Extreme Science : Dr. Demikhov and Dr. White

Extreme-science

Photo © www.asia.ru

Two-headed dogs, monkey head transplants , standalone living brains and brains transplanted in dog necks. These are the experiments that shocked the world during the 1950’s and 1970’s.

Although the media and the scientific community often referred to the authors of these experiments as “monsters”, “Frankensteins”, “beasts”, “mad scientists” and catalogued their work as “grotesque”, I will still referr to them as Dr. Vladimir Demikhov and Dr.Robert White, due to the respect I have for people that dedicate their lives to science. However, that does not mean I subscribe to their methods.

Russian doctor Vladimir Petrovich Demikhov is known as a transplant pioneer who did his first experiments in the 1930’s and 1950’s. His surgeries included the transplantation of a heart into an animal and lung-heart replacement in an animal, but the thing that intrigued most scientists and average people is the creation of his two-headed dogs. Although the first to do this was the American physiologist Charles Guthrie, the dogs of Dr. Demikhov were the first to possess full cerebral functions. The difference of method implied the amount of time allowed to elapse between decapitation and attachement of the donor head to the recipient body. The operation itself was a succes, but the dogs would all die within a six days time. The doctor and his team proved their success by filming the dogs and showing that the new animal was able to drink milk with both heads attached to the same body. I refuse to post images or videos with the animals “created” by Dr. Demikhov, though they can be found all over the internet. Weak hearts however should never be near them!

Demikhov’s work has been appreciated by the American surgeon Dr. Robert White, that took science to an even more outrageous level in 1962, when he removed a dog’s brain and kept it alive outside the skull. In 1964 the brain of a dog has been transplanted into the neck of another dog, connected to the last’s blood supply and monitored with electrods for activity. Although he managed to keep the standalone brain alive, Dr. White failed to prove consciousness. Like this wasn’t enough, in 2001, Dr. White horrified the scientific world again, by transplanting a full monkey head to the body of another’s.

Video footage shows the transplanted head exhibiting facial movements, being able to receive liquids and react to stimuli, although the rest of the body was paralyzed. It’s not hard to understand that the procedure was absolutely useless, considering the fact that there couldn’t be such thing as a complete head transplant since repairing nerve damage in the severed spinal cord is impossible (at least until now) and the head can’t control the new body. The whole experiment ended with euthanized monkeys.

Both doctors justified their research and experiments by the posibility of discovering a way to help paralyzed humans, especially quadriplegics, where head transplant would be the only solution to guarantee life. Dr. White believes such operations will be possible in the not too distant future and he actually tried to find donors and volunteers for the test’s final act : human head transplant. As a psychologist, I know our brain stocks information (such as memories) related to the experiences we encounter in our existence. These experiences are undoubtedly related to our physical body, so I must ask myself what it would be like for a human being to wake up and have memories that pass as his own, as far as the memory is concearned and yet the facts, the body, won’t sustain them. Assuming the operation would succeed, I can’t think of a worse way of feeling trapped in another body and definitely can’t imagine a psychologically normal life for the patient.

Many desires and plans have been verbalized by Dr. Demikhov and Dr. White, and yet, all they really had on their operation tables at the end were mutilated, paralyzed and dead animals. Is that acceptable if one acts “in the name of science”? I understand the desire to expand human knowledge, but does it need to be done at any expense? According to Darwin, we are the most advanced type of ape, with the highest level of intelligence, but does that mean we are entitled to use the less evolved species for our own intentions? Are we entitled to torture and kill “in the name of science”? Do we need to be that unmerciful selfish ape?

Article by Lucia Grosaru

Published in:  on November 26, 2008 at 2:32 am Comments (5)
Tags: , , , ,

Want to make the right decision? Just wear six hats!

Six-thinking-hats

Photo © Paula E. Maloney

Don’t worry, you won’t have to wear all six of them at once! Relax now, making the right decision won’t put you in the “faux pas” section of fashion.

I want to present a method that will help you look at a decision from different perspectives, so that in the end you will have a complete image of what you’re dealing with.

The method belongs to Edward de Bono, known as the promoter of lateral thinking (structured creativity) and it’s called Six Thinking Hats.

What are these hats he’s talking about? They are nothing more than metaphors for different types of thinking strategies. So, instead of asking yourself “What would a scientist do if he were in my position?”, just wear the White Hat. Oh, you don’t know what the White Hat does, right. Here is a list with the “magic powers” of each hat.

White Hat: Centres decision on facts, available data and objectivity. Also means analyzing past trends.

Red Hat: Based on intuition, emotions and feelings. Focus on what you feel without trying to provide an explanation.

Black Hat: Look at things from a pessimistic, cautious and defensive perspective.

Yellow Hat: See what the benefits of your future decision are or evaluate what you’ve already achieved. Positive thinking.

Green Hat: Creativity, considering options, challenges and change.

Blue Hat: Control the process of thinking and don’t focus on the subject itself (Metacognition).

The method can be used for individual or group decision making situations.

So, without becoming Harry Potter with the Sorting Hat on, if you were to choose just one hat out of these six, which one do you think it best suits your way of thinking?

Article by Lucia Grosaru

Published in:  on November 22, 2008 at 2:44 pm Comments (6)
Tags: , , , ,

Why the Therapist Won’t Give You Advice

Why-the-therapist-wont-give-you-advices

Photo © Razvan Tulai

Let’s say you find yourself confronted with a stressful situation or a decision-making moment and you’re not quite sure what your next step should be. You finally come to the conclusion that you are ready to seek for professional help and make an appointment to see a psychotherapist. What are your expectations?

Some clients come to see the therapist hoping they will receive the perfect advice and their problem will solve in no time without any effort from their part, just because the therapist made the right decision for them. These are the clients that will leave a psychologist’s practice with a feeling of disappointment, cause they will soon find out “psychotherapist” does not mean “adviser”.

His refusal of giving you advices or making decisions for you are not indicators of him/her being a terrible therapist, but actually that of an efficient one. A psychologist will guide you through a journey within yourself in order to help you discover your inner resources that will finally be the base of your decisions and future behaviors. If he would make a decision for you, how would your life remain yours? The only thing that would come up after such a connection with your therapist would be a high level of dependence. You would no longer be sure of your own capacities and rely solely on the ones of your therapist’s.

So, don’t feel disappointment when your therapist asks what you think are “classic questions”, such as “How would that make you feel?”, “What would you do if confronted with…?” etc. because he is only giving you back the reins of your life.

Article by Lucia Grosaru

Published in:  on November 21, 2008 at 9:01 am Comments (4)
Tags: ,

Brain Reorganizes To Adjust For Loss Of Vision

ScienceDaily (2008-11-21) — A new study shows that when patients with macular degeneration focus on using another part of their retina to compensate for their loss of central vision, their brain seems to compensate by reorganizing its neural connections. Age–related macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness in the elderly. The study appears in the journal Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience.

Read full article here.

Published in:  on at 8:55 am Leave a Comment
Tags: , ,

Birds Singing In Slow Motion Help Reveal Brain Locations Responsible For Timing

ScienceDaily (2008-11-21) — As anyone who watched the Olympics can appreciate, timing matters when it comes to complex sequential actions. It can make a difference between a perfect handspring and a fall, for instance. But what controls that timing? Scientists are closing in on the brain regions responsible, thanks to some technical advances and some help from songbirds.

Read full article here.

Published in:  on at 8:53 am Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , ,