neurodudes

As the first presidential debate nears, there’s a lot of excitement (and worry) regarding the election. Today, Salon had an interesting piece on voter behavior and irrational attachment to ideologies and candidates. Recounting a recent psychology paper’s punchline:

The article’s conclusion should be posted as a caveat under every political speech of those seeking office. And it should serve as the epitaph for the Bush administration: “People who lack the knowledge or wisdom to perform well are often unaware of this fact. That is, the same incompetence that leads them to make wrong choices also deprives them of the savvy necessary to recognize competence, be it their own or anyone else’s.”

Slate had a story (”Why is every neuropundit such a raging liberal?“) about how neuroscience and neuromarketing are changing political consulting (also here’s a link to a similar story in NYT last week):

According to a study of political psychology published last Thursday in Science, conservatives tend to be the jumpier lot.

The researchers called 46 political partisans into their laboratory at the University of Nebraska, affixed electrodes to their fingertips and eyelids, and measured sweat output and eye blinks in response to a series of startling stimuli. (Subjects were forced to endure images of bloody faces and maggot-infested wounds, as well as sudden blasts of white noise.) The results: Social conservatives—those who supported the death penalty, the Patriot Act, prayer in school, and the like—sweated more, and blinked more intensely, than the liberals.

The Slate and NYT articles in particular suggest something that I have long believed to be true. The Republican “story” is, from a neuroscience perspective, simply better because it tends to view the world in clear-cut terms with no middle ground and, thus, is more effective at rallying emotional processing areas of the brain (eg. limbic system). It is well-known in neuroscience that emotionally salient events that activate these limbic structures are better remembered than less charged memories. The Democratic “story” tends to be more complicated with shades of gray and therefore requires higher-level processing (eg. cortical areas involved in conflict resolution). Clearly, I’m oversimplifying things here a bit (see, I’m designing this post to appeal to your limbic system!) but I think that this hypothesis might have some legs.

Of course, if it’s true, why doesn’t everyone vote Republican if that story is the neurally more rewarding one? Or perhaps the more relevant question: Is it even possible for the Democrats to tap into the similar evolutionarily older limbic structures that seem to dominate the Republican story?

Also, although I prefer Neurodudes to stick with the science over any partisan politics, I must say I found this statistic interesting (from the Slate article):

in 2002, Daniel Klein and Andrew Western tallied the political affiliations of professors at Berkeley and Stanford and found that even in the hard sciences, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a factor of almost 8 to 1. Among professors of neurology and neuroscience, Klein and Western counted 68 registered Democrats against just six Republicans.

Plants Found to Show Preferences for Their Relatives - NYTimes.com

Two amazing things here:

1. Plants missing photosynthetic enzymes of their own that migrate directionally toward “victim” plants. This behavior has an uncanny resemblance to axon guidance. Make sure to view the time-lapse video in the NYT article. Here’s an image from the PSU website:
   
   
2. Plants capable of identifying kin and “being nice” to kin while going into a competitive mode of root growth with non-kin. Amazing.

It refreshing to see this kind of interesting behavior without any neurons involved. It makes me think (realize) that the idea of a neuron or a neural system has many components and there might not be any good reason to assume that a single cell must have all of those properties or none of them. Something like a neuron-like cell that’s not a neuron in the classical sense. Anyone know of other examples?

In the new issue of PNAS, a totally awesome discovery about an infrared inter-species signalling system:

Ground squirrels not only heat up their tails to deter snake attacks — but they also seem to use the strategy selectively against infrared-sensitive snakes — leading us to the ultimate conclusion that when the bees are gone, the squirrels will inherit the earth…

You can check out an infrared-eye-view of squirrel/snake battles here because I don’t know how to post movies on the internet yet

–Davie

The man had a normal job and is a married father of two children.

Nature news

Lionel Feuillet, Henry Dufour and Jean Pelletier. Brain of a white-collar worker. The Lancet, Volume 370, Issue 9583, 21 July 2007-27 July 2007, Page 262.

The common ancestor of Bilateria ( ~= bilaterally symmetric animals ~= “most animals including vertebrates, arthropods, molluscs, etc” - - tolweb) is thought to have had a nervous system. Question: did it have a centralized nervous system? Or did centralization in the nervous system evolve separately in chordates and in other bilaterally symmetric animals?

(more…)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/magazine/08sociability-t.html

(more…)

This article (from last December) has identified what it thinks are 244 new human microRNAs from human fetal brain tissue, of which 20 seem to be species-specific (see figure 1d). They also mention 2 previously-known human-specific microRNAs.

Eugene Berezikov, Fritz Thuemmler, Linda W van Laake1, Ivanela Kondova, Ronald Bontrop, Edwin Cuppen and Ronald H A Plasterk Diversity of microRNAs in human and chimpanzee brain. Nature Genetics - 38, 1375 - 1377 (2006)

Science has a special online feature this week on behavioral science. One of the articles is a review by Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg (a fellow SymSys alum!) presents some interesting evidence about how dualistic ideas about mind/brain are present from an early age. They state:

Another consequence of people’s common-sense psychology is dualism, the belief that the mind is fundamentally different from the brain (5). This belief comes naturally to children. Preschool children will claim that the brain is responsible for some aspects of mental life, typically those involving deliberative mental work, such as solving math problems. But preschoolers will also claim that the brain is not involved in a host of other activities, such as pretending to be a kangaroo, loving one’s brother, or brushing one’s teeth (5, 17). Similarly, when told about a brain transplant from a boy to a pig, they believed that you would get a very smart pig, but one with pig beliefs and pig desires (18). For young children, then, much of mental life is not linked to the brain.

And,

For one thing, debates about the moral status of embryos, fetuses, stem cells, and nonhuman animals are sometimes framed in terms of whether or not these entities possess immaterial souls (20, 21). What’s more, certain proposals about the role of evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging in criminal trials assume a strong form of dualism (22). It has been argued, for instance, that if one could show that a person’s brain is involved in an act, then the person himself or herself is not responsible, an excuse dubbed “my brain made me do it” (23).

The authors conclude that adult resistance to science is strongest in fields where scientific claims are contested by the society (that is, contested by non-science alternatives rather than by scientific uncertainty). They claim that this accounts for the difference in the United States (versus other countries with less vociferous advocacy of non-science) in the resistance to the central tenets of evolutionary biology and neuroscience.

I think this says something important about science education, namely that it should start earlier in life. And there’s no reason that neuroscience should be left as a “college-level” subject. I think modern neuroscience has progressed to the point where we can confidently teach some basics at a high-school or earlier stage. Judging from my own experiences, I think the desire to learn about neuroscience is certainly there in younger children.

Comment on “Ongoing Adaptive Evolution of ASPM, a Brain Size Determinant in Homo sapiens” — Yu et al. 316 (5823): 370b — Science

Some new evidence contradicting previous claims that a particular haplotype of the ASPM gene was selected. We posted about some related work in 2005.

An excerpt:

We also assessed evidence for selection at ASPM by carrying out the long-range haplotype (LRH) test (9). This test assesses whether a haplotype is too young to have risen to its frequency without selection. The LRH test is not affected by uncertainty in recombination rate estimates. We compared LRH results for the A44871G polymorphism to SNPs of matched frequency in HapMap CEU (3, 10) (Fig. 1C). We observed at least as strong a signal for selection at 90% of the regions examined (3, 11). Several genome-wide surveys using similar methods also failed to find evidence for selection at ASPM in European-derived populations (4, 12, 13). The one survey that did find a signal near ASPM did so only in individuals of Chinese ancestry (13), failing to support the contention of (1) of recent selection in European history. Based on linkage disequilibrium (LD) breaking down within ~100 kb on either side (Fig. 1B), we estimate that the G allele arose in European history at least tens of thousands of years ago and possibly more than 100,000 years ago (14) (table S3 and SOM Text). These dates are difficult to reconcile with selection ~6000 years ago, as suggested in (1).

Saw this book on the Daily Show a few nights ago and it looked interesting: Survival of the Sickest by Sharon Moalem

The author mentioned a theory of schizophrenia as due to toxoplasma infected cats, who are themselves infected by rats carrying the disease. Apparently, when the rat is infected, the toxoplasma alters the behavior of the rat such that it doesn’t run away from a cat. So, the parasite ensures its survival.

Although I’m not a big fan of just-so evolutionary explanations in general, this book sounds like it might be a fun read.