Signal Transduction in the Brain
Pre-Lecture Interview With the Marine Biological Laboratory:
MBL: It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Marine Biological Laboratory, Dr. Greengard who is going to be our Friday night lecturer. What attracted you to science? For example, was there a single memorable experiment that jump-started your research career?
Paul Greengard: No, I just decided to become a scientist because I thought I did it less badly than I do anything else.
MBL: In what respect?
PG: Well, I was good at quantitative, analytical-type of thinking, so originally I was very interested in mathematics and theoretical physics, and gradually moved over to [the] biological sciences.
MBL: What excites you most about being a scientist? Is it working at the bench? Is it discovery?
PG: What excites me most about being a scientist is the discovery process, the search for new principles in nature.
MBL: What are some of the qualities of a successful investigator?
PG: Well, what constitutes the most important attributes is somewhat different in the different sciences. I think in the biological sciences a good memory is much more important say, than in mathematics. I think you need a good memory. I think you need good analytical skills.
MBL: Tonight's lecture for example…what highlights [should] the audience listen for? What would you hope that they would understand from your presentation?
PG: I would hope that they would get a basic understanding of how nerve cells communicate with each other. How complicated signaling is in the brain, and yet on the other hand how beautifully simple it is. The more we learn, the more complex these pathways are, the more relatively simple principles we find. For example, there are positive feedback and negative feedback groups and synergistic and antagonistic reactions, and...the brain is a remarkable instrument and it is a very humbling thought to think that one might learn a lot about it. But I think it is going to be a gradual process of getting increased information and I guess that is it. When we think about knowledge, they say, "Wow, now we finally understand this!" Forty years from now [this] is all going to look totally simplistic, and nothing compared to what the understanding will be at that time.
MBL: What other scientists, past or present would you most like to have worked with or work with at the moment? Who is one of your idols, so to speak?
PG: In neuroscience…Ramon y Cajal was an absolute phenomena. I think Hodgkin and Huxley in the 20th Century were two of the most impressive brains, and the work that Hubel and Wiesel did was very revolutionary. Steve Kuffler was a brilliant guy who was very imaginative, who asked very simple questions and came up with beautiful answers. Bernard Katz…I think that our field, in honoring those people, honors the right people. I mean they really were the vigorous intellectual leaders…I am sure I have forgotten a number of important ones but they are certainly amongst the [important] people.
MBL: You mention important ones here at the MBL like Steve Kuffler, and so forth.
PG: Right. I am sure I have forgotten some, but...
MBL: I have the last question. In your profile you mentioned the word "computer" with regard to the different types of synaptic activities, and many people dislike that analogy of the brain as a computer.
PG: When did I mention that?
MBL: In the profile that they have.
PG: Yes
MBL: Do you think of the brain as a computer?
PG: Yes. A very different type of computer than an IBM computer, but it is computing. What else are we doing?
MBL: Why then, do some of your colleagues dislike that model?
PG: I think because it is misused…because the brain is mainly an analog computer and there are a lot of reasons why people don't like to think of the brain as a computer. For example, this issue of whether you could ever make a computer that could write Hamlet…I think, in theory, you could. My wife, who is a sculptor, just gets furious when I say something like that. (laughing) It disrupts our marriage. And I can understand that, because they feel there are certain things that just are beyond computation, [that] there is some genius beyond that. But… that is my emotional feeling about it. Intellectually, I don't feel that that is the way it is. Unless you are a vitalist. I mean, there are people…when I was at graduate school [who] thought it would never be possible to learn anything about the brain. Now whether we will ever be able to understand some of the higher brain functions, I don't know. I think we will. Even consciousness…we may be able to. These wonderful new techniques of brain imaging, functional MRI…to ask a person questions and to see this part of their brain lights up, or that part of the brain…
In a way it is very descriptive, but it is a first step towards beginning to understand, with what part of the brain we think, and then hopefully we will understand what is happening with those neurons that are doing thinking.
If I asked you the name of your grandmother and you say, "My grandmother's name was Rachel" and somebody is doing a functional MRI on you, and this part of your brain lights up, [it is] not too hard to believe that maybe one can find what is going on in those cells that evokes the word, "Rachel".
I am very optimistic--assuming mankind doesn't destroy itself--that incredible amounts of information will be obtained over the next century. I don't see any limitation. I think the reason a lot of people don't like this--people who would never call themselves vitalists--I think that is really what is driving it. It is too upsetting to think that we are just…that we can be explained in terms of the laws of science, and that that is all there is. I believe that is why there is so much resistance to that idea.
MBL: Thank you very, very much for being generous with your time.
< previous section | next section >
More: Signal Transduction in the Brain
|
