I thought I'd take a short break from
the main themes of this blog to focus on another subject on which I have been
working (getting together an edited volume by multiple contributors): How scientists may block important, transformative ideas from gaining
prominence because of group biases and prejudices.
I will review the book Madness and Memory, which is an amazing first-person account of the trials and tribulations of one scientist who somehow managed to keep getting his research funded, and who continuously did very careful studies despite mass skepticism about his discoveries from other scientists as well as from the lay press.
I will review the book Madness and Memory, which is an amazing first-person account of the trials and tribulations of one scientist who somehow managed to keep getting his research funded, and who continuously did very careful studies despite mass skepticism about his discoveries from other scientists as well as from the lay press.
Strangely enough, the skepticism from infectious
disease doctors, particularly those who specialize in viruses, continued even
after the scientist, author Stanley Prusiner, was awarded the Nobel Prize in
medicine for his work!
In this case, I do understand the
reasons for the skepticism. Dr. P. discovered an entirely new form of seemingly
self-reproducing infectious agent that did not contain either DNA or RNA. These nucleic acids were reasonably thought by almost all biologists to be required for any
biological agent to reproduce itself. The new agents are called prions (pree-ons), and
consist entirely of proteins.
They are the definite cause of some obscure
neurological degenerative diseases such as Kuru, Scrapie, and Creutzfeld-Jakob
disease. (In medical school I knew it as Jakob-Creutzfeld disease - the name
reversal has a rather silly story which the author relates in his book. Despite the
ramblings of memory "expert" Elizabeth Lofton, my memory that the name had been different when I was
in medical school 45 years ago was entirely accurate).
You may also have heard of another
important prion-caused entity, dubbed by the press as "mad cow
disease." People could get it from eating meat from infected cattle.
Most importantly, prions are quite likely the cause of the more common
types of neurodegenerative disorders: Parkinson's Disease, Lewy Body Demetia, and Alzheimer's.
As best as I can understand prions from the descriptions in the book, they are once-normal proteins that had been encoded, as one might expect, by chromosomal DNA in various organisms, but which somehow later changed shape and became almost more of a toxin than an infectious agent. The altered proteins then somehow lead to a
chain reaction in which other normal
proteins of the same chemical makeup change shape as well, and therefore seem to multiply.
Tissue with the prions
can then be transferred to another organism and then start to destroy the nervous
systems in the new beast over extended periods of time. The time before animals become symptomatic can be years. (Before it was found that prions
contained no DNA or RNA, these diseases were assumed to be caused by a
"slow virus"). It is this
property, I surmise, that makes them "infectious."
The fact that Prusiner did not get
discouraged when he was being attacked by all sides is very impressive. His
networking skills must have been substantial, as every time someone threw a
road block in the way of his research, he was able to find someone else who could
provide him with an alternative.
He would literally call up the editors of the most prestigious journals like Cell and Science and discuss his research results before even submitting an article for publication. (When I was an academic, I had no idea that you could even do that! And I probably wouldn't have gotten away with it anyway). He was also able to manage to find help from academics in several seemingly unrelated disciplines who would be key in his discoveries.
He would literally call up the editors of the most prestigious journals like Cell and Science and discuss his research results before even submitting an article for publication. (When I was an academic, I had no idea that you could even do that! And I probably wouldn't have gotten away with it anyway). He was also able to manage to find help from academics in several seemingly unrelated disciplines who would be key in his discoveries.
At least he didn't have to worry about
the privacy rights of his rats and hamsters. Psychiatrists like me who work with subtle
and pretext-laden human interactions have to be concerned about that.
The pressures he faced were enormous. In
academia, if you don't get enough publications, you don't get tenure, and if
you don't get tenure, you no longer have a job. You also live in constant fear that
some other scientist somewhere else will beat you to a confirming experiment
and publish it before you do, or that someone else will make a discovery that
will bring your ideas into question ("A few pages in a reputable journal
can render another scientist's years of toil virtually worthless").
You get feedback from "peer reviewers" of your submitted work than can be absolutely vicious. Dr. P. had to suddenly find new places to house his rodents due to concerns about animal rights activists who were more concerned with rats than people. The press, always looking for a sexy story, quoted his critics to publicly attack him.
You get feedback from "peer reviewers" of your submitted work than can be absolutely vicious. Dr. P. had to suddenly find new places to house his rodents due to concerns about animal rights activists who were more concerned with rats than people. The press, always looking for a sexy story, quoted his critics to publicly attack him.
I am envious of anyone like Dr.
Pruisner who was so skillful at negotiating academic politics, because I was
not. I unfortunately had minimal guidance from those around me. I found it impossible to
get funding for researching the phenomena that I was witnessing first
hand every day in my practice with my patients with personality disorders and their families, and
which only one other author was even writing about.
Prusiner quotes someone named Maurice Maeterlinck about this type of problem: "At every crossway on the road that leads to the future, tradition has placed, against each of us, then thousand men to guard the past."
Prusiner quotes someone named Maurice Maeterlinck about this type of problem: "At every crossway on the road that leads to the future, tradition has placed, against each of us, then thousand men to guard the past."
He
also quotes Hilary Koprowski on the "Four stages of adopting a new idea:"
1. "It's impossible, it's nonsense, don't waste my time."
2. "Maybe it's possible, but it's week and uninteresting.
It's clearly not important."
3. "It's true and I told you so. I always said it was a good
idea.
4. "I thought of it first."
For anyone interested in
understanding what doing science is really like, and what scientists can be up
against, I recommend this book.
Fascinating. Thank you for the tip.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember ever seeing your thoughts on Eliz Loftus's "expert" theories.
I discuss her ideas at length in my Dysfunctional Families Spur Mental Disorders book. Also see http://www.davidmallenmd.blogspot.com/2010/12/child-abuse-politics.html
DeleteI think it was Schopenhauer who said there were three stages:
ReplyDelete1) First it's ridiculed
2) Then it's fought against
3) Then it's accepted as self-evident