Search

This article explores the continuation of the pathological morphology research program at neuroscience-related institutes from the Kaiser Wilhelm Society after World War II. It covers the research tradition in the brain sciences, which can be described by an emphasis on gross anatomy, the functional implications of morphological substrates, and the analysis of neurohistological research paths of the human brain in comparative contexts. To enable examination of the assimilation processes of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society's legacy, the decisions and developments of the newly created Max Planck Society in Germany and its early brain science facilities will be assessed for the time period from 1948 to 2002. Pertaining to these overall developments in the Max Planck Society, a persistence of the "morphological paradigm" (microanatomy, pathology, comparative anatomy, etc.) can be identified as lasting until the 1960s. The newer "functional paradigm" (neurophysiology, electroencephalography, cybernetics, and behavioral studies) only became more visible when the first generations of the scientific leaders left their positions in this national research society. It is of note that many directors and scientific members, including Detlev Ploog (1920–2005), Dieter Lux (1924–1995), Georg W. Kreutzberg (1932–2019), Otto Detlev Creutzfeldt (1927–1992), Hans Thönen (1928–2012), Manfred Eigen (1927–2019), Erwin Neher (b. 1944), Hartmut Wekerle (b. 1944), Albert Hertz (1921–2018), Bert Sakmann (b. 1942), and Wolf Singer (b. 1943) were part of the American Neuroscience Research Program as associates, members, conference chairs, or trainees. Likewise, they joined the Society for Neuroscience early on, after it had emerged from the Neuroscience Research Program's steering committee in 1969. This article seeks to clarify the context of the reorganization of the brain research-related Max Planck Institutes during the postwar period after World War II. Its trajectory includes the location of the institutes, their previous involvement in applied research, and personal continuities in scientific leadership positions, contributing to debates during the first decades of the Max Planck Society. The lens of pathological brain research emerges here as an important viewpoint to aid the understanding of the continued impact and concerns over the dominant morphological approaches in postwar West German neurology and psychiatry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the history of the neurological relationship between human behavior and brain function in Europe and North America, various perspectives on brain localization and holistic functioning have been addressed. One of the founding figures of modern neuropsychology, Professor Hans-Lukas Teuber (1916-1977) of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reminded the scholarly community of its negligence of preceding traditions in day-to-day research endeavors. Teuber particularly emphasized that during the development of the aphasiology field (1950s-1960s) even major figures, such as the German-American neurologist Kurt Goldstein (1878-1965), had been neglected in the scientific community's collective memory. This happened despite Goldstein's contributions to cortical blindness, vicarious brain functioning, and neurorehabilitation. The outcome of the debates regarding the neurology of language had to be incompletely relearned in later decades. Neuropsychological concerns regarding the relationship between cortical localizationism and functional holism have made recourse to Goldstein's work necessary for reviving historical answers for current conundrums. It is therefore opportune to review Goldstein's work in the light of the history of aphasiology. Contemporary scholarship has once more drawn research attention to the works of Goldstein along with Norman Geschwind (1926-1984) and his pupils. It has also resurrected the underlying research of Carl Wernicke (1848-1905). This review article explores deep and lasting questions regarding the positioning of Goldstein's holism among the contemporary holistic perspectives. It does so by firstly discussing Wernicke's traditional model of distributed localizationism. Secondly, it describes Goldstein's previous work in the German brain sciences. Thirdly, it examines his aphasiological contributions on both sides of the Atlantic. Fourthly, it addresses the advancement of a dynamic localizational perspective by Geschwind and his pupils. This article intends to render a historical analysis fruitful for those exploring modern-day problems in the neurology of aphasia and clinical speech neuropsychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Owing to medical historian Erwin H. Ackerknecht's (1906–1988) pioneering study "Medicine at the Paris Hospital, 1794–1848" (1967), the year 1794 is seen as the decisive separation date on which the development and reorganization of the Parisian clinical school—as a broad movement and a system of medical education and clinical practice—distanced it from the traditions of the 18th century. This precise dating is based on the "Rapport et projet de décret sur l'établissement d'une École centrale de Santé à Paris" (1794) by the French clinician and naturalist Antoine-François Fourcroy (1755–1809), which appeared five years after the French Revolution. Fourcroy was asked by the Conseil d'État to submit a detailed report in which he was obliged to comment on the existing health situation and the state of medical care and research. His report thereby ventured so far as to request the continued dissolution of all medical faculties in France, as these institutions were seen as counter-revolutionary hotbeds in the wider educational landscape of the Grande Nation. Fourcroy's recommendations were implemented a short time later; he had recommended that medical training should be established again in the traditional locations of Paris, Montpellier, and Strasbourg in France yet in the different settings of so-called health schools, Écoles de Santé. In this article, I look at the corresponding training and care structures after the French Revolution, as well as some of the specific reasons which led to the complete suspension of teaching in academic medicine at the time. In the more recent research literature, Ackerknecht's view has undergone some modifications, whereby the fixation on the date 1794 has been challenged since the French traditions of the royalistic period have hardly been considered. Furthermore, it has been argued that the reorganization of medicine during the time of the Empire remained largely based on knowledge structures derived from the previous 18th century. In order to keep the complex scientific, institutional, and socio-economic conditions of the context of Parisian Academic Medicine aligned, I first explore some developments up to the time of the French Revolution (1789), before assessing the implications of the reform of knowledge structures and curricular programs instigated since the 1790s, as these remain relevant to medical history in the 19th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior to the establishment of its first medical education institution at the University of Alberta in 1913, (1) clinical neurology and neurosurgery was practiced sparingly throughout the province and with [...]

We lost our home, which means the familiarity of daily life. We lost our occupation, which means the confidence that we are of some use in this world. We lost [...]

"The Brain Abstracted" by Mazviita Chirimuuta explores the role of abstractions and simplifications in neuroscience and psychiatry, emphasizing the need to examine the simplifying tricks used in research programs. The book delves into historical case studies, such as the reflex theory and computational approaches, to analyze how simplifications can both enhance and limit our understanding of neural processes. While the book focuses more on the philosophical aspects of neuroscience history, it offers valuable insights for philosophers, STEM educators, historians of science, and neuroscientists seeking to navigate the complexities of their research. [Extracted from the article]

This document is a survey of periodical literature in the field of neuroscience history, covering various topics from different time periods. The articles explore subjects such as insanity in classical antiquity, emotions in Ottoman culture, case studies of mental illness in the 18th century, the fight against rabies in the 19th century, epilepsy and criminality in Australia, the treatment of hysteria in the 19th century, the history of the synapse, and the history of multiple sclerosis. The articles provide valuable insights into the historical development of neuroscience and its impact on society. Additionally, the document discusses the groundbreaking discovery of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor by Changeux in 1970, which has had a significant impact on the field of neuroscience. Lastly, the document examines the concept of multiple realizability in relation to nonreductive physicalism, arguing against philosopher Jerry Fodor's position and suggesting alternative explanations. Overall, this collection of summaries provides a brief and culturally sensitive overview of various academic theses and articles in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy. [Extracted from the article]