Across at Wired, Amy Wallace has a long but riveting article about Amy Bishop, the neuroscience professor who shot her colleagues at the University of Alabama last year, killing three.

It's a fascinating article because of the picture it paints of a killer and it's well worth the time to read. Yet it doesn't really answer the question posed in the title: "What Made This University Scientist Snap?"

Wallace notes the theory that Bishop snapped because she was denied tenure at the University, a serious blow to anyone's career and especially to someone who, apparantly, believed she was destined for great things. However, she points out that the timing doesn't fit: Bishop was denied tenure several months before the shooting. And she shot at some of the faculty who voted in her favor, ruling out a simple "revenge" motive.

But even if Bishop had snapped the day after she found out about the tenure decision, what would that explain? Thousands of people are denied tenure every year. This has been going on for decades. No-one except Bishop has ever decided to pick up a gun in response.

Bishop had always displayed a streak of senseless violence; in 1986, she killed her 18 year old brother with a shotgun in her own kitchen. She was 21. The death was ruled an accident, but probably wasn't. It's not clear what it was, though: Bishop had no clear motive.

Amy had said something that upset her father. That morning they’d squabbled, and at about 11:30 am, Sam, a film professor at Northeastern University, left the family’s Victorian home to go shopping... Amy, 21, was in her bedroom upstairs. She was worried about “robbers,” she would later tell the police. So she loaded her father’s 12-gauge pump-action shotgun and accidentally discharged a round in her room. The blast struck a lamp and a mirror and blew a hole in the wall...

The gun, a Mossberg model 500A, holds multiple rounds and must be pumped after each discharge to chamber another shell. Bishop had loaded the gun with number-four lead shot. After firing the round into the wall, she could have put the weapon aside. Instead, she took it downstairs and walked into the kitchen. At some point, she pumped the gun, chambering another round.

...[her mother] told police she was at the sink and Seth was by the stove when Amy appeared. “I have a shell in the gun, and I don’t know how to unload it,” Judy told police her daughter said. Judy continued, “I told Amy not to point the gun at anybody. Amy turned toward her brother and the gun fired, hitting him.”

Years later Bishop, possibly with the help of her husband, sent a letter-bomb to a researcher who'd sacked her, Paul Rosenberg. Rosenberg avoided setting off the suspicious package and police disarmed it; Bishop was questioned, but never charged.

Wallace argues that Bishop's "eccentricity", or instability, was fairly evident to those who knew her but that in the environment of science, it went unquestioned because science is full of eccentrics.

I'm not sure this holds up. It's certainly true that science has more than its fair share of oddballs. The "mad scientist" trope is a stereotype but it has its basis in fact and it has done at least since Newton; many say that you can't be a great scientist and be entirely 'normal'.

But the problem with this, as a theory for why Bishop wasn't spotted sooner, is that she was spotted sooner, as unhinged, albeit not as a potential killer,by a number of people. Rosenberg sacked her, in 1993, on the grounds that her work was inadaquate and said that "Bishop just didn’t seem stable". And in 2009, the reason Bishop was denied tenure in Alabama was partially that one of her assessors referred to her as "crazy", more than once; she filed a complaint on that basis.

Bishop also published a bizarre paper in 2009 written by herself, her husband, and her three children, of "Cherokee Lab Systems", a company which was apparantly nothing more than a fancy name for their house. There may be a lot of eccentrics in science, but that's really weird.

So I think that all of these attempts at an explanation fall short. Amy Bishop is a black swan; she is the first American professor to do what she did. Hundreds of thousands of scientists have been through the same academic system and only one ended up shooting their colleagues. If there is an explanation, it lies within Bishop herself.

Whether she was suffering from a diagnosable mental illness is unclear. Her lawyer has said so, but he would; it's her only defence. Maybe we'll learn more at the trial.#

H/T: David Dobbs for linking to this.

There's a lot of talk, much of it rather speculative, about "neuroethics" nowadays.

But there's one all too real ethical dilemma, a direct consequence of modern neuroscience, that gets very little attention. This is the problem of incidental findings on MRI scans.

An "incidental finding" is when you scan someone's brain for research purposes, and, unexpectedly, notice that something looks wrong with it. This is surprisingly common: estimates range from 2–8% of the general population. It will happen to you if you regularly use MRI or fMRI for research purposes, and when it does, it's a shock. Especially when the brain in question belongs to someone you know. Friends, family and colleagues are often the first to be recruited for MRI studies.

This is why it's vital to have a system in place for dealing with incidental findings. Any responsible MRI scanning centre will have one, and as a researcher you ought to be familiar with it. But what system is best?

Broadly speaking there are two extreme positions:

1. Research scans are not designed for diagnosis, and 99% of MRI researchers are not qualified to make a diagnosis. What looks "abnormal" to Joe Neuroscientist BSc or even Dr Bob Psychiatrist is rarely a sign of illness, and likewise they can easily miss real diseases. So, we should ignore incidental findings, pretend the scan never happened, because for all clinical purposes, it didn't.
2. You have to do whatever you can with an incidental finding. You have the scans, like it or not, and if you ignore them, you're putting lives at risk. No, they're not clinical scans, they can still detect many diseases. So all scans should be examined by a qualified neuroradiologist, and any abnormalities which are possibly pathological should be followed-up.

Neither of these extremes is very satisfactory. Ignoring incidental findings sounds nice and easy, until you actually have to do it, especially if it's your girlfriend's brain. On the other hand, to get every single scan properly checked by a neuroradiologist would be expensive and time-consuming. Also, it would effectively turn your study into a disease screening program - yet we know that screening programs can cause more harm than good, so this is not necessarily a good idea.

Most places adopt a middle-of-the-road approach. Scans aren't routinely checked by an expert, but if a researcher spots something weird, they can refer the scan to a qualified clinician to follow up. Almost always, there's no underlying disease. Even large, OMG-he-has-a-golf-ball-in-his-brain findings can be benign. But not always.

This is fine but it doesn't always work smoothly. The details are everything. Who's the go-to expert for your study, and what are their professional obligations? Are they checking your scan "in a personal capacity", or is this a formal clinical referral? What's their e-mail address? What format should you send the file in? If they're on holiday, who's the backup? At what point should you inform the volunteer about what's happening?

Like fire escapes, these things are incredibly boring, until the day when they're suddenly not.

A new paper from the University of California Irvine describes a computerized system that made it easy for researchers to refer scans to a neuroradiologist. A secure website was set up and publicized in University neuroscience community.

Suspect scans could be uploaded, in one of two common formats. They were then anonymized and automatically forwarded to the Department of Radiology for an expert opinion. Email notifications kept everyone up to date with the progress of each scan.

This seems like a very good idea, partially because of the technical advantages, but also because of the "placebo effect" - the fact that there's an electronic system in place sends the message: we're serious about this, please use this system.

Out about 5,000 research scans over 5 years, there were 27 referrals. Most were deemed benign... except one which turned out to be potentially very serious - suspected hydrocephalus, increased fluid pressure in the brain, which prompted an urgent referral to hospital for further tests.

There's no ideal solution to the problem of incidental findings, because by their very nature, research scans are kind of clinical and kind of not. But this system seems as good as any.

Cramer SC, Wu J, Hanson JA, Nouri S, Karnani D, Chuang TM, & Le V (2011). A system for addressing incidental findings in neuroimaging research. NeuroImage PMID: 21224007

A group of Italian psychiatrists claim to explain How Neuroscience and Behavioral Genetics Improve Psychiatric Assessment: Report on a Violent Murder Case.

The paper presents the horrific case of a 24 year old woman from Switzerland who smothered her newborn son to death immediately after giving birth in her boyfriend's apartment. After her arrest, she claimed to have no memory of the event. She had a history of multiple drug abuse, including heroin, from the age of 13.

We're willing to excuse perpetrators when there's a straightforward "biological cause" for their criminal behaviour: it's not their fault, they're ill. In all other cases, we assign blame: biology is a valid excuse, but nothing else is.

There seems to be a basic difference between the way in which we think about "biological" as opposed to "environmental" causes of behaviour. This is related, I think, to the Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations and our fascination with brain scans that "prove that something is in the brain". But when you start to think about it, it becomes less and less clear that this distinction works.

A person's family, social and economic background is the strongest known predictor of criminality. Guys from stable, affluent families rarely mug people; some men from poor, single-parent backgrounds do. But muggers don't choose to be born into that life any more than the child-porn addict chose to have brain cancer.

Indeed, the mugger's situation is a more direct cause of his behaviour than a brain tumour. It's not hard to see how a mugger becomes, specifically, a mugger: because they've grown up with role-models who do that; because their friends do it or at least condone it; because it's the easiest way for them to make money.

But it's less obvious how brain damage by itself could cause someone to seek child porn. There's no child porn nucleus in the brain. Presumably, what it does is to remove the person's capacity for self-control, so they can't stop themselves from doing it.

This fits with the fact that people who show criminal behaviour after brain lesions often start to eat and have (non-criminal) sex uncontrollably as well. But that raises the question of why they want to do it in the first place. Were they, in some sense, a pedophile all along? If so, can we blame them for that?

Rigoni D, Pellegrini S, Mariotti V, Cozza A, Mechelli A, Ferrara SD, Pietrini P, & Sartori G (2010). How neuroscience and behavioral genetics improve psychiatric assessment: report on a violent murder case. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 4 PMID: 21031162

We all know about movies that are so bad, they're good. But could the same thing apply to doctors?

As I described last week, Desiree Jennings is a young woman from Virginia who developed horrible symptoms, including muscle spasms and convulsions, after getting a flu vaccine. It looked a bit like a form of brain damage called dystonia.

Numerous neurologists concluded that her illness was mostly or entirely psychogenic. A certain Dr Rashid Buttar, however, said that she was suffering from neurological damage caused by toxins in the flu vaccine.

Buttar gave her chelation therapy to flush the toxins out. Within 15 minutes, she was cured. Biologically speaking, this is ludicrous. It's flat-out impossible that chelation could reverse brain damage in 15 minutes, even if Jennings did have brain damage in the first place.

But Buttar's treatment worked, amazingly well by all accounts. This is not surprising, because the illness was psychological in nature, and Dr Buttar's treatment was, psychologically, very effective. Jennings was admitted to Dr Buttar's private clinic; she had IV lines put in to her arm; Dr Buttar attached the chelation treatment to the IV drip and, in a textbook example of how to produce a placebo effect:

I told her "Now the magic should start", prepared her for what I expected to happen. (interview with Dr Buttar, 05:30 onwards)

The magic did indeed happen, precisely because Dr Buttar convinced Jennings that it would.


What would have happened to Jennings if there were no Dr Buttars in the world? Her doctors would have run scans and tests to check if Jennings had any neurological damage. The results would have been normal. Jennings would probably have interpreted this as "We don't know what's wrong with you", although experts would have suspected that the symptoms were most likely psychogenic.

At some point, someone would have had to raise that possibility with her. But the point about psychogenic illness is that it's not "faking", "acting" or "made up" - the patient believes they are ill. The symptoms don't feel psychogenic. This is why people often interpret the suggestion that symptoms are psychogenic as saying "you're not really ill" and hence "you're either lying, or crazy". Of course, patients suffering from psychogenic illness are neither, and they know it.

So, without complementary and alternative medicine, Jennings might have ended up believing herself to be suffering from an illness so obscure that doctors were unable to diagnose it, and hence, unable to cure it. A hopeless situation. A worse thing for someone with psychogenic symptoms to believe is hard to imagine.

Dr Buttar's treatment was psychologically very powerful - precisely because he believed in it, so he was able to convince Jennings to believe in it. A doctor who realized that Jennings' symptoms were psychogenic would have found it much harder to achieve the same result. In order to do so, they would have to lie to her, by pretending to believe in a treatment which they knew was just a placebo. This is hard - the doctor would need to be an excellent actor as well as a medic - not to mention ethically tricky.

Interestingly, 100 years ago, this problem wouldn't have arisen. Doctors knew much less about diagnosis and there were few laboratory tests or scans in those days, so there was usually no way to prove that some symptoms were organic and others were psychogenic. Everyone got the same treatment. Of course, the treatments back then were less good at treating organic illnesses, but that wouldn't necessarily have made them any worse as placebos. Ironically, as mainstream medicine gets better and better at diagnosing and treating disease, it may be getting worse at dealing with psychogenic symptoms.

[BPSDB]

Previously I wrote about a small study finding that smoked marijuana helps with HIV-related pain. In the last month, two more clinical trials of medical marijuana - or rather, marijuana-based drugs - for pain have come out.

First, the good news. Johnson et al tested a mouth spray containing the two major psychoactive chemicals in marijuana, THC and CBD. Their patients were all suffering from terminal cancer, which believe it or not, is quite painful. Almost all of the subjects were already taking high doses of strong opiate painkillers: a mean of 270 mg morphine or equivalent each day, which is enough to kill someone without a tolerance. (A couple of them were on an eye-watering 6 grams daily). Yet they were still in pain.

Patients were allowed to use the cannabinoid spray as often as they wanted for 2 weeks. Lo and behold, the THC/CBD spray was more effective than an inactive placebo spray at relieving pain. The effect was modest, but statistically significant, and given what these people were going through I'm sure they were glad of even "modest" effects. A third group got a spray containing only THC, and this was less effective than the combined THC/CBD - on most measures, it was no better than placebo. THC is often thought of as the single "active ingredient" in marijuana, but this suggests that there's more to it than that. This was a relatively large study - 177 patients in total - so the results are pretty convincing, although you should know that it was funded and sponsored by GW Pharma, whose "vision is to the global leader in prescription cannabinoid medicines". Hmm.

The other trial was less promising, although it was in a completely different group - patients with painful diabetic neuropathy. The people in this study were in pain despite taking tricyclic antidepressants, which, curiously, are quite good at relieving neuropathic pain. Again, the treatment was a combined CBD/THC spray, and this trial for lasted 12 weeks. The active spray was no more effective than the placebo spray this time around - both groups improved a lot. This was a small trial (just 29 patients), so it might just have not been big enough to detect any effect. Also, this one wasn't funded by a pharmaceutical company.

Overall, this is further evidence that marijuana-based drugs can treat some kinds of pain, although maybe not all of them. I have to say, though, that I'm not sure that we needed a placebo-controlled trial to tell us that terminal cancer patients can benefit from medical marijuana. If someone's dying from cancer, I say let them use whatever the hell they want, if they find it helps them. Dying patients used to be given something called a Brompton cocktail, a mixture of drugs that would make Keith Richards jealous:  heroin, cocaine, marijuana, chloroform, and gin, in the most popular variant.

And why not? There were no placebo-controlled trials proving that it worked, but it seemed to help, and even if it was just a placebo (which seems unlikely), placebo pain relief is still pain relief. I'm not saying that these kinds of trials aren't valuable, but I don't think we should demand cast-iron proof that medical marijuana works before making it available to people who are suffering. People are suffering now, and trials take time.



Johnson JR, Burnell-Nugent M, Lossignol D, Ganae-Motan ED, Potts R, & Fallon MT (2009). Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study of the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of THC:CBD Extract and THC Extract in Patients With Intractable Cancer-Related Pain. Journal of pain and symptom management PMID: 19896326

Selvarajah D, Gandhi R, Emery CJ, & Tesfaye S (2009). A Randomised Placebo Controlled Double Blind Clinical Trial of Cannabis Based Medicinal Product (Sativex) in Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: Depression is a Major Confounding Factor. Diabetes care PMID: 19808912

"Women, the weaker sex... at resisting food, researchers find".

This appeared in the Daily Mail a while back. This headline was based on a neuroimaging experiment, which, predictably, didn't prove anything of the kind. Yawn. I've written about this kind of thing before, and no doubt I will do again. But why do I do it? What's the harm in this kind of thing?

A cynic might say that this kind of thing is harmless fun - or at any rate, harmless. No-one really cares about articles like this, and no-one takes them seriously. No-one's going to read this article and start to think that all women are impulsive and gluttonous - at least not unless they were a sexist pig to begin with.

The opposite view is that this article represents a sexist attack on the rights and status of women (in this particular case), and more generally, that this kind of science writing promotes a reductionist view of life in which all of our problems are ultimately biological ones. This has the dangerous implication that our problems either can't be solved, or can only be solved through the application of some kind of pill or potion. Junk science writing of this kind, then, is actively dangerous.

Those are the two extremes. The truth, I assume, lies somewhere in between. No-one is going to read this one single article and become a sexist pig, just like this spectacularly awful article isn't going to make anyone hate hip-hop and no-one is going to listen to Baroness Susan Greenfield and decide they want to ban Facebook. It's just a couple of hundred words in the Daily Mail.

But while eating one packet of cookies won't make you overweight, scoff a packet every day and your waistline will suffer for it. Every crap science article in the newspapers is another portion of nonsense in the nation's diet; over time, it builds up. One simplistic, vaguely sexist popular science headline isn't going to do much harm; if that's all people read for years on end it's going to have an effect. And there are loads of them.

There's anothing point, though. Even if you don't have strong views on the particular issues at hand, you should care about the abyssmal standards of science journalism. I'm open to the idea that women are, on average, less able to restrain their hunger then men. It's probably not true, but I don't see that idea in itself as either implausible or inherently sexist. But what I do know is that it's a fairly difficult question. There are arguments on both sides. More generally, the controversy over human sex differences is a vast one, with a huge amount of evidence to consider, and it isn't going to be settled by one neuroimaging study, or even a hundred.

The implicit message of this kind of junk science writing is that all kinds of complex and difficult scientific questions are in fact really simple. If people were more aware of the difficulties inherent in answering even apparantly simple questions, they'd be less willing to settle for the easy, simple, entirely wrong answers when it comes to practical political and social issues.

Maybe that's too simplistic. But it wouldn't hurt.

[BPSDB]