Reply to comment

One of the main things I realized through our discussions this semester is that perhaps we are too attached to the scientific method and the idea that "hard science" trumps all else. When I entered this class in January, I would have been the first person to call out a study for not containing the appropriate controls or not having a large enough sample size. But our discussions on the subjectivity of many illnesses (such as depression, anxiety, and stroke) have caused me to reevaluate my stance. The sessions we spent debating Jill Bolte Taylor's experience of stroke, which was dominated by her urging to "step to the right of our left brains" to experience nirvana were especially influential in helping me to recognize the value of the subjective experience. Although her book has many things that are scientifically a bit off or rooted completely in personal experience, I realize that her memoir is still a valuable contribution to the study and treatment of stroke. Also, the psychology of love discussion where we voted on the best science article (the oxytocin/vasopression article vs. the gay albatross article in the New York Times) made me recognize that even if we do follow the scientific method (as did the oxytocin/vasopression article), if we cannot communicate our findings appropriately, convincingly and even interestingly, our work will not have that much of an impact (evidenced by the gay albatross article being perceived as more interesting and having a larger impact than the oxytocin/VP pair bonding article). With my slowly coming to terms that there is an irreducible subjectivity of science, I have begun to realize that the scientific method is not the be all and end all that I once thought it was.

I am also extremely intrigued by the "ability within disability" issue that served as the focus of many of our discussions in seminar. I am fascinated by how depressed patients may be more accurate in identifying things or more likely to spend time alone and make discoveries (a la Darwin) and how anxiety prone individuals are often higher achievers (better grades, many CEO's suffer from anxiety). Although depression and anxiety are undoubtedly extremely difficult for those who suffer from them, I enjoyed thinking about these illnesses  from a different perspective than they would be viewed in an abnormal psych class. My questions:

1. Over the next few years, I would like to learn more about how the brain does or does not recover after illness. Jill Bolte Taylor obviously recovered fully from her stroke- she is a world renowned speaker, has written a novel etc. But why do some individuals with similar afflictions not recover as much as Taylor, if they recover at all? And what are the mechanisms for recovery? Are old circuits simply reformed? Or are new circuits formed differently than the circuits that were destroyed in the illness but still allow for the same functions performed by those old circuits?

2. I'd also be interested in learning about the underlying mechanisms of savant syndrome- for example, what gives Wiltshire his amazing memory? Is it because he lacks faculties in other areas, so his brain is compensating? Or is it simply that the areas in his brain that are normally used for social interactions, for example, are grossly underused and thus essentially "taken over" by memory mechanisms, for example?

3. I'd also be interested in to what extent specific memories could actually be manipulated- which would hopefully allow for the successful treatment of PTSD and other related conditions. We know that the formation of memories requires protein synthesis, but I doubt that we'd be able to pinpoint the protein or circuit responsible for a particular memory, because memories are inextricably intertwined with thoughts, emotions etc. Could we selectively edit one specific memory without destroying or "deleting" other things in the brain?