Funded Grants

The pyramidal cell phenotype in consciousness: A comparative study of its evolution

Scientific endeavour is borne of understanding, curiosity, the desire to find an answer and the privilege of experimentation. The fruits of scientific investigation enter into almost every aspect of our daily lives, although we hardly know it. From the moment the alarm sounds and the light is switched on we are immersed in the fruits of science. Breakfast is made thanks to science, from the methods of agriculture used, to the technology the farmers use to sell their produce, to packaging technology, and its promotion via computer generated marketing. We arrive at work, thanks to science; continual improvements to the internal combustion engine, petroleum refining methods, ecological research and pollution control are the end result of scientific endeavour. From the moment we arrive in the temperature-controlled office and switch on the computer to read today's emails, that's science. That first phone call, that's science. Even when we sleep we are surrounded by science - the inoculations we had as children are quietly working away unbeknownst to us. In fact, we are totally immersed in the fruits of scientific discovery. If you don't believe me, pack you bags and head out to the desert with no provisions what so ever, no insect repellent, no sunscreen, no bottled water, no packaged food, no mobile phone, no short wave radio and see how life is. Just make sure you advise someone to come and pick you up in a couple of days.

OK, we're agreed that we are surrounded by science, so who does it? By and large they are people just like you. How do they do it? They ask themselves a question and look for the answer. Why do they do it? They do it because they are lucky enough to be able to do something they enjoy. Like you and me, they are fallible, like you and me they can't possibly know everything and like you and me they have bad days. Perhaps it would be fair to say that the least scientific thing about science is the scientists themselves. You may be right in saying so if you are talking about experimental rigor. The recent human genome mapping programme has shown us all just how well machines do it. They have no vested interest in the results, they work tirelessly, there are no personality clashes or disagreements. BUT, machines just don't do it, that is, they don't conceptualise, hypothesise, rationalise, or play devils advocate. So, although we are surrounded by the products of science in our everyday lives, there is a whole industry of idea-makers who provide the fundamental basis of scientific thought, without them there just isn't any science. Although both Francis Crick and James Watson had plenty of hi-tech machinery at hand when they discovered the DNA double helix it wasn't the machinery that discovered it. It was their questioning, their enthusiasm, their dexterity and their determination. Like most discoveries, the overall implications of their accomplishment have only revealed with the passing of time. Genetically altered pigs used to grow hearts for human transplant, who could have thought it a reality 30 years ago? Only a far-sighted few would have even imagined it possible.

Accepting that the human element is the fundamental ingredient in science, how do we do it? A good question, a very good question, the problem is the answer: we have no idea. It is this human quality of cognition, perception, mentation, call it what you like, that leads us to question how we do it. The question is not a new one, it has been in the minds of some of the greatest minds. Plato, Aristotle, Hypocretes, Einstein, Freud, Cajal and Crick, to mention but just a few, have all dabbled with this conundrum. It is often claimed that it is a great irony that the hidden capabilities of the human mind lead us to question what it is and how it works, but don't let us find the answers. Nonsense I say, sweeping aside the mystique, the real reason we know so little about the mind is that so little has been done to understand its complexity. When all is said and done, a lot has been said and little done. The lack of systematic investigation, combined with erroneous dogma, politics and contemporary thinking are equally culpable. Strong words, heresy for a scientist you may say. Perhaps you are right, buts let's look at how such things may happen. One example that comes to mind is that of stomach ulcers. We all know that they are caused by stress. That has been the standard response by physicians for many decades, they must have been correct, they are some of the best-educated people in society. They were wrong, year after year the myth was perpetuated by their lecturers at university. As young students they realised they must state the same "truth" back to their lecturers if they chose to pass the subject. They, unbeknownst to them, were being indoctrinated with dogma. Without knowing it the standard response to their patients who presented with stomach ulcers was that its stress related and that the best thing to do is to take a holiday. Fortunately a young Australian medical practicioner was prepared to challenge this dogma. His systematic investigations into stomache ulcers revealed to him that a particular type of bacteria may be responsible. Hedicobacter pylori. He was ridiculed, can't be a bacterium because when the patient takes broad-spectrum antibiotics they don't get cured. Fortunately, his tenacity led him to show that it is particularly virulent bacteria resistant to just one type of penicillin but a combined prescription could solve the problem. So what? Well this journey took Dr Foster more than 10 years, international ridicule by his colleagues and rejection from funding agencies. Out of pure desperation he infected himself with the bacteria, allowed himself to get seriously ill and then cured himself to make people listen. What I'm trying to say is that those same abilities that empower us to conceptualise great things, cognition, perception, mentation, can also serve as our own worst enemies. We are indeed complex creatures.

When studying why we are so complex, or more specifically, how we are capable of thinking, we are faced with a similar anecdote. Prof Cajal, after a lifetime of dedicated investigations of the brains many different types of animals concluded that our cognitive abilities are the result of the complexity of the circuits in our brain. Obviously you might say. Well, another scientist of considerable stature, Prof Eccles, is of the opinion that the mammalian brain is built of the same basic repeated circuit, a view that is widely held by contemporary neuroscientists. Who do we believe? Both were awarded the nobel prize for their contributions to science. The latter viewpoint is very convenient because it means you can study any brain area and then you know what happens in the brain. Many scientisits have been using this concept for a long time to argue for funding: if we study the brain of a rat we know what will happen in humans. It has to be said that there is some merit in the argument, but there is also a lot of politics. This debate has now become a focal point of neuroscience. This years nobel laureate for physiology and medicine, Prof Kandel, has challenged the neuroscience community by declaring this area of research as the most formidable challenge facing researchers over the next decade. This is where I humbly enter the story. My own experiments support the contentions of Prof Cajal.

The basic building block of the cortex, the pyramidal cell, shows remarkable phenotypic variation in the cortex of man, and other species. These cells in our prefrontal cortex, the site generally believed to initiate/modulate our thought processes, appear to be them most complex in our brains. Furthermore, pyramidal cells in our prefrontal cortex are much more complex than those of other primates studied so far. My initial results also show dramatic differences in the evolution of prefrontal cortex in New World primates of the Americas as compared to other primates. How does this impact on you and I? The repercussions are not necessarily immediately obvious. To the non-specialist this may seem to be purely academic. However, I am now using these same methodologies and systematic approach to study dementia associated with Down syndrome, Huntingtons disease and epilepsy. I also hope to extend my findings to the study of the brain's recuperative ability following peripheral injury such as loss of limb, or retinal detachment as well as stroke. The findings also have clear repercussions for the study of age-related illness such as Alzheimer's disease and failing memory. I am more enthusiastic about the possibilities with every day that passes.