As described on Monday and hinted at all week, this weekend marks the start of Neuroscience 2009, the annual mega-conference of more than 30,000 neuroscientists. After years of staging the meeting in areas with distractingly nice climates such as New Orleans, Orlando and San Diego, this year should be all business with the rainy chill of Chicago keeping people indoors. But there’s still a lot of fun to be had, with big-time speakers, immersive poster sessions, the never-ending hunt for the best vendor knick-knack giveaway and the night-time socials. Because of Neuroscience’s massive size, there are a million different ways to navigate a path through the science, but here’s a quick extremely long guide to what I’m looking forward to experiencing. Remember to tune in to ScienceLife all weekend (and through Wednesday) for coverage.

Saturday: Magicians Were the First Neuroscientists

Each year one of the most interesting lectures falls under the sober heading of “Dialogues Between Neuroscience and Society,” which basically means “we invited someone from outside of neuroscience to talk about neuroscience.” At previous meetings I’ve attended, that meant hearing public figures such as the Dalai Lama and Frank Gehry offering their own perspective on the brain, the mind and thinking - necessary reminders that the microscopic neurons those 30,000 scientists are concentrated on actually add up to some pretty amazing things in practice. 

This year’s Dialogues speakers are neuroscientists of a different sort: magicians Apollo Robbins and Eric Mead. Even though I saw a local version of this talk earlier this year with Robbins and neuroscientist Susana Martinez-Conde (which I wrote about it for the Tribune), I’m excited to see it again, because it really is a neat demonstration of how magicians have used the brain’s limitations to produce convincing illusions. Robbins, whose act is centered on his considerable abilities as a pickpocket, is a master of using diversion to direct a person’s attention one direction while he slips off their watch from another angle. As Robbins and Martinez-Conde explained back in January, this deceptively simple trick actually says a lot about how the brain shifts attention from stimulus to stimulus, and how a normal brain is “tricked” may help us learn about the neurobiological process that underlie an attentional disorder like ADHD. You can watch a video of a similar symposium organized by Martinez-Conde back in 2007 called “The Magic of Consciousness” - which includes Teller of Penn & Teller in a rare speaking role.

Also Saturday: We’re only two weeks away from the University of Chicago’s big Darwin conference, but I still will probably take in at least part of the symposium on Evolution of Brain and Behavior. Harvard’s Elizabeth Spelke caps off the day with a lecture on how the brain processes math - thankfully, it’s scheduled early in the conference, before my own brain will surely grow too tired to handle such a heavy topic.

read more

The development of the human brain is a massive biological construction project that scientists are still only beginning to understand. From the first few cells of the human embryo, billions of neurons and glia cells must be formed and positioned in exactly the right place with all of the proper connections. Hundreds of genes, chemical signals and growth factors have been found to be foremen and tradesmen on this neurological construction site, and if any one of those workers doesn’t show up for work or does their job incorrectly, the consequences can range from severe mental retardation to prenatal death.

That incredible feat of engineering is the backdrop for a new paper published online Sunday in Nature Genetics by a team of scientists and clinicians led by Kathleen Millen, assistant professor human genetics at the University of Chicago, and William Dobyns, a professor of human genetics, neurology and pediatrics at the University of Chicago Medical Center. For the last 8 years, Millen and Dobyns have been looking at a case where the brain’s construction goes awry: a common birth defect of the brain called Dandy-Walker malformation (DWM). In 2004, they found the first two genes that contribute to some children born with DWM, which can lead to motor delays, mental retardation, hydrocephalus and autism. In their new paper, a third gene is implicated in the development of DWM – and it was not one that the authors expected to find.

The researchers found that people with a missing or defective version of a gene called FOXC1 exhibited the characteristic deformity of Dandy-Walker: an improperly formed cerebellum, the region at the back of the brain that controls coordination, balance and other motor processes. But FOXC1 is not a likely culprit for a brain disorder, as it’s never actually expressed in the brain. Instead, it shows up in embryonic tissue called mesenchyme, which later develops into the skull and membranes that wrap around the brain.

read more

The Chicago Tribune’s new medical reporter Trine Tsouderos (my successor at the paper) has a must-read article in today’s Trib about misguided efforts to use the “chemical castration” drug Lupron as a treatment for young kids with autism. It’s part one in a two-part series, with contributions from an all-star cast including veteran national reporter Tim Jones and investigative reporters Patricia Callahan and Steve Mills.

I can’t say enough good things about the piece. It draws on an impressive array of endocrinologists and pediatricians who attest that the children being treated are not suitable for the testosterone-lowering drug. Bonus: They quote the brother of the actor who plays “Borat,” noted Cambridge University autism researcher Simon Baron-Cohen.

The father-and-son physician team who developed the suspect protocol claim that many experts back their approach, including Baron-Cohen - but Baron-Cohen delivers a stinging rebuke of their reliance on Lupron: “The idea of using it with vulnerable children with autism, who do not have a life-threatening disease and pose no danger to anyone, without a careful trial to determine the unwanted side effects or indeed any benefits, fills me with horror,” Baron-Cohen said. So much for that endorsement.

One of the best things about the piece that it gives both sides room to make their case without falling into a “he said/she said” routine, which would not reflect the consensus against using this therapy. Autism is a terrifying condition, but that doesn’t justify trying powerful treatments without evidence that they will work safely. These physicians claim to have seen some effect in patients, but that’s not surprising - any potent drug with psychiatric effects could influence a child’s behavior in the short term. The article indicates that the daily dose the doctors use for autism patients is 10 times the normal amount typically given for children with early puberty. With that kind of dosage I’d be surprised if there weren’t some psychiatric effect. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right effect, or that the drug is safe for children. Only a trial can determine that.

So kudos to Trine, and to the Tribune for giving these careful reporters the time and space to explain a difficult issue and a treatment that could put kids at risk. It’s a heartening sign during a gut-wrenching time for newspapers. I can’t wait for part two.