Neurodevelopmental Disability on TV: Neuroethics and Season 1 of ABC’s Speechless

By John Aspler and Ariel Cascio

John Aspler, a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience at McGill University and the Neuroethics Research Unit, focuses on the experiences of key stakeholders affected by fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, the way they are represented and discussed in Canadian media, and the potential stigmatization they face given related disability stereotypes. 



Ariel Cascio, a postdoctoral researcher at the Neuroethics Research Unit of the Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, focuses primarily on autism spectrum conditions, identity, subjectivity, and biopolitics. 



Introduction

Television can be an important medium through which to explore cultural conceptions of complex topics like disability – a topic tackled by Speechless, a single-camera family sitcom. Speechless tells the story of JJ DiMeo, a young man with cerebral palsy (CP) portrayed by Micah Fowler, who himself has CP. The show focuses on JJ’s daily life as well as the experiences of his parents and siblings. JJ’s aide, an African-American man named Kenneth, voices for JJ, as the latter uses a head-mounted laser pointer to indicate words and letters on a communication board (explaining the show’s title).

In this post, we explore key themes in disability studies and how they are addressed by the show. We also reflect on the effectiveness of Speechless’ narrative in reflecting on these concepts, specifically: 1) the social model of disability; 2) ‘inspiration porn’; 3) the ‘R-word’; and 4) intersectional feminist concerns about how the show connects disability to discussions on gender, class, and race. Our analysis fits the pragmatic neuroethics paradigm, which centres lived experiences of key stakeholders affected by neuro-diagnoses and disabilities (Racine et al. 2011).

*Spoiler Alert for Season 1 of ABC’s Speechless*

The Social Model of Disability

The cast of ABC's Speechless.

(Image courtesy of Flickr.)

In the mid-1970s, as disability rights activists agitated for change worldwide, a novel way of thinking about disability emerged. Mike Oliver (1983) coined the phrase “the social model of disability” to describe the view that disability is rooted in society rather than in biology. While the traditional (or “individual”) model of disability (also called the “medical” or “deficit” model) refers to assumptions that people are disabled by impairments in their bodies or minds that need fixing, the social model argues that people are disabled by environments with insufficient ramps, discrimination, and other barriers.

In Speechless, typical storytelling tropes found in sitcoms can both highlight and distract from the role the environment plays in enabling or disabling people. Suddenly appearing objects, animals, or characters serve as quick comedic resolutions to seemingly serious problems or as a reset button to ensure a return to the show’s status quo. Speechless applies this trope to accessibility. In the episode “S-U-R---SURPRISE,” as JJ attempts to defend his little brother Ray against a bully, a dog he met earlier that episode appears at just the right moment to scare the bully away¹. In “T-H-- THE C-L—CLUB,” JJ conveniently gains access to an unrealistically effective electronic communication board, which serves as a tool to bring to light JJ’s complicated feelings about his reliance on and affection for Kenneth. When JJ decides not to replace Kenneth with the board, it disappears forever. In this fashion, the show subtly alludes to the social model of disability by demonstrating that, in an environment without barriers, JJ faces little to no problem being the kind of young man, friend, and brother he wants to be.

Inspiration Porn

“Inspiration Porn” is “an image of a person with a disability […] doing something completely ordinary […] carrying a caption” with an inspirational message (Young, 2012). The intent of inspiration porn is to allow non-disabled people to “put their worries into perspective” (e.g., “what’s your excuse?”). It objectifies people with disabilities for the benefit of viewers without disabilities. These messages also erase the challenges faced by people with disabilities (e.g., “the only disability in life is a bad attitude”).

This is the kind of image that might get captioned with an

inspirational quote, creating "inspiration porn."

Image courtesy of the U.S. Air Force. 

In “H-E-R---HERO,” Ray defines inspiration porn as “a portrayal of people with disabilities as one-dimensional saints who only exist to warm the hearts and open the minds of able-bodied people.” A student JJ barely knows chooses to speak about him for a school-wide speech contest on the topic of “My Hero.” JJ and Ray conspire to write the most inspiring speech they can imagine – to outdo the stranger. Despite their efforts, Ray ultimately decides to give a more authentic speech about sibling squabbles: “…he can be a real jerk. He teases me and tortures me – runs me over with his wheelchair… he’s just living his life, and there’s nothing brave about that.” The audience claps awkwardly (one audience member comments: “That did not make me feel good.”), and, of course, the fake-yet-inspiring speech wins instead.

The episode is also metatextual, as the show itself could be read as inspiration porn. The showrunners must balance producing a show ‘about’ disability with avoiding essentializing or objectifying the characters. This episode seeks to counter this risk not only by pointing out that JJ – following a certain cultural script of a typical “older brother” – can be a jerk to his siblings, but also by ‘punching up,’ i.e., making less marginalized people (producers and consumers of inspiration porn) the butt of the joke.

The R-Word

“P-R-- PROM" addresses another important theme through its discussion of “the R-word.” Not only does this episode address the more obvious issue of ableist slurs (i.e., the harms associated with casually employing disability-related terms as an insult), but it also delves into important nuances within disability politics. Even within movements for inclusion such as the disability rights movement, segmentation can have an impact on the way people with different needs are perceived and assisted. For example, the public may assume that someone like JJ, who cannot verbalise, has an intellectual disability (Larivière-Bastien et al. 2011). Although indicating that he does not (as JJ’s mother does in the pilot, saying “he’s all there upstairs”) is completely reasonable and appropriate, doing so can entail shifting stigma onto other groups within the umbrella of disability.

Image courtesy of Twenty20.

Speechless rejects this shift when Ray reflects: “It’s not about JJ and [the r-word] not being an accurate description of him. What about people who do think a different way or at a different pace? Should we reference them in a nasty way when we do something dumb because we think it’s cute?” Setting aside that “dumb” is also an ableist slur, it is refreshing to see the show promote inclusion of all differences.

Intersectionality

A final key theme, drawing from feminist theory broadly, is intersectionality, i.e., the way that “intersections of race and gender, of heterosexism, transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, all of these social dynamics come together” (Crenshaw, TED). Notably, there are glaring tensions in the way that the show explores the intersection of disability and gender.

JJ’s behaviour toward women, which can occasionally be problematic, stems from the understandable goal of normalizing JJ – to have him be just like other teenage boys on TV (i.e., horny and a bit of a jerk). Ray’s behavior toward women and girls, however, reflects larger problems. Ray (again, perhaps like other teenage boys on TV) has a poor understanding of how to treat women and receives frequent encouragement from characters who should know better (e.g., his father). The metatext of the show seems oddly oblivious to how Ray’s attitude toward women reflects the “nice guy” trope – the idea that some men understand relationships as an exchange in which they pay the currency of niceness (through words, acts, gifts) in exchange for the goods of a kiss, a relationship, or a hook up. In other words, niceness is instrumental, not genuine, and sex is treated as a commodity. While we can understand the tension in JJ’s case, the show struggles in how it frames Ray’s treatment of women.

Speechless also explicitly focuses on issues of class. The DiMeo family is not wealthy. Their bathroom doesn’t have a door, they argue with insurance companies, and Dad works as an airport attendant. Ray especially struggles with the pressures to be or appear wealthy, which leads to episodes like “T-H-- THE C-L—CLUB,” where Ray tries to become a country club insider. A later episode (“C-H—CHEATER”), in which Ray similarly tries to get rich quick via a pyramid scheme, nuances Ray’s desires about wealth by exploring the intersection between family, work, and disability. Ray explains that his desire to make money is “for JJ. Later. Do I help? Is there a plan? I want to be ready.”

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Finally, Speechless also addresses issues of race, gender, and voice through JJ’s aides. JJ’s first ‘voice’ is a woman with a higher-pitched voice and a timid approach to repeating JJ’s more colorful language choices. After meeting Kenneth, JJ tells him he “sound[s] cool” and offers him the job instead. Black masculinity is often configured as cool, which the show at once explores with nuance and also casually exploits.

Ultimately, JJ values having an aide whose voice seems more authentic; however, the line between JJ and Kenneth is blurred by the show in sometimes strange ways. In one episode, Kenneth goes to school when JJ does not and finds that he has no one to eat lunch with because he is not, in fact, friends with JJ’s friends – an explicit reflection on that line. In another episode, JJ joins the choir and, in a particularly surreal twist, lands the solo with Kenneth’s voice and, later, dance moves. The other characters here appear to interpret Kenneth as being JJ, not just as voicing for him.

However, the show is careful about drawing comparisons between the types of marginalization Kenneth and JJ experience based on race and disability respectively – exploring some overlap, but not overselling the similarity. For example, when Kenneth hears Ray and JJ writing their inspiration porn speech, he points out similarities with the ‘Magical Negro’ trope, which Kenneth defines as when “the black character is just there to help the white guy on his journey and he mainly speaks in folksy sayings.”

Conclusion

In this post, we highlighted ways in which the television show Speechless addresses challenges and stereotypes faced by people with neurodevelopmental disabilities. While often successful, there are several ways in which the show falls short – especially in how it understands gender. Nonetheless, media portrayals of neurodevelopmental disability provide fruitful material upon which neuroethics scholars can reflect and which will hopefully have a positive impact on the public sphere.

References

Larivière-Bastien, D., Majnemer, A., Shevell, M., and E. Racine. 2011. Perspectives of Adolescents and Young Adults with Cerebral Palsy on the Ethical and Social Challenges Encountered in Healthcare Services. Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics 1(1): 43-54.

Oliver M. 1983. Social Work with Disabled People. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Racine, E., E. Bell, N. C. Di Pietro, L. Wade and J. Illes. 2011. Evidence-Based Neuroethics for Neurodevelopmental Disorders. Seminars in Pediatric Neurology 18(1): 21-25.

Young, S. 2012. We’re not here for your inspiration. ABC News. Accessed 12 October 2017 at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-03/young-inspiration-porn/4107006.

**Confusingly, most official ABC videos we link to here do not include subtitles.

Want to cite this post?



Aspler, J and Cascio, A. (2018). Neurodevelopmental Disability on TV: Neuroethics and Season 1 of ABC’s Speechless. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2018/01/neurodevelopmental-disability-on-tv.html

Oxytocin: The Hormone of Hype, Hope, and Healing

By Shweta Sahu

Due to his work interrogating the role of certain chemicals in vole behavior at Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Dr. Larry Young has come across the problem of his results being portrayed hyperbolically, as the science sometimes goes to fictional lengths. Yet this work has important implications for mental health. To demonstrate this exaggeration as well as its potential, I am going to address: 1. the buildup of the oxytocin hype, 2. the translation of the research and 3. the ethical implications in humans.

Prairie voles, image courtesy of Flickr user theNerdPatrol

Oxytocin and pair bonding

Dr. Young researches oxytocin (OT), a neuropeptide known to be involved in birthing and associated with maternal bonding, and his lab utilizes voles as an experimental model. Their research was founded upon on the idea that prairie voles are highly social, bi-parental, and monogamous by nature while meadow voles are less social, uniparental, and promiscuous. They investigated differences in oxytocin receptor distribution in the brains of prairie voles and meadow voles and found that in the monogamous prairie voles, there are more oxytocin receptors in the reward system of the brain. Young and colleagues then injected oxytocin antagonists into the nucleus accumbens (NAcc), an area implicated in bonding and reward. They found that prairie voles, whose oxytocin receptors were blocked, would not bond when they mated.

In 2004, Dr. Young began studying the neuropeptide vasopressin. The vasopressin receptor gene (Avpr1a) is expressed in another reward area, the ventral pallidum, which was previously associated with pair bonding in monogamous prairie voles. He then expressed this gene into the ventral pallidum of the promiscuous meadow voles. With the "new" vasopressin receptors, the meadows voles subsequently bonded monogamously like the prairie voles. This experiment showed that a fundamental aspect of behavior can be transformed simply by altering a single gene in an animal.

By this time, Young's research with voles was published in high-impact journals such as Nature. As a result, some media articles made exaggerated claims suggesting that the research was applicable to humans, though Young and his team never said that. The media came up with several catchy titles such as "Monogamouse," and "Genetics could keep Mickey and Mini together," and "Love is a drug for prairie voles to score!" It also brought about the question of "the fidelity gene."

From voles to humans?

The results of the vasopressin and oxytocin research, along with their potential applications in products and the insights gained into the workings of the human body have inspired numerous press releases and even several further scientific studies. In an interesting turn of events, the media coverage inspired Nature to ask Dr. Young to write an essay about love. This signified a transition for Dr. Young wherein he shifted to thinking about the translatability of his work to humans: could a human mother's love be all that different from a chimp or macaque mother's love, which in turn is not all that different from a vole mother's love? Thus, his work at Yerkes shifted to a focus on humans, and his lab sought to discover whether early life experiences can affect our ability to form bonds later in life. Additional research in this area included modeling of depression-like symptoms in voles after the loss of their pair bonded partner and studies of consolation in these animals.

Maternal affection, image courtesy of Wikipedia

The research of Young and his team contributed to a growing body of data suggesting that oxytocin is the pair bonding hormone, not to be confused with the love or “cuddle hormone." In all the OT hype, Dr. Young and others realized that oxytocin had important applications beyond inducing labor and pair bonding in humans and other mammals. Oxytocin is critical in its role with social affiliation more broadly. In fact, one study found that oxytocin increases gaze and the ability to maintain eye contact. Another study showed that oxytocin enhances the brain reward system responses in men when viewing the faces of their female partner; when husbands were put in scanners and viewed pictures of their wives, the same brain regions are activated in humans and in pair bonding voles.

Oxytocin nasal spray?

One particularly interesting study discovered that the administration of intranasal oxytocin spray in humans can increase trust. This, in turn, led to the production of oxytocin-filled perfumes for people to apply externally, and these "Sniff of Trust" products are available on the market. Examples include: Attrakt, Attrakt for Her, and Connekt, though there is no scientific evidence that has supported their efficacy or even the theory that high enough doses from people's clothes are able to pass the blood brain barrier and have any kind of significant effect (the best method to reach the desired effects of oxytocin remains to spray it intranasally). Advertising descriptions include calls to "Wear Connekt and be your true, uninhibited self" and to "Enhance Personal Relationships, Enhance Workplace Bonds, Improve Confidence, Increase Positive Self-Awareness, Experience More Empathy." The ratings for Attrakt for Her got 4.1 stars on Amazon Marketplace and some high praise, most notably one by Valerie Evans:

"I have been using this secretly for about a week. I wanted to see if it affected my husband of 18 years at all. I think it did. He has been a lot more attentive and cuddly the last few days. Every time I turn around he wants a hug, or just wants to hold me. No complaints here :D There is no fragrance to this that I can smell which I love so you can wear it with your regular perfume."

Applications for autism?

Perhaps the most hot button topic in oxytocin research is that it has been implicated as a potential therapy in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which is currently untreatable with pharmacotherapy. Dr. Young notes that researchers are currently working to find a way to get the brain to stimulate an increase in release of oxytocin by means other than the use of chemical sprays. Moreover, some studies have found that increased concentrations of oxytocin in the brain have increased emotion regulation, eye gaze, and ability to interpret nonverbal facial expressions in patients with ASD.

Eye gaze, image courtesy of Wikipedia

According to Young, this, in turn, incites the ethical consideration of whether parents are justified in seeking intranasal OT to treat their autistic children and whether physicians should be allowed to prescribe intranasal OT to their patients if they deem this appropriate. He also asks, should we use oxytocin to promote sociality beyond just those with ASD? Is this a form of cosmetic pharmacology?

Some people have even begun self-administering oxytocin as well as to their children, regardless of whether they have a confirmed diagnosis or not. An Amazon commenter posted:

"We use this on our 6 year old son who maybe on the spectrum. He has terrible meltdowns and has had problems socially. This works as a miracle cure – sometimes. Sometimes he is engaging and interactive, patient, kind, loving, amazing. Others he still has meltdowns.

"This isn’t an approved treatment but works better than language or sensory therapy ever did on the same issues. Plus it helps him sleep. All in all – definitely amazing."

Experts recommend parents to wait until more is known about the long term effects of using oxytocin to treat ASD and other prosocial disorders, but still, "some parents of children with autism have asked doctors to prescribe it... or have purchased lower-dose versions of the drug over the counter." After one clinical trial, one 15-year-old patient with Aspergers was given intranasal oxytocin and he immediately started giggling. "Since then, his parents started buying low-dose over-the-counter oxytocin spray, which they keep at home and with the high school nurse." The patient even notes, “When I’m really stressed or sad, pretty quickly I start feeling a lot more calm. It sort of disrupted the thoughts that were making me nervous.”

Applications for Psychotherapy?

Another ethically controversial scenario Dr. Young raised was the possibility of using OT to promote trust in patients such as for psychotherapy. I’d add that we can venture and ask what this means for the future of healthcare. In accordance with the study that found that oxytocin increases trust, we can theoretically make anyone more trusting, and this has potential applications in all fields! If OT makes people (from any vocation or background) trust more, then patients may open up and tell their doctors and psychiatrists the full extent of their symptoms. In situations outside the medical field, it is possible that investors could look to invest their money in people or corporations they can trust; maybe we could have more effective lawyers once they have 100% trust in their clients, and perhaps everyone wins.

As expected, though, there are many ethical issues to take into consideration before we start entertaining the notion that we can chemically induce trust. Many, including patients in this context of healthcare, often have reasons to withhold trust or choose to cultivate trust over time. Would oxytocin truly enhance or deteriorate the patient-doctor therapeutic alliance? We must ask ourselves, could this actually do more good than harm? Would it be worth it in the grand scheme of things to chemically induce trust or are we fine the way we are, since we have evolved to only produce and utilize a certain amount of oxytocin in our bodies? Could oxytocin assist in positive social interactions in general, even in people who don't specifically have any diagnoses of ASD or another disorder? Might it even be used for cognitive or moral enhancement? Even now, while the science continues to evolve, there is no shortage of oxytocin consumer products. There is a risk that if consumer use continues to outpace the evidence, then the full therapeutic potential of oxytocin may never be realized. In summary, Dr. Young's research provides many examples of how creative basic science research can have a tremendous impact for human populations and the importance of scientific engagement with the media to optimize translation and communication of the key messages.

Want to cite this post?



Sahu, S. (2016). Oxytocin: The Hormone of Hype, Hope, and Healing. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2016/05/oxytocin-hormone-of-hype-hope-and.html

Primordial soup to nuts: are some men naturally selected to be better dads?

Children are the future. So “why do some men choose not to invest in their children?” This was the question that Dr. James Rilling set out to answer over the last few years. Dr. Rilling is the head of the Laboratory for Darwinian Neuroscience in the Anthropology Department at Emory University and states one of the lab’s aims is “exploring the neural basis of human social cognition and behavior, particularly those aspects that have been under strong evolutionary selection pressure.” But are absent fathers the result of natural selection?



In the last half-century, the basic structure of American families has been changing. Within two-parent households, fathers are spending more time with their children than they used to as more mothers work outside the home. However, there are also many more single mothers raising children without any paternal help and roughly half of all American children are raised by a single parent at some point during childhood [1].



These changes have occurred far too rapidly to be the result of natural selection, but this trend compels additional study into the factors underlying paternal commitment. It is not known if there may in fact be an evolutionary explanation for why some men are more committed fathers than others. More to the point, do biological differences between men influence behavioral variation? Life History Theory posits that natural selection shapes the allocation of finite resources toward aspects of growth, survivorship, and reproduction. Within reproduction, there is arguably a trade-off in this zero-sum game between parenting and mating activities, and natural selection shapes phenotypes to support optimal strategies.

In the non-human world, there is evidence for a connection between mating strategy and testicular size in males. For example, gorillas, who typically live in harem-like situations with little competition from other males have rather small testes for their body weight whereas chimpanzees, who typically face much more mating rivalry are much better-endowed [2]. Other studies have found a relationship between testicular volume and mating success within species [3,4].



Dr. Rilling’s group reasoned that perhaps testicular volume would also be indicative of mating investment within a species (ours) and tested whether testicular size or testosterone levels correlated with measures of paternal involvement. To take it a step further, they also used fMRI to examine the activation of reward pathways in fathers’ brains while viewing photographs of their children. The researchers recruited fathers of children (age 1-2) in Atlanta, GA who were co-habitating with their partner and child. They then asked the fathers – and also the mothers – to come into the lab and answer a series of questions designed to gauge the fathers’ involvement and parenting responsibilities, and also their desired level of involvement.



They then asked the fathers – and also the mothers – to come into the lab and answer a series of questions designed to gauge the fathers’ involvement and parenting responsibilities, and also their desired level of involvement. The survey assessed involvement by asking who is responsible for the child on a 1 – 5 scale (1 being mother almost always to 5 father almost always) in 24 different tasks and situations like bathing the baby or getting up at night to attend to waking. The mothers’ ratings served to corroborate the fathers’ self-reported involvement and supplemental information showed that there was in fact a very high level of agreement. The fathers then provided blood samples for hormonal measures and received structural and functional MRI scans. In the fMRI scanner, they were shown pictures of their own child, an unknown child, and an unknown adult with neutral, happy, or sad facial expressions. Finally, testicular volume was measured by structural MRI.



They hypothesized that the more invested fathers would have lower testosterone levels and smaller testes – reflecting more of an energetic investment in parenting than in mating behavior. Furthermore, they reasoned that this behavior may be related to activity in the ventral tegmental area – a part of brain’s reward system – because more involved fathers may find interaction with their children more rewarding. Indeed, this is what they found.



Mascaro and colleagues published the results of their study entitled “Testicular volume is inversely correlated with nurturing-related brain activity in human fathers” in PNAS [5]. As one might expect, headline writers (this one included) made the most of this opportunity: “Men with smaller gonads are better dads”, “Have you got the balls to be a good dad?”, “How your big balls lead to bad parenting”, etc., etc.

From The Onion

Some Internet commenters and science bloggers who, admittedly, are not by-and-large known for their levelheadedness and foresight, found the study pointless or a waste of money. These remarks may reflect a public attitude that scientific research reported by the mainstream press needs to have some impact on our daily life. They also reflect a lack of understanding of the way science funding works, as this finding was a small piece of a larger study that examined the more general biological influences on paternal behavior and which has resulted in multiple non-testes related publications. This quick-trigger dismissal of science as a waste of money is worrisome given the current state of science funding.



One couldn’t be faulted for asking, “what am I supposed to do with this information?” Does this mean that deadbeat dads should be excused for their irresponsibility so long as they are well-endowed? Not so fast. The authors were careful to note that this study does not establish causality: “it remains unclear whether greater testes volume is a cause or a consequence of male life-history strategies.” In other words, it might also be the case that fathers who choose to be more invested in child rearing experience a drop in testosterone and mating drive (but this doesn’t mean that changing diapers will shrink your manhood!). One limitation of this study is that it confined its analysis to the heteronormative parenting model. An interesting next step could be to determine if these correlations also hold in same-sex male couples.



This study, presented by lead author Dr. Jenny Mascaro at the Emory Neuroethics Program’s monthly Neuroscience, Ethics, and the News Journal Club, is exactly the type of article that this forum was created to discuss. It was published in a high-impact journal and distributed to a wide audience in many fields. The press immediately pounced on it and broadly disseminated the main findings, which is understandable due to how the topic is relatable and digestible (not to mention provocative). In addition, these findings raise interesting questions about biological reductionism and what it means for individual responsibility.



It is difficult to communicate findings such as these – which shed light on our nature and tendencies but do not necessarily explain any single individual’s behavior – to the general public without misinterpretation. Still, it is relatable, fascinating studies like this one that can keep the public engaged with scientific research and help all of us understand a little more about the complexity of human nature.



References



1. Cabrera, Natasha J., Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda, Robert H. Bradley, Sandra Hofferth, and Michael E. Lamb. “Fatherhood in the Twenty-First Century.” Child Development 71, no. 1 (January 1, 2000): 127–36.



2. Harcourt, A.H., P.H. Harvey, S.G. Larson, and R.V. Short. “Testis Weight, Body Weight and Breeding System in Primates.” Nature 293, no. 3 (September 3, 1981): 55–57.



3. Schulte-Hostedde, Albrecht I., and John S. Millar. “Intraspecific Variation of Testis Size and Sperm Length in the Yellow-Pine Chipmunk (Tamias Amoenus): Implications for Sperm Competition and Reproductive Success.” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 55, no. 3 (October 31, 2003): 272–77.



4. Preston, B. T., I. R. Stevenson, J. M. Pemberton, D. W. Coltman, and K. Wilson. “Overt and Covert Competition in a Promiscuous Mammal: The Importance of Weaponry and Testes Size to Male Reproductive Success.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 270, no. 1515 (March 22, 2003): 633–40.



5. Mascaro, Jennifer S., Patrick D. Hackett, and James K. Rilling. “Testicular Volume Is Inversely Correlated with Nurturing-Related Brain Activity in Human Fathers.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, no. 39 (September 24, 2013): 15746–51.





Want to cite this post?



Purcell, R. (2015). Primordial soup to nuts: are some men naturally selected to be better dads? Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2015/03/primordial-soup-to-nuts-are-some-men.html

When the Hype Doesn’t Pan Out: On Sharing the Highs-and-Lows of Research with the Public

By Jared Cooney Horvath



Jared Cooney Horvath is a PhD student at the University of Melbourne in Australia studying Cognitive Psychology / Neuroscience.





15-years ago, a group of German researchers decided to revive the ancient practice of using electricity to effect physiologic change in the human body. Using modern equipment and safety measures, this group reported that they were able to alternately up- and down-regulate neuronal firing patterns in the brain simply by sending a weak electric current between two electrodes placed on the scalp¹.

tDCS electrode placement

Today, this technique is called Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and over 1,400 scientific articles (calculated by combining non-replicated articles from a joint PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and Google Scholar search using the keywords “Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation”: October 15, 2014) have been published suggesting that passing an arguably innocuous amount of electricity through the brain of a healthy individual can improve his/her memory, learning, attention, inhibitory control, linguistic function, etc. In parallel with these findings (often fueled by the researchers themselves), the public hype surrounding tDCS has grown to impressive proportions: in fact, in the last year alone, stories about this device and its ability to improve cognition and behavior have appeared in popular news outlets ranging from the BBC² to Wired³ to The Wall Street Journal⁴.




Doubtless fueled by this hype, there are currently 3 tDCS devices (and 2 in development) available for public purchase without the need of a medical prescription. In fact, as you read this, there are likely hundreds of people around the world trying to ‘boost’ their own brain power using these unregulated devices.



Unfortunately, a series of quantitative reviews undertaken by this group^{5, 6} has revealed that tDCS does not generate a significant or reliable effect on neurophysiology, cognition, or behavior. When combined, the last 15-years of data strongly suggest that either, A) tDCS does not have an actual effect, or B) tDCS generates an effect that we can neither explain, elucidate, nor predict.

This raises an incredibly important question: what are the responsibilities of a researcher when data he/she once publicized comes under question? More specifically, the tDCS data makes it quite clear that we do not have a solid handle on the mechanisms or effects of this device. As such, what role do we (researchers) play in ensuring the public are made aware of these developments and protected from possible neural injury or, at the least, economic waste?



It seems acceptable (almost expected) that researchers will publicize positive, potentially beneficial results – especially with regards to health and well-being. But, as has recently been reported in areas of research beyond tDCS^{7, 8, 9}, the number of retractions and amendments made to scientific articles is growing wildly. Unfortunately, the public is rarely made aware of these changes, leaving them expecting results utilizing paradigms that may no longer be viable or accepted in the scientific cannon.

From someecards.com

One reason we (researchers) chose to avoid hyping our negative results is obvious: research is a very messy endeavor and there’s always danger in letting the customer see inside the kitchen. It’s an intelligent, safe decision to put only the most exciting, interesting, and applicable work forward for public scrutiny. However, as is becoming clear in articles like those cited above, more and more people are becoming aware of the fact that science is not the ideal, straightforward endeavor it’s often claimed to be - in fact, it is rife with the same unpredictable changes and sudden shifts that define all human endeavors. I fear if we continue to ignore the uncertain, vacillatory nature of our profession in the public and continue to only hype ‘success’, we will quickly lose the faith of the very people we are trying to inspire.




It will certainly be interesting to see how the most prominent voices in the field chose to respond to the changing, increasingly less-certain landscape of tDCS. Is it safe to let the public know that we may have jumped-the-gun, and that we require more time and basic research before we can determine whether or not this is an efficacious tool? I believe that, although this type of message may damage our reputation in the short-term, not being honest with the public and trying to keep controversies ‘in-house’ will only serve to damage our reputation far more in the long-term.






References

1. Nitsche, M. A., & Paulus, W. (2000). Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. The Journal of physiology, 527(3), 633-639. 


2. Mosley, M. (2014, October 30). Unexpected Ways to Wake Up Your Brain. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29817519.
   


3. Miller, G. (2014, May 5). Inside the Strange New World of DIY Brain Stimulation. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2014/05/diy-brain-stimulation/
   


4. Kangaris, S. (2014, Feb. 18). Can Electric Current Make People Better at Math? Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303650204579374951187246122


5. Horvath, J. C., Forte, J. D., & Carter, O. (2015). Evidence that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) generates little-to-no reliable neurophysiologic effect beyond MEP amplitude modulation in healthy human subjects: A systematic review. Neuropsychologia, 66, 213-236.
   


6. Horvath, J. C., Forte, J. D., & Carter, O. (2015). Quantitative Review Finds No Evidence of Cognitive Effects in Healthy Populations from Single-Session Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimulation. [EPub before Print].
   


7. The Economist (2013, October 19). Unreliable Research: Trouble at the Lab. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble


8. The Economist (XXX). How Science Goes Wrong. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong


9. Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS medicine, 2(8), e124.
   

Want to cite this post?




Horvath, J. (2015). When the Hype Doesn’t Pan Out: On Sharing the Highs-and-Lows of Research with the Public. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on

, from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2015/02/when-hype-doesnt-pan-out-on-sharing.html

Can Neuroscience Validate the Excuse “Not Tonight, Dear, I have a Headache?"

Men
and women experience fluctuations in sexual motivation over a lifetime. Whether
sexual desire is enhanced or diminished at any particular time can depend on a
number of factors and circumstances, but researchers from McGill University
recently set out to determine specifically how pain impacts sexual behavior.¹ Results from this study, published in The Journal of Neuroscience earlier this
year, were the topic of the most recent “Neuroethics and Neuroscience in the
News” discussion facilitated by Emory Women’s
Gender and Sexuality graduate student Natalie Turrin and Neuroscience
graduate student Mallory Bowers.




To study how pain impacts sexual
motivation, researchers used a partitioned Plexiglas chamber where the
partition contained small, semi-circular openings only large enough for the
female mice to pass through (this study required that male mice be greater than
45 g and female mice smaller than 25 g). In this set-up, the females were free
to either cross the partition and engage in sexual activity with the male mice
or “escape” to the side where the males were unable to follow. Sexual
motivation in this study was measured by how many total mounts occurred, and since
mounting involves male participation, time spent on the male side of the
chamber was also a measure of female sexual motivation. When researchers
injected female mice with inflammatory agents in the vulva, hind paw, tail, or
cheek to induce pain, female mice consistently participated in less mounting
behavior and spent less time on the male side of the cage compared to no
injections. Males, on the other hand, when injected with the same inflammatory
agents in either the penis, hind paw, tail, or cheek, experienced unimpeded
sexual activity (total number of mounts did not decrease compared to controls) in
an open field paradigm where the males had unrestricted access to the females. Although
it has been observed that female mice can have a higher sensitivity to pain
than male mice,² researchers observed that male and female
mice exhibited the same level of sensitivity towards inflammation to the hind
leg according to the mouse grimace scale (MGS), a visual observation of a mouse’s facial
features to determine pain levels.




The final experiments to study sexual
activity involved rescuing the lack of sexual motivation from female mice using
either an antinflammatory agent or two different prosexual drugs. The analgesic
pregabalin reversed the reduction of total mounts that resulted from inducing
pain in females, and according to the MGS, also reduced the level of pain. “Prosexual”
drugs, apomorphine (APO) and melanotan-II (MT-II), had the same rescuing effect,
but based on the MGS, did not have the ability to relieve pain from the
inflammatory injections. It should be noted though that APO increases
locomotion³ in mice, which may partially account for
the females moving towards the male side of the cage more often.




From these experiments, researchers
concluded that female mice have lower levels of sexual motivation when in pain,
but even in penile pain, male mice maintain a desire to participate in sexual
activity. However, the decrease in sexual motivation can be rescued in females
by either pain reduction or aphrodisiacs,
in this case a dopamine agonist (APO) or an α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone
analog (MT-II). Perhaps these claims made regarding mice are reasonable, but it
is even more problematic that the authors confidently extrapolate the results
to humans. The final line of the abstract reads “These findings suggest that the well known context sensitivity of the
human female libido can be explained by evolutionary rather than sociocultural
factors, as female mice can be similarly affected.”




Of course, media outlets ran with this
conclusion and multiple articles were published with definitive titles like “Women ARE more likely to go off sex when
they are in pain” and “That headache excuse is real: For females,
pain kills sexual desire.”
The authors of this paper perpetrated the idea that a woman’s lack of sexual
motivation at any given moment is
either a biological or
a sociocultural one. In the press release and the paper, the authors refer to the
apparently common aphorism “Not tonight, dear, I have a headache,” and mention
that this would be evidence that sometimes wives are in too much pain to have
sex that has been initiated by their husbands. But sexual relations are so much
more complicated than just a simple relationship such as a pain from a headache
equals lack of sexual motivation. What if the woman (or man, for that matter)
doesn’t really have a headache, but there is another underlying reason that a
partner is too embarrassed to share? Or, what if pain from a headache makes you
feel less sexy, and that feeling is the sexual deterrent, not the pain alone? Pain,
either directly or indirectly, would most likely make a person feel less
sexual, but why does is take a study with mice (who aren’t insecure about love
handles or annoyed with a spouse due to an insensitive comment) to validate
this thought? It is reminiscent of neuro-realism, the
idea that attaching a brain scan to any study or correlation suddenly qualifies
the findings as real or more true.⁴ While this study only involved mice,
researchers did use fMRI to study the difference between the brains of women
with and without acquired hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in this paper.⁵ But no one - including females, their sexual
partners, researchers, or doctors - really wins when it is being advertised
that the female libido is something that can be can characterized as either
biologically or socioculturally driven. 

Via The Telegraph

One reason for ascribing a biological reason
to the lack of sexual motivation could involve drug development; if a
biological target can be found that is responsible for diminishing sex drive,
then perhaps there is a pill to fix that. The work in the paper was supported
by a Pfizer Pain Research Award from Pfizer Canada, and Pfizer Canada did
kindly provide the pregabalin that was used in the sexual recovery research. There
have been a number of pharmaceutical companies that have sought FDA approval
for low female sexual desire,⁶ even when the diagnosis of disorders such as
HSDD and female sexual dysfunction (FSD) are controversial. One example though
is Lybrido, a drug meant to treat HSDD. (Mallory actually gave a journal club talk last year about the implications of pharmaceutical
companies targeting the female sex drive with a focus on Lybrido). Lybrido
is interesting because it was ineffective in a cohort of women who “suffer from
HSDD as a result of inhibitory mechanisms,” resulting from negative
associations with sex and for that reason Lybridos was developed.⁷ Lybidos has an additional
component that targets the prefrontal cortex areas of the brain and is meant to
alleviate these inhibitory mechanisms.⁸ A discussion of drug
development for women that have negative associations with sex is beyond the
scope of this post, but the mentality that this could be relieved with only a
pill is grossly overly simplifying the complexities of the female libido and
how this affects relationships women have with their sexual partners. If
researchers in academia though are willing to commit to the idea that female
sexuality can be classified as solely biologically determined, then can we
really expect that pharmaceutical companies, marketing campaigns, and sensationalized
news articles won’t try to capitalize on that idea?

Via The Neurocritic

References 

(1)  Farmer, M. A.; Leja, A.; Foxen-Craft,
E.; Chan, L.; MacIntyre, L. C.; Niaki, T.; Chen, M.; Mapplebeck, J. C. S.;
Tabry, V.; Topham, L.; Sukosd, M.; Binik, Y. M.; Pfaus, J. G.; Mogil, J. S.
Pain Reduces Sexual Motivation in Female But Not Male Mice. J. Neurosci.
2014, 34, 5747–5753.

(2)  Mogil, J. S. Sex
Differences in Pain and Pain Inhibition: Multiple Explanations of a
Controversial Phenomenon. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2012, 13,
859–866.

(3)  Horn, C. C.;
Kimball, B. A.; Wang, H.; Kaus, J.; Dienel, S.; Nagy, A.; Gathright, G. R.;
Yates, B. J.; Andrews, P. L. R. Why Can’t Rodents Vomit? A Comparative
Behavioral, Anatomical, and Physiological Study. PLoS ONE 2013, 8,
e60537.

(4)  Racine, E.; Bar-Ilan,
O.; Illes, J. fMRI in the Public Eye. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2005, 6,
159–164.

(5)  Woodard, T. L.;
Nowak, N. T.; Balon, R.; Tancer, M.; Diamond, M. P. Brain Activation Patterns
in Women with Acquired Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder and Women with Normal
Sexual Function: A Cross-Sectional Pilot Study. Fertil. Steril. 2013,
100, 1068–1076.e5.

(6)  Shames, D.; Monroe,
S. E.; Davis, D.; Soule, L. Regulatory Perspective on Clinical Trials and End
Points for Female Sexual Dysfunction, in Particular, Hypoactive Sexual Desire
Disorder: Formulating Recommendations in an Environment of Evolving Clinical
Science. Int. J. Impot. Res. 2006, 19, 30–36.

(7)  Lybrido
http://www.emotionalbrain.nl/lybrido (accessed Oct 30, 2014).

(8)  Lybridos
http://www.emotionalbrain.nl/lybridos (accessed Oct 30, 2014).

Want to cite this post?




Strong, K. (2014). Can Neuroscience Validate the Excuse “Not Tonight, Dear, I have a Headache?" The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on

, from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2014/11/can-neuroscience-validate-excuse-not.html

Burden of proof: does neuroscience have the upper hand?

As an undergraduate, I took several introductory level philosophy classes while
majoring in neuroscience. Some of it I could appreciate and most of it went
over my head, but a thought that kept nagging me was, “haven’t neuroscientists
solved all of these issues by now?” It was only after I had worked in
neuroscience laboratories for a few years that I began to realize just how
qualified all of our statements had to be due to the plethora of limitations that
go along with any result. I began to wince anytime I heard someone use the word
“proof” (only salesmen use the term “clinically proven”, but don’t get me
started on that…). It seems clear to me now that, for the most part, natural
scientists, social scientists and humanities scholars are really all working
toward the same goal just in different, albeit complimentary ways. At the first
“Neuroscience, ethics and the news” journal club of the semester, Lindsey
Grubbs, a PhD student in Emory University’s English Department, facilitated our
discussion about a topic that she has previously written about for this site.
The main focus was on what role neuroscience can and should play in answering
questions that have long been in the realm of the humanities and how these
results should be communicated to the general public.

From the Daily Mail Online

At the center of
our discussion were two papers about the effects of reading that each created
quite a stir
in the popular press. First, Gregory Berns’
laboratory at Emory reported on a study that they had conducted which was aimed
at determining how a good book can leave such a lasting impression (1).  They reasoned, “It seems plausible that if
something as simple as a book can leave the impression that one’s life has been
changed, then perhaps it is powerful enough to cause changes in brain function
and structure.” Berns and colleagues asked undergraduates to read a novel over
the course of nine days and had them come into the lab for a short
resting-state functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) scan each morning
during that time. They utilized an internal control model where each
participant was also scanned prior to reading and after finishing the novel.




Dr. Berns and his
colleagues found significant short-term changes in activity levels in areas
that had previously been associated with “story comprehension” and “perspective
taking” – the “left angular/supramarginal gyri and right posterior temporal
gyri” – and somewhat persistent changes in somatosensory cortical connectivity.
They interpreted the latter results as a possible substrate for the phenomenon
of “embodied semantics,” where the brain’s somatosensory processing machinery
can be recruited by just the thought of performing an action or experiencing a
sensation (2).
Importantly, nowhere in the paper do the authors put a valuation on these
changes as “good” or “bad” yet headlines such as “Brain
function improves for DAYS after reading a novel” appeared. Increased
connectivity between discrete brain regions does not necessarily mean that
brain function is improved. Is this simply a result of a positive bias in favor
of reading? If the same neurological changes were found in chronic drug abusers,
I doubt they would be interpreted as improvements.

From ScienceDaily

The second study (3),
published in Science by Kidd and
Castano (2013), took a very different approach and also received a great deal
of attention (positive,
negative,
and borderline
ridiculous). Here, the researchers from The New School
set out to determine if literary fiction – defined as award-winning and/or
canonical rather than best-selling – alters measures of Theory of Mind, the ability to
infer and understand the mental states of others. To do this, they put subjects
through a battery of tests aimed at measuring affective and cognitive Theory of
Mind after reading either literary or popular fiction or nothing at all. Kidd
and Castano conclude their article by arguing that their results highlight the
importance of reading literature in contrast to the controversial US Common Core standards which de-emphasize
reading fiction in secondary education. Slate’s Mark Liberman has written at length
about the shortcomings
of this study’s design and its perhaps over-reaching interpretations. His piece
was titled “That study on literary fiction and empathy proves exactly nothing”
– I couldn’t agree more (but I could say that about any paper). Liberman’s
somewhat aggressive title may have been in response to Zach Schonfeld’s “Now
we have proof that reading literary fiction makes you a better person” (shudder).




Hyperbole aside,
there are two issues here that deserve attention. First, do we really need neuroscientific evidence in order
to promote reading, and in particular, reading great, canonical works? Even
hardcore, card-carrying reductionists would likely agree that a lack of
biological evidence for the benefit of reading does not necessarily mean it
isn’t good for you. The risk is that the public comes away from these articles
thinking that now that neuroscientists have weighed in, the debate is over.
Also of note, Kidd and Castano never use the word “brain” (or “neuron”,
“neural”, etc.) because this is a psychology study, aimed at understanding the
effects of reading on how the mind
works. Neuroscientists could certainly look for neural correlates for the
psychological changes exerted specifically by literary fiction on the brain but
even if they were not able to find anything that would not mean that the
changes aren’t real. An underlying issue here, outlined by Lindsey and
discussed by the group, is that natural science results – and in particular
those from neuroscience – are highly persuasive to the public (4, 5).
Here, the media largely reported that these studies proved the benefits of
reading, which hardly seems like a controversial topic. However, Common Core
standards are quite controversial
and the amount and type of reading (i.e. fiction vs. non-fiction) are hotly
contested topics. While neuroscientists and psychologists certainly could
weigh in here, there is a concern that their results may be more influential
than perhaps they should be.

From alanrinzler.com

Second, a problem
that arose with several of these popular press articles is the attachment of a
value judgment to the changes that scientists reported. As mentioned above, it
is likely that the reason that words like “improvement” were added to describe
these neural changes is because reading is already seen as a positive
influence. Internet pornography addicts probably would have had a similar change
– if it existed – labeled as a “pathological rewiring.” Perhaps this is a
remnant of the brain being thought of as a muscle that needs to be exercised.
In that analogy, any increase does seem like an improvement but that obviously
is not always the case (for example, uncontrolled excitatory activity can lead
to seizures).




In reality, most
of the things we do and see and feel can probably change our brains in some
way, for better or worse – but whether or not neuroscientists alone are able to
find these changes doesn’t actually prove
anything.





References

1.         Berns GS, Blaine K, Prietula MJ, &
Pye BE (2013) Short- and long-term effects of a novel on connectivity in the
brain. Brain connectivity
3(6):590-600.

2.         Aziz-Zadeh
L & Damasio A (2008) Embodied semantics for actions: findings from
functional brain imaging. Journal of
physiology, Paris 102(1-3):35-39.

3.         Kidd
DC & Castano E (2013) Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science 342(6156):377-380.

4.         Caulfield
TR, C. Zarzeczny, A (2010) “Neurohype” and the Name Game: Who's to Blame? AJOB Neuroscience 1(2):13-15.

5.         Weisberg
DS, Keil FC, Goodstein J, Rawson E, & Gray JR (2008) The seductive allure
of neuroscience explanations. Journal of
cognitive neuroscience 20(3):470-477.

Want to cite this post?




Purcell, R. (2014). Burden of proof: does neuroscience have the upper hand? The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from
http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2014/10/burden-of-proof-does-neuroscience-have.html

Lamarckian sh*t? Why epigenetics is not eugenics

An argument could be made that communicating scientific advances to the public has never been more important. As the NIH budget stagnated, and then was cut by Sequestration, many of us have realized what a poor job we have been doing convincing the public of the importance of basic science research. Neuroscience itself has been under more scrutiny recently. As Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker wrote in a review of three new books bashing brain research, “Neuroscience can often answer the obvious questions but rarely the interesting ones.” If that is the way that the public sees it, then clearly we are losing something in translation. Recently there has been a push to reverse this trend and reaffirm biomedical research as a source of inspiration and hope for the public. The actor and author Alan Alda, who has long held a passion for science, has made it a personal mission to improve communication about science because “How are scientists going to get money from policy makers, if our leaders and legislators can’t understand what they do?”¹

Late last year, Brian Dias, a postdoctoral fellow in Kerry Ressler’s laboratory at Emory, found out just how difficult communicating his work to the public can be. Dias and Ressler had been working on testing whether olfactory fear conditioning would transmit a sensitivity to the conditioned odor across generations. That is, using a mouse model they were exploring whether an experience in your lifetime could affect your children or grandchildren’s response to their environment. They studied the olfactory system because it is extraordinarily well-mapped (thanks in large part to work that Dr. Ressler did in Nobel Laureate Linda Buck’s lab as a graduate student) and shows gross structural changes in mice when they learn to associate an odor with an unpleasant experience¹. Recently, there has been a great deal of interest in understanding how an organism’s environment can affect the way in which genes are expressed via a phenomenon call epigenetics.



Epigenetics refers to chemical modifications to the genome that do not affect the DNA sequence itself. Normally, the DNA molecule of each chromosome is tightly packed in a highly complex yet orderly fashion so that it can fit inside the nucleus of the cell. Several types of chemical modifications can be made to DNA that affect how tightly it packs and in turn, the ability of enzymes to transcribe the sequence and initiate the production of the proteins that it codes for. Epigenetic marks do not affect the letters in the code, just how often it is read. Genes can effectively be silenced or activated by these mechanisms, which are still not completely understood.



Researchers have found that the early life environment can have long term effects on individuals and even their offspring² – so called inter-generational epigenetics³. Lately, interest has even shifted to assessing trans-generational epigenetic effects. In 2010, an Australian group reported that in rodents, paternal high-fat diet can lead to dysfunction in pancreatic insulin-producing β-cells in female offspring⁴. More recently, a study of pre-diabetic mice found that epigenetic marks in the pancreas and, importantly, in sperm persisted for multiple generations as did a pre-disposition to impaired glucose metabolism⁵. Trans-generational epigenetic inheritance has been reported to affect lifespan in the nematode C. elegans⁶, and now some studies suggest that the effects of stress or abuse can be passed to the next generation in mice⁷ and humans⁸.



In this special Neuroethics Journal Club focused on “Neuroscience in the News”, the group was fortunate to get to hear the story of publishing this exciting paper⁹ first hand from Dr. Dias. One of the most interesting aspects of the discussion was the timing of the initial presentation of the results and publication of the paper. Dias gave a presentation at Neuroscience 2013 on November 12^th that created a great deal of buzz, so much so that Virginia Hughes of National Geographic’s “Only Human” blog reported on the presentation and also on the Twitter activity itself. Reponses ranged from “Astonishing if true” to “Crazy Lamarkian [sic] shit”.



The Nature Neuroscience editors themselves may have been thinking something along the same lines as the latter commenter as they made a portrait of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck – the champion of the contentious evolutionary theory that acquired adaptations during life shape subsequent generations – the cover image for the issue with Dias and Ressler’s article. The trouble with associating Lamarck and trans-generational epigenetics is that it could lead to the same type of reasoning that gave rise to eugenics in the early to mid-20^th century. Disadvantaged individuals who have lived with hunger and been exposed to violence or other trauma could be seen as permanently damaged and may be dissuaded from having children to avoid perpetuating some sort of “bad epigenetics”. The fact is, genes simply code for proteins and the jump from the molecular level to behavior is complex to say the least. Dias and Ressler were careful to describe the behavioral phenomenon in the offspring of the fear-conditioned mice as an increased sensitivity, not specifically a fear of the odor. At this point, they were not able to determine a molecular mechanism or specific cause of the behavioral change.



The paper appeared online December 1^st, almost three weeks after Dias’ SfN talk and the ensuing controversy and armchair critiquing. However, during most of that time the authors were essentially handcuffed by the journal’s press embargo policy until the paper was published online on December 1^st. Granted, it is rare that a presentation at a conference would generate this much excitement before the paper was published, but it seems that even with early online publication of articles, peer-reviewed journals have trouble keeping up with 21^st century, 140-character communication. The rapid, yet accurate dissemination of results will likely be an issue that journals continue to struggle with, while occasionally leaving authors in limbo.



In addition to the discussion surrounding publication of a controversial paper, the journal club also delved into some of the ethical issues that may arise from studies such as this one. For example, should the children of veterans who have suffered from PTSD be treated as an “at-risk” group, and what would that entail? Or, should members of the military be screened for a family history of trauma based on the idea that those individuals whose parents experienced traumatic events may be more vulnerable to adverse outcomes during or after their tour of duty? It seemed that there was agreement that when a plausible mechanism for how a fear memory – and particularly one associated with a certain smell – could impact the epigenetic marks in sperm cells in order to be passed on to subsequent generations, and then tested, the field would be better able to understand intervention opportunities. Trauma and stress are major public health issues just based on what we know about how they can shape an individual’s behavioral and physiological responses to later challenges in life^10,11. If in fact trauma and adversity can also shape our children’s sensory experience of the world through heritable, epigenetic changes, then it will be even more important to understand how the effects can be mitigated.



Additionally, accurate and clear communication of results to the public remains as important as ever. While the avenues for communication have changed drastically in recent years, and in many ways have made communicating easier, publishers and authors will likely continue to grapple with the new speed and power of social media. What role, if any, should these platforms play in the communication of science? If one of the goals is to engage the public’s interest then it seems that social media presents a great opportunity to do that but there are obvious concerns. While it may not be possible to fit detailed methods and results into 140 characters, new initiatives such as PubMed Commons may help reduce the formality and finality associated with published papers and increase discussion among scientists. Still, it will be interesting to see how social media is adopted by scientists and whether it helps at all in bridging our current communication gap with the public.





References



1. Jones, S. V., Choi, D. C., Davis, M. & Ressler, K. J. Learning-dependent structural plasticity in the adult olfactory pathway. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience 28, 13106-13111, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4465-08.2008 (2008).

2. Jirtle, R. L. & Skinner, M. K. Environmental epigenomics and disease susceptibility. Nature reviews. Genetics 8, 253-262, doi:10.1038/nrg2045 (2007).

3. Heard, E., Martienssen, R.A. Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: Myths and Mechanisms. Cell 157, 95-109 (2014).

4. Ng, S. F. et al. Chronic high-fat diet in fathers programs beta-cell dysfunction in female rat offspring. Nature 467, 963-966, doi:10.1038/nature09491 (2010).

5. Wei, Y. et al. Paternally induced transgenerational inheritance of susceptibility to diabetes in mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111, 1873-1878, doi:10.1073/pnas.1321195111 (2014).

6. Greer, E. L. et al. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of longevity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 479, 365-371, doi:10.1038/nature10572 (2011).

7. Dietz, D. M. et al. Paternal transmission of stress-induced pathologies. Biological psychiatry 70, 408-414, doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.05.005 (2011).

8. Jovanovic, T. et al. Physiological markers of anxiety are increased in children of abused mothers. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines 52, 844-852, doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02410.x (2011).

9. Dias, B. G. & Ressler, K. J. Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations. Nature neuroscience 17, 89-96, doi:10.1038/nn.3594 (2014).

10. Gluckman, P. D., Hanson, M. A., Cooper, C. & Thornburg, K. L. Effect of in utero and early-life conditions on adult health and disease. The New England journal of medicine 359, 61-73, doi:10.1056/NEJMra0708473 (2008).

11. Murgatroyd, C. et al. Dynamic DNA methylation programs persistent adverse effects of early-life stress. Nature neuroscience 12, 1559-1566, doi:10.1038/nn.2436 (2009).





Want to cite this post?



Purcell, R. (2014). Lamarckian sh*t? Why epigenetics is not eugenics. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2014/03/lamarckian-sht-why-epigenetics-is-not.html