

If a test of experimental data comes up significant with p < 0.05, we reject H₀ and accept H₁ (the hypothesis that the results show an effect). Notably, we only tested H₀ and the p-value says nothing about the probability of H₁ being true. However, a non-significant p-value means that H₀ is true (or the data didn’t have enough power to reject it). In a Bayesian sense, data underlying a non-significant p-value can be strong evidence for the H₀. 

Negative data are obviously not very spectacular, because we want to find out what is true, not what isn’t. Positive results seem more interesting and more important than NULL results. The latter are often not submitted for publication, because they are believed to generate less value to scientists and academic publishers. Indeed, they are less likely to open new avenues of research that generate funding opportunities. Manuscripts reporting negative data are also more likely to get rejected, because they appear less exciting. Traditionally it is difficult to publish negative data, unless they refute a spectacular claim. Studies that do not confirm a new hypothesis often get literally filed away in a drawer. Therefore this is also called the “file drawer phenomenon”.

PUBLISH ALL RESULTS TO FIGHT THE PUBLICATION BIAS! 

Unfortunately, the negative data get lost to the scientific community. If ever another group of researchers has a similar hypothesis, they are likely to tap into the same dead end. The fact that such negative data are rarely published, leads other scientists to waste time and effort by unnecessarily repeating experiments. It is estimated [1] that this costs the US economy alone, $28bn each year, similar in scale to the total $35bn National Institute of Health annual budget [2]. Moreover, the bias towards positive results can lead to an overestimation of biological phenomena or efficacy of drugs. It is devastating and frustrating, if the biased representation of preclinical work compromises the outcome of drug trials. Thus, publishing more negative results will have a positive impact on the development of new drugs and healthcare solutions. 

by Maklay 62 via pixabay

Another current problem is reproducibility. Even though it is fundamental to scientific progress, replication of studies carries little prestige in academic research. Especially in neuroscience, reproducibility has come under particular focus due to some spectacular cases, where data could not be reproduced [3]. Recently, systematic studies demonstrated that current biomedicine has a serious replication problem. It is shocking that more than half of the published biomedical data could not be reproduced [1]. This led to the declaration of a reproducibility crisis. It is necessary to value the effort to reproduce and publish studies regardless of their outcome.

 SCIENCE IS MOST EFFECTIVE WHEN BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE RESULTS ARE PUBLISHED

Fortunately, many journals now publish reproduction studies and negative data; for example PeerJ, PlosONE, J Neg Res Biomed, Scientific reports and others. Furthermore the necessity to reproduce experiments and publish negative results gets now also recognized by funding agencies that award publications that do not confirm the expected outcome or original hypothesis. The prizes aim to emphasize the value in publishing all the results, as science is most effective when both positive and negative results are published. Another way to fight publication bias and focus on the scientific process and soundness are “Registered Reports”. For this type of journal article, methods and proposed analyses are pre-registered prior to research being conducted. Thereby the results are accepted for publication before data collection commences and without regard to their positive or negative outcome.  
These efforts show, that the recognition to publish negative results and replication studies is growing. Hopefully this will contribute to the soundness of science and retrieve research from the reproducibility crisis.

QUEST is giving away 15 awards of € 1,000  to first/last/corresponding authors (BIH, MDC or Charité affiliation) of preclinical or clinical research papers in which the main result is a NULL or ‘negative’ or in which the replication of own results or the results of others is attempted. Futher information can be found here.

The ECNP’s Preclinical Data Forum created the “ECNP Preclinical Network Data Prize”, a prize for published “negative” scientific results, of €10,000. Aimed initially at neuroscience research, it encourages publication of data where the results do not confirm the expected outcome or original hypothesis. The ECNP’s Preclinical Data Forum is a mixed industry and academic group which aims to improve the replicability and reliability of scientific data, especially in drug development. Futher information can be found here.

by Claudia Willmes, PhD Alumna AG Eickholt / AG Schmitz  

[1] sciencemag, 2015 http://bit.ly/2E5ho01
[2  sciencemag, 2017 http://bit.ly/2uWuFTt
[3] nature news, 2014 http://go.nature.com/2rAME4b

7 Myths About Careers You Need to Stop Believing

Wintertime is all about hot beverages, family gatherings, and story telling. But be aware, not all stories are true! Mariana Cerdeira investigated some widely spread beliefs commonly told in academia. This article  is part of a new section of the newsletter that we believe is extremely relevant to all young scientists. Focusing on employability, this recurring section is produced in cooperation with the Erasmus+ program Neurasmus.

The world of academia has a set of unspoken rules and habits that are historically so intrinsic to the
system that many times go unnoticed or uncontested. Some of them might have served a purpose in the past, but are now outdated. Being a PhD student myself, and having been inside the ‘academic bubble’ for over seven years now, I've gathered seven very common and widely spread beliefs which, I dare to say, are not exactly true.

1) Non-academic careers are “alternative” careers.

Very often, careers outside science, or even science-related but not in research, are referred to as alternative careers. ‘Alternative’ implies exception to the rule. But several survey reports from different countries, including the one below by the UK’s Royal Society, have shown that only a tiny percentage of PhDs actually stay in academia, while the vast majority pursue other jobs.
So, in reality, academia is the alternative career path for PhDs.

2) There are two options: either academia or industry.

This simplistic, binary classification of the career possibilities for PhDs is, unfortunately, very frequently used. In the life sciences, the term ‘industry’ usually refers to pharmaceutical companies. But there are several other institutions and job positions that don’t fall into either of these categories. For example: business consultancy, public policy, patent protection, science journalism, public health, clinical practice, scientific journal editing, program management – to name a few. Once you start searching, you realize there are many interesting options out there. I went from thinking “What will I possibly do if I don’t stay in academia?” to “How will I possibly narrow down my options to only one?”.
A more suitable way to classify career opportunities for PhDs would be: a) academic careers; b) science-related non-academic careers; c) careers outside science; and d) clinical practice.

3) If you leave academia, you're a traitor.

You may find this an exaggeration, but believe me – there are quite a few people who think like this. Their argument is that your alma mater spends a lot of money and effort training you, and the least you could do in return is to remain a scientist.
Guilt is a feeling many PhD students have – even when we go on a short vacation break or leave the lab before 6 pm – and we need to learn to free ourselves from it. We should definitely be forever grateful for all the opportunities our universities give us, and be proud alumni. But we shouldn’t feel like we’re betraying anyone or turning our back on science if we opt for a non-academic career. Besides, there are not enough academic positions to accommodate all graduates anyway.
It’s OK to go to graduate school even if you don’t want to be a researcher forever. And wanting to leave academia does not mean you’re not a hard-working, committed PhD student.

4) If you're leaving academia, it must mean you were not good enough to make it in academia.

Once, at the beginning of my PhD, a professor asked me what my plans for after I graduated were. I said I was not sure yet, but I knew I would not stay in academia. He then went on trying to cheer me up: “But you never know how your PhD project is going to turn out… Maybe you'll have great results and be able to get a faculty position one day”. So I explained further: “You don't understand… I don't want to stay in academia.”
It's true that permanent positions in academia are extremely scarce and highly competitive, and only a handful of very competent people get them. And that many scientists whose first choice was actually to stay in academia are forced to find a job elsewhere. But there is also a number of people who simply prefer certain non-academic careers. Many academics are still shocked by the idea that not everyone in grad school has the dream of running their own lab.
Which brings us to the next myth...

Source: The Royal Society, ‘The Scientific Century: securing our future prosperity’, 2010.

5) It only makes sense to do a PhD if you want to pursue a career in academia.

This one is a CLASSIC. Most likely every PhD student who has decided not to stay in academia, or wants to work as a physician, has already heard this question: “Then why do a PhD?”.
Truth is, the time when a PhD program’s only purpose was to produce university researchers is long gone. A doctorate is an enriching experience that makes one develop countless transferable skills that are valuable in different areas. These include critical thinking, analytical skills, the ability to work independently, problem-solving, time management, resilience, and so many others. It is a long-term professional investment. But it’s definitely not easy. Doing (or not doing) a PhD is a very personal decision and many factors should be considered. But if you decide to go for it, your reasons should make sense to YOU.

6) A PhD degree is always an advantage over a master's.

Having a PhD title is no guarantee of getting a better job in the future. It won’t harm, but it won’t necessarily help either. Some employers value a longer ‘real work experience’ over a PhD degree, and many people succeed in landing good jobs straight out of their bachelor’s or master’s. The same applies to a post-doc compared to a PhD.
Each person should draw their own line. Mine, for example, is between a PhD and a post-doc: I believe a PhD is beneficial for many purposes, but I wouldn’t do a post-doc unless I was pursuing a career in academia. Each person's path is different and unique, and each one should decide how to invest their time and effort the way they judge best.

7) You’re a PhD student and should act like one.

In many countries, a PhD isn’t officially considered a job, even though it looks and feels like one. Although you usually already hold two degrees, you're still enrolled in a university and are technically still a student. This ends up making PhD students feel that they’re not real professionals.
When a PhD colleague shows up for a seminar or a networking event a bit more dressed up than usual, it even feels weird to see him or her in this ‘work attire’. Once, in a soft skills workshop I attended, the coach suggested that we always take our business cards with us to conferences. A few people were shocked: “What, we? Having business cards? But we’re mere PhD students…”. But if you think about it – why not? It actually makes a lot of sense. The only reason why it feels odd is because it’s not common – but if you would like to do it, you shouldn’t feel restrained by the fear of being unconventional.
Whether you want to stay in academia or not, a PhD is always a temporary position and we’ll soon have to figure out our next move. So we might as well start portraying ourselves as the professionals we are. If we don't promote ourselves, who will?


These 7 misconceptions are very frequently conveyed in academia and need to be pondered upon. Fortunately, a few graduate programs and institutions are starting to realize the need to tackle these issues and are slowly giving more focus to the theme of ‘careers’. As to us, we should do what scientists do best and question everything – including the mindset that surrounds us daily.
Do you have any other myths to add to the list?


by Mariana Cerdeira, PhD Student AG Harms

this article originally appeared in CNS Volume 9, Issue 4, From Cradle to Grave in the Brain

Academic Social Networks

The president-elect Donald Trump is already famous for his use of twitter. He says that social networks helped him win without him needing to spend as much as the Clinton campaign on other advertising, both digital and traditional. “I think that social media has more power than the money they spent,” he told host Lesley Stahl, a hypothesis that he said he “proved” to a certain extent. Could this be true for scientists as well? Judith Houtman tested different social networks for us.


Social media like Facebook and Twitter have been around and very popular for a while now. Both have science-related applications. On Facebook, you can find invitation-only group pages for specific research fields. Twitter is a popular discussion forum, especially during conferences. However, neither of them are specifically designed for scientists.

Scientists Care About Social Networking

There have been a number of attempts to launch academic social networks. Until recently, they were unsuccessful. This was blamed on the wariness of scientists to share data, papers, and comments online [1]. The tide has changed, and now there are even three academic social networks competing with each other: ResearchGate, Academia.edu, and Mendeley.
A Nature reporter assessed the popularity of these media among 3500 scientists from different fields (Table 1). Many of the respondents knew of these social networks and had used at least some of them.
So, apparently it is generally accepted, and possibly even expected of you, to be a part of a social network.



Which One Should You Use?
With all academic networks, becoming a member is free and on each website you get a profile page with similar features (Table 2). Based on this, I could say that you may choose whichever webpage design you like better.
However, there are some differences to consider. Mendeley is originally a reference manager and is still used mostly for this purpose. Although networking is encouraged, it is not nearly as interactive as ResearchGate or Academia.edu. But many users of the two networks confessed that they signed up only in case someone wanted to contact them, rather than for the purpose of active networking themselves. Another interesting fact is that social scientists are more fond of Academia.edu while life scientists focus rather on ResearchGate [1]. This also seems to hold true for the Charité scientists (Table 1).
I created a profile with all three of the networks, and browsed around for about a month to get to know them. I found myself more engaged in the ResearchGate community, which in part was due to the regular email updates. Upon registration, and any time after, you can also decide on not receiving these updates, or receiving them less frequently if they annoy you.
ResearchGate also sends out scientific questions from members to other members based on the topic selected as their interest. It works; those who ask usually receive several in-depth answers within a couple of days!
Based on the above-mentioned facts and experience, I decided to keep my profile on ResearchGate. I invite you to do the same (or get your own impression by checking them out for yourself).Take part in interesting scientific discussions, stay up to date on relevant papers, and be available for networking!

[1] R. van Noorden, Nature, 2014

by Judith Houtman, PhD Student AG Heppner
This article originally appeared December 2014 in Volume 07,  Issue 4