Hey all,
I, with sobriety, declare this blog officially over.
But do not be sad. I am moving over and out to better things.
I will resume semi-regular posts on my new site:
http://vergencevalley.wordpress.com/
Please visit anytime. Thank you, you millions of readers, for your support.
Hey you loyal folks,
One of the big reasons that the words "Rebirth" and "Renai" are in my title is because this is a site that will be constantly reinvented. This site will be reinvented. I've got something interesting coming down the pike, so stay tuned, Sauce Nation.
When I was a kid, (not long ago), I remember my uncle coming over to visit us. He volunteered to tell the older kids a good bedtime story. I remember lying there in the dark listening to a tale about bizarre experiments regarding dinosaurs and DNA. Having always had a strong interest in dinosaurs and with a serious nerdy streak, I asked how they managed to get the DNA. "From mosquitos in amber," he replied. I thought that was the most ingenious thing I had ever heard, and wondered when scientists would getting around to do just that. Obviously I was ignoring the rest of the plot.
I discovered the works of Michael Crichton when I was in middle school. I vividly remember borrowing collectible paperback editions of "The Andromeda Strain", "Congo", and "Sphere" from the shelf in my 7th grade English class. I hunted down "The Great Train Robbery", the "Terminal Man" and "Eaters of the Dead" to round myself out. I was awed by these stories. I loved them. I had read of lot of great books as a kid, but Crichton was always different. He wrote about science, even impossible science, with such depth and captivation. I think he loved it.
Now, a decade and a half later, I am a professional scientist who has used that young, dorky curiosity and built it into an important part of my life. And today, my favorite fiction writer is dead, having lost a battle to cancer at the age of 66.
When I heard the news I was sad, almost inexplicably sad. I had wanted to meet him. Heck, I wanted to be him. I've considered how great it would be to have his job, to pick a fantastic scientific topic, go around the world talking to top people in their field, and then making an awesome action story out of it. And getting paid! I might still do it if I could actually write something longer than a blog post.
It's strange, but I owe Michael Crichton a debt of gratitude. I don't believe that the science in his stories was always accurate, nor did I like everything that he read. But, for many of us, he came to symbolize the possibilities of science that are within our reach. I never felt like I did with other great writers, like Asimov or Clarke, that what was being described was a millennium away. Everything he talked about seemed so possible, and so intriguing. It didn't matter if it was practical. Practicality has never inspired anyone. In his universe, The Next Step in research was always a giant, magical leap that seemed to be not only obtainable by mankind, but by me personally. That sense of imminent wonder has never completely left me, and I hope it never does.
It seems ironic that the man whose last novel was "Next", about the future of biotechnology, should be done in so early in life by biotechnology's Enemy #1. If only he had lived in a time where some of the magical leaps he described were true (and if none of the gory destruction that he describes occurred), then he may have had more time to do surprise us. But, maybe if we have enough of his infectious scientific enthusiasm, it can be done for the next guy. In the mean time, I just might get my copy of Jurassic Park off the shelf again...and again.
A recent report in Science examines the trans-Atlantic breeding cycles of tuna. According to the article, industrial fishing has reduced the biomass of the population by 90% (which is absolutely insane), and current regulation haven't helped much. Part of the problem may be a misunderstanding about the breeding cycles of the fish, leading to ineffective policies. Admittedly, another part of the problem is general overfishing to supply an ever-growing number of people, both of which would be easily solved by cannibalism. But, for now, we'll focus on the migration patterns.
To determine where varieties of blue tuna are going to spawn, they examined the isotopic content of ear stones called otoliths. The level of carbon and oxygen isotopes in the otoliths can indicate where the fish were spawned, and where they end up. There are two main groups of bluefin tuna which co-mingle in water outside of the US, and it looks like both groups are pretty heavy travelers. The suggestion is that both groups have to be maintained for the tuna population to survive and flourish. It is not unlikley that similar conclusions could be drawn about many other aquatic species.
So think about this during your next tunafish sandwich. That sucker had a radio-active stone in it's ear that it carried around underwater across the entire Atlantic Ocean, and now it's in an itty-bitty aluminum can. You're welcome.
Aren't you glad that livestock is so much simpler? Can you imagine if we had to throw out nets to catch flocks of chicken when they were passing through? Then we'd have to take out all the robins and squirrels that accidentally got caught and throw them back. It would be no fun to be a chickenfisher.
In groundbreaking research that surprised everyone, CNN reported today that a new study links violent video games to childhood aggression. This story was listed directly underneath another about how anonymous blogging anger was running rampant on the internet. The message is clear. Technology is responsible for making everyone mad.
Think about it. When you shoot something on a video game, it makes you mad. When you miss something that you were trying to shoot, it makes you mad. Whether you win or lose, you're going to be mad. And if the computer crashes and you can't play your video game, darned if you don't become mad. There's no way to win.
Same thing with Web Rage (the strange, Jekyll-and-Hyde vitriol that comes out of a person behind a keyboard, previously seen only on the highway and after the Superbowl). If people disagree with something you say, then you get mad. If they agree with you, then you exchange comments back and forth about how jerky the people are who disagree with your decision by committee.
Now, what conclusions can we draw from these observations, besides the fact that it's a mad mad mad mad mad world?
Clearly, since technology is fine and is designed to make our lives easier, it's that our brains are faulty.
Evolution has never faced a situation like this before. No other creature, besides lab animals, have to deal with the virtual world like we do, and therefore are brains are hardwired to be somewhat unprepared.
For example, our brains are pretty good at telling the difference between the real world and the virtual world, if we're asked to think about it and make a distinction (unless we're schizophrenic, high or lying to ourselves). But that doesn't mean that the basic circuitry of our brain understands the distinction.
Just because we understand that murder, torture, etc. are harmless entertainment on a screen and not in real life, it doesn't mean that our lower, more visceral circuitry can make the distinction. Our brain is programmed to digest sensory information, process it and act. There are several processing steps prior to our understanding of the way things are, and during those steps, there are changes made according to repetitive, reinforcing cues (my homeys in cogpsych will back me up, right?) And those changes really do change our behavior.
Therefore, I'm afraid that our brains aren't built to handle all this virtuality around us. I think the computers know that, and that's why they haven't made any efforts to take over yet. They know that if we stay on our computers long enough, we'll become so angry that we'll destroy each other on our own. Sentient AI thinks it's sooooooo clever. Those of us who can train our brains to distinguish between real and fake will be the safe ones.
I wonder if the challenges of home-schooling myself are at all similar to home-schooling another child. It can't be exactly the same, but I don't think that it's far off. For example, you really are stuck with the teacher that you've got, and sometimes that can be disappointing.
Here's an example. For my class "Mechanisms of Drug Action", there are many assignments and many things to read, including 15 papers and 5 homework assignments. That, of course, is without the textbook, which is not in my budget (nor is it in the budget of most students who actually take the course, but that's their own problem. Suckers.) It looked like a lot of work, but I figured I could do it without much problem.
Then I saw the assignment. 20-25 pages! Yikes.
Now, I've committed to the class. There's no chickening out. But it's daunting to someone who shouldn't even have the time to do this kind of thing.
The paper is meant to be divided up for groups of 3-5 people, so I have some leeway there. I can just do a five-page paper and consider it my lonely, one-man part of what would have been the full project. But that doesn't get me out of having to learn everything about the drug I choose, and to do a good chunk of what I would have sloughed off to my group buddies. It also doesn't help that most of the lecture notes aren't on the site (just a few) so I'm not sure how to approach it.
My plan is to pick a drug about an antipsychotic and to write an overview of how the drug was developed. I figured that antipsychotic would be an appropriate choice for this project of choice.
The assignment is also to give a 15-20 minute presentation on the paper. Again, that means I only have to do a 5 minute presentation, but it also means that I have to harangue some poor soul who probably doesn't know anything about the topic and create a 10-slide presentation.
Luckily, I'm married.
Life has returned to full normalcy. No more trips in the immediate future, no more moving, no more bizarre scheduling for at least a month. Life is good. And time is a little bit more available.
I have completed my second class, "The Motor Basis of Movement." It was a good class to take. I was able to re-learn some things I'd forgotten about the motor system, and was given some insight into the current thinking of the new research. All very exciting.
Below is my term paper. Now again, because of the possibility that this might be stolen for class use (don't do it, it's copyrighted), I have not only left it fairly unpolished and unelaborated, but I have also left off many references that I could have put in. I left the 2 that I found most interesting.
I don't know if an experiment like this would work. Any experts in the field that happen to read my little proposal can let me know if I'm nuts. If so, I would love some comments.
My next class will be "Mechanisms of Drug Actions." Wish me luck. And no, no drugs will be taken during the course of this course.
Renaisauce
Neurobiology of Movement Summer 2008
Changes in Motor Cortical Neuron Representation After Learning Mirror-Image Motor Tasks
Introduction
The motor cortex has historically consisted of regions of neurons that control parts of the body. Recent research has indicated that such a viewpoint is oversimplified. For example, research by Hatsopolous et al. has shown that individual motor neurons react to complex movement patterns (2007). Furthermore, stimulation experiments in primates using 1 second trains have shown patterns in appendage localization (Gracciano et al. 2002). These experiments indicate that small neuronal populations encodes complex 4 dimensional movements that, when taken together, form the large network that allows animals to participate in their full ranges of motion.
It is assumed that each motor neuron and each circuit in the motor cortex (and, by extension, the entire motor system) acquires its specific properties during the course of bodily development and early life experience. It is unclear if individual neurons can change their properties in adulthood, when the network is presumably well-established, and if an imposed change of property would have direct ramifications in the behavior of the animal, or if there would be a compensatory response by other local neurons in the network.
I propose an attempt to alter the neuronal movement encoding of a population of neurons in the motor cortex through a re-entrainment of the directional preference of individual motor neurons. If this neuronal property were to be alterable, information on the mechanisms of that change would be very useful for understanding the details about fine motor control, and would have practical ramifications in the design of brain-machine interfaces and artificial prosthetics.
Materials and Methods
Implants
I propose using a number of rhesus monkeys (obtained and kept according to ethical guidelines). 4-5 Animals would be trained to perform a motor task that yields a food reward. A grid of 24 microelectrodes would be implanted along the primary motor cortex in a permanent headset fixture, which would be left in place for 2 weeks prior to initiation of the learning trials. A control group of 2 monkeys would also receive the surgery and would be set aside. Preferably, headsets would contain a small transmitter and battery that would allow the headset to be independent of any constraining cables. Transmission would send input to a computer monitoring information 24/7, allowing for review of data at the leisure of the researcher.
Tasks
The goal of the first learned task would be the rotation of a wheel counterclockwise. The wheel would be enough of a diameter (perhaps a 20 centimeters in diameter) to necessitate the monkey using its entire arm in the rotation. Full 360° rotation of the wheel would cause a small sugar pellet to be revealed from a dispenser. Reward would only be delivered at certain times of day (as indicated by a red light in the room) so that the dietary and circadian patterns remain consistent and are not interrupted.
As the monkey learns the rotation task, intracellular recordings from the microelectrodes would be analyzed, in conjunction with simultaneous video recording, to discover which cells are most involved with each phase of the rotation sequence. Ideally, neurons would be grouped into four, representing the four quadrants of a circle. One group that seems highly active in moving towards the top of the circle may be different then those that move it towards the bottom. Some adjustments on that protocol would have to be made depending on the neurons that happen to be touching the microelectrodes. Friction would be added to the axel so that the fastest the wheel could be turned by a monkey is 4 seconds (1 second per quadrant).
Once the task is learned and repeated for the course of the week, and the direction-based firing properties of the neurons are known, the counter-clockwise wheels will be replaced with clockwise wheels that provide the same function. A stopper would be added so that movement in the counter-clockwise direction would not be possible. As the monkeys learn to perform the task of rotation, neuron groups would be tested to see if there is any overlap across the neurons involved in counter-clockwise rotation and clockwise rotation. The hypothesis is that, as the two functions are mirror images, there would be minimal overlap.
If overlap proves to be minimal, the next task will be attempt to entrain the neurons involved in clockwise rotation to fire in counterclockwise rotation. As the monkey rotates the wheel in real time, small stimulations (5 V, or the maximum delivery capacity of the microelectrodes) in 100Hz trains, would be delivered to those neurons that fire predominantly during movement in the opposite direction. For example, neurons that would fire normally during a movement up and to the right would be stimulated during the movement up and to the left. This would be done for all four quadrants of the circle. The actual stimulation of the electrodes would be synchronized directly to the rotation of the wheel itself, through preprogramming with the known electrode properties, to eliminate human error in timing. Stimulations would last during the time that monkey spends in a particular wheel quadrant, which should be no less then 1 second.
The stimulation protocol would be carried out over the course of 1 month, providing ample time for any permanent plastic changes to take place. Regular recordings through the microelectrodes would then resume. The firing patterns of the neurons which previously reacted to counterclockwise turns would be analyzed and compared to those that normally fired during clockwise turns to see if there is any change or alignment. Once results were obtained, a counterclockwise wheel would then be reinstalled in order to examine if any changes in firing pattern held true, and to examine the time course, if any, of the neuronal firing preference to return to baseline conditions.
References
Graziano MSA,
Hatsopolous NG, Xu G and Amit Y. (2007) “Encoding of Movement Fragments in the Motor Cortex.” J. Neurosci. 27:5105-5144.
