Talk:V. S. Ramachandran/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

New Book?

Is http://www.amazon.co.uk/Phantoms-Brain-Human-Nature-Architecture/dp/1857028953 Phantoms in the Brain: Human Nature and the Architecture of the Mind a new Book by Ramachandran and Blakeslee or is it just Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind http://www.amazon.co.uk/Phantoms-Brain-Probing-Mysteries-Human/dp/0688172172/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1294745943&sr=1-2 retitled? 85.224.196.196 (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Laura Creighton

Royal Institution

I have seen several references to the fact that Rama "was elected to a lifetime fellowship" or "is a fellow of" The Royal Institution of Britain (RI). Based on what I can see on their website becoming a "fellow" is a matter of writing a check to become a member. It is a membership class. The RI is not primarily a research institution although there is a small research project honoring Faraday.If this is the case it should not be included as an honor. Is there some confusion with the Royal Society? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurorel (talk • contribs) 23:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think there is some confusion between the Royal Society and the Royal institution. An "elected fellowship" is an honor given by the Royal Society but not by the Royal Institution. I have not been able to find a CV for Rama so I can't say that this honor was given to him by either. Neurorel (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

I don't think there's a confusion at all about the Royal Institution and the Royal Society. I think the key point in the text there is that this is an honourary lifetime fellowship. Yes, people can become fellows by paying the appropriate annual fee, but I think this is referring to the fact that as part of the Henry Dale award, awardees are granted lifetime honorary (i.e., without paying the fee) membership to the Royal Institution. I also think that you miss the main point of the Royal Institution. As you note, it is not primarily a research institution but has the main objective of sharing and disseminating the work of science with the general public. For example, the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures are a major scientific outreach activity of the RI, and have been given by such notable scientists as Michael Faraday, Julian Huxley, David Attenborough, Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins. In this sense, the Henry Dale award, and the lifetime honorary membership are given for the work of communicating science (both the findings and the passion of it) to a non-scientific audience. It may be redundant to mention, but it certainly is an honor conferred, in much the same way as an honorary doctorate, of which Rama has several. Edhubbard (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Webpage

Hi Ed. The link to the "official" web page for Rama goes to a page that says 2002 at the bottom. Is there a page with more current information? Neurorel (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

If you look carefully at the content, rather than just the "copyright" date at the bottom of the page, you will see that much of the information is, in fact, current. For example, the front page includes comments from the 2004 release of A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness, while the publications page includes publications as recent as 2009, and links to Rama's appearance on the Charlie Rose show in 2009. The current "Laboratory" page is a little out of date, as Paul McGeogh has now returned to the UK as a practicing physician, but David Brang and Laura Case are correctly listed as PhD students (see their webpages here and here). So, the information isn't that out of date (maybe 2009 was the last big round of updates, including the CBC links). It would probably be worthwhile for the lab to do another round of updates, but Rama, like many scientists are generally busy working on their actual scientific research and publications, and tend to see webpages like this as necessary, but not primary for their main goals of communicating and disseminating their scientific findings. Edhubbard (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nature (journal)

Neurorel, letters and correspondence are peer-reviewed in Nature [1] so it is incorrect to remove mention of these publication in the highest-impact journal in the world by suggesting that they were "only" letters or correspondence. Please at least look at the basic standards of scholarship before you start deleting things. Edhubbard (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It is also fairly easy to show that Ramachandran has 20 Nature papers, simply by doing a pubmed search, here and entering (Ramachandran VS[Author]) AND "Nature"[Journal] in the search box. I haven't figured out how to save that search as a link to make it a reference, but it's easily verifiable. Edhubbard (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed, Your point is well taken. The Pub Med site seems like a reliable source. Pub Med lists 145 entries and I think it would be appropriate to use that number as an objective benchmark. In general I think it would be best to avoid the appearance of cheerleading by saying something such as "Over the past 35 years he has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals such as...." Or if you think the 180 number is more accurate we can leave it at that.Many faculty post their CVs online; I think that a CV would also give us a sense of what Professor Ramachandran considers to be the total number of significant publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurorel (talk • contribs) 21:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Pubmed, while reliable, is incomplete. It does not list all journals, but only the biomedical ones. It also fails to include most book chapters, edited books, and so on. Therefore pubmed gives only a lower bound for the number of publications that anyone in academia has. Publications in, for example, the Journal of Consciousness Studies which more interdisciplinary, are not included in the Pubmed total. Rama has at least six publications in JCS, three of which are featured prominently on the JCS website as being related to his Reith lectures (some were replies to previous articles) [2]. Given this systematic discrepancy, it would be an error to use Pubmed as the only method for verifying any academic's total career productivity. By comparison, the WebofScience, compiled by ISI (the same company that calculates journal impact factors) reports 267 publications for Rama, but also includes things like "published abstracts" in the Society for Neuroscience, which are reviewed, but not full publications, so ISI is an overestimate. The issue with WebofScience is that it is a subscription only service and so cannot serve as a verifiable reference for those without university libraries to subscribe to the service. Knowing this, 180 is an entirely reasonable estimate, and given the rate at which he publishes, it's probably out of date by the time it even appeared in wikipedia. Edhubbard (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Center for Brain and Cognition

Conversation moved from User talk:Edhubbard

Do you know the date range for the Center for Brain and Cognition? I think a footnote or some indication that the center was a research unit under Ramachandran from say 200? to 200? would help. Because there is a Brain and Cognition lab (BCL) in the Cognitive Science department there is some confusion about Ramachandran's status as director of BCL. Neurorel (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

I don't know the date range off the top of my head, but it's worth noting that the Center for Brain and Cognition (CBC) grew out of the previous Center for Human Information Processing (CHIP) that had been at UCSD since the 1970s [3]. There is abundant evidence from UCSD official university webpages that Ramachandran was/is director of the CBC [4] [5] [6]. Note that, as official university webpages (see the addresses) these are not WP:SELFPUBs. Ramachandran is not the director of the Cognition and Brain Laboratory (CBL). That is a lab, not a center, and it is directed by Seana Coulson. That lab is in UCSD's Department of Cognitive Science, while the CBC was/is in the Department of Psychology. Ramachandran is also director of his own laboratory, the Brain and Perceptual Processes Laboratory. The CBC is a group of laboratories, each of which is headed by a UCSD faculty member in Psychology. Edhubbard (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you have been looking at outdated web pages that have reappeared in the last few days. The Vice Chancellor for Research at UCSD does not list CBC as an official research unit. The web pages that have recently appeared are on a server (CBC) that was recently turned on (a few days ago). If you will examine the pages carefully you will see that the information is outdated by several years and that the links are not active. These pages do not carry the "Terms and Conditions" disclosure required by UCSD. I believe you are looking at old pages that were created when there was indeed an official research unit known as CBC. You will also notice that if you go to the Psychology Department web site the link to Professor Ramachandran's lab is inactive. There is no way to get from an official UCSD web page to the Center for Brain and Cognition. Something very odd is going on with the informattion being posted on various and sundry servers at UCSD Neurorel (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

These are certainly not pages that recently appeared. They were there the entire time that I was doing my PhD at UCSD (1999-2004) in one form or another. The server may have been down the day(s) that you were editing, but they may have re-appeared. They were there before, and they are there currently. The CBC homepage [7] does indeed carry the official UCSD webpage logo, as required by the terms and conditions [8] and is on a UCSD hosted website (domain name). The fact that you cannot navigate from one page to another does not make it unofficial. Edhubbard (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Like you, I don't find the CBC listed under the current ORUs [9], but I do find that there as of 2009 there were still University staff assigned to it [10]. Edhubbard (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to a reprinted UCSD story about the Center for Human Information Processing, from 1969, which was the forerunner of the CBC [11] and a newsletter from 1985, showing that CHIP was still referred to as CHIP then [12]. Edhubbard (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Neurorel, I have additional new information about the CBC. I have e-mailed with with Dr. Ramachandran directly about the status of the CBC, and he asked me to post the following here: "The Center for Brain and Cognition (CBC) continues to exist and flourish. It shares administrative resources with the Dept of Psychology UCSD. Professor Ramachandran's directorship (renewable every 5 years) was last renewed 2010 July by the chancellors office. Wikipedia staff can check this by phoning the Management services officer (chief administrative assistant) Peter Smith-Hinkley, the chair's assistant. phinkley@ucsd.edu. The link to the Center for Brain and Cognition can be directly accessed by Googling "Center for Brain and Cognition Ramachandran" The direct link from UCSD may be currently missing because of delays in updating university web sites but the affiliation of the center to the university can be verified, if necessary by contacting Mr Smith-Hinkley." My understanding is that, although it is no longer a University-wide ORU, the Center itself still exists, and is still directed by Dr. Ramachandrran. Additionally, and most importantly, the Department of Psychology has now updated their webpage to include a link to the CBC as a "Psychology Research Center" [13] (note that the copyright date on that page is current; 2011), which provides a verifiable source that the CBC still exists and is still under Dr. Ramachandran's direction. Edhubbard (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Academic degrees

Hi Ed, The title of the PhD is listed in the University of Cambridge Library Catelogue. The title is "Studies on binocular vision" BLDSC number 025403-79. I believe that Ramachandran worked primarily on vision research until the 1990s when he switched to neuroscience. However if you think his PhD was both experimental psychology and neuroscience that seems OK to me. Maybe you can look up the original medical degree. When Ramachandran was at Cal Tech he was listed as MBBS,PhD. (The MBBS is given by many medical schools in the British Commonwealth). There are certainly physicians who practice in the US who use the MBBS designation. But it is a different designation than that of MD (both in the US and in India). Neurorel (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

I've updated the reference to include a static link that anyone can access. I've also clarified that Rama's PhD was for work that included both behavioral and physiological studies of binocular vision. The previous sentence was ambiguous, because it could have either referred to the department where Rama got his PhD (Experimental Psychology) or to the fields he studied "psychology and neuroscience". Normally, if the text is in lower case, it is understood to refer to academic fields, while if it is capitalized, as I have done here, it refers to the academic department. Although Rama's PhD was in the Department of Experimental Psychology, you can clearly seem from the papers that he published on binocular vision that he used both behavioral and physiological methods [14] [15] [16][17]. I've tried to make that clearer now.

As for the M.D./M.B.B.S., it was an MBBS and then while he was CalTech, the MD was conferred. The requirements for an MD in Commonwealth Countries are higher than the requirements for an MBBS. From our own wikipedia page Doctor of Medicine, the MBBS is considered a qualifying degree to practice medicine, and is considered equivalent to the US. MD. However, conferring an MD in Commonwealth Countries actually requires additional research, and the acceptance of that research conducted as being suitable for an MD. The research that Rama conducted as part of his PhD was the work that was also submitted to have his degree upgraded from an MBBS to an MD. Since Rama was at CalTech shortly after he completed his PhD, the upgrade had likely not yet been conferred, and he appropriately listed his MBBS at that time'. After his degree was upgraded to an MD, based on the research conducted at Cambridge and elsewhere, it became correct (and currently is) to list his degree as an MD. This is true for most academics... their degrees are updated as they progress, and only their highest terminal degrees are listed. When the MBBS was the highest medical degree Rama had obtained, that was listed. Afterwards, when the MD had been conferred, then the MBBS is no longer listed, and the MD is listed. Edhubbard (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed. That is quite an explanation. If it is true, then why has the UCSD catalog listed Professor Ramachandran as PhD, MBBS for the past ten years? Also, if you look up Professor Ramachandran on Wiki Doctor you will see that the most recent entry (2007) lists his medical degree as MBBS. In the state of California the use of "MD" is regulated by the Business and Professions code (state law) and is restricted to doctors who are 1) either licensed to practice medicine by the State Board (these physicians are listed on the web site of the state board), or 2) who are not practicing medicine in California but who are licensed to practice medicine in another jurisdiction and who hold an MD. It seems to me that since the current UCSD catalog lists Professor Ramachandran as PhD, MBBS we should follow their example. Neurorel (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Wikidoc is no better than wikipedia, and as the large majority of the content on wikidoc is copied straight from wikipedia, all of the flaws that might be in wikipedia might also be in wikidoc (or vice versa), so that's no source at all. The UCSD catalog is certainly better than wikidoc, but it could also be incorrect/out of date. As a University student, have you ever seen how many classes are listed in the catalog that are no longer actually offered, professors who are not actually even at the institution, and so on? It's possible that this information has not been updated once since Rama was hired at UCSD! In his bio page on the CBC page, his degree is listed as an MD [18] and in many other places. So, at this point, we have competing references that say different things, both of them official. One of them must be wrong, but would you suggest that we go about deciding which one? Edhubbard (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed. It's even more confusing than that. Whereas the Psychology Department lists Professor Ramachandran as "Ramachandran PhD, MBBS" the Graduate Program in Neurosciences lists Professor Ramachandran as "Ramachanran, MD". None of this makes much sense to me. However, I suggest that we start with the simplest version of the facts we can agree on. For example:"Ramachandran was awarded the "MBBS" by the Stanley Medical College in 1974." What happened after that is not clear. If someone can figure out what has happened with the academic/medical designations for Professor Ramachandran the entry can be expanded. Neurorel (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Hi Ed. I have put some time into trying to understand the graduate degree system at Cambridge. It could be that Professor Ramachandran was awarded an MD by Cambridge after completing his research. The MBBS plus a research thesis is the equivalent of an MD from Cambridge University. However this means that Professor Ramachandran does not hold a Ph.D. (as such). I see that there is a link to his CV on his faculty page at the Graduate program in neuroscience. Unfortunately there is no CV available through this link. I am afraid that there is no way to resolve this confusion until Professor Ramachandran re-posts his CV. Neurorel (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Medical Hypotheses (Journal)

I think it is appropriate to mention (somewhere in this entry) that Professor Ramachandran is on the Editorial Board of Medical Hypotheses and that he has taken a public position (March,2011) in the debate/controversy over peer review at the journal. He has proposed a hybrid review system that would allow for peer review remarks to be included but disallow the possibility of an article being rejected by an outside reviewer.

"I suggested that the journal continue its old policy of publishing ALL articles so long as they meet minimum standards as set by the board of editors. However each paper should also be peer reviewed in the ordinary fashion with the outside referee being told he/she is not allowed to recommend rejection. Their comments - whether critical or flattering - will then be posted on the MEDICAL HYPOTHESES WEB site in parallel - or shortly after - the print edition. (These could be published anonymous or signed as per referees request.)"VS Ramachandran [ScienceInsider, March 8, 2010, Comments]

Do you know for which Journals he serves as an editorial adviser? Perhaps that information should be added as well.Neurorel (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

It's quite simply a matter of WP:WEIGHT. Ramachandran is editor of a great many things. For example, he is the Editor in Chief of the Encyclopedia of the Human Brain [19]. This entire massive four volume, 3454 page reference work is simply listed under publications. Surely, that is much more important and substantial than his editorial work for Medical Hypotheses. In addition to his position on the Editorial Board of MH, he is on the Editorial Board for Scientific American Mind see masthead here, a Consulting Editor for Cortex [20], part of the International Advisory Board for Neuroethics [21], the board of Neural Plasticity [22], the Scientific and Medical Board of Advisors for NovaVision (a Vision Restoration company) [23], part of the Advisory Board for the Lifeboat Foundation [24], a Scientific Advisor to the Beckley Foundation [25], and a Distinguished Fellow at the Centre for the Mind [26]. All of these are appointments that are real and verifiable, but which are not included in the article. This is all just from a few minute search. But, out of all of this, you insist on adding an entire paragraph on MH, and even attempted to make it the very top of the article, placing his entire career of work below that. Edhubbard (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hilgard scholar/professorship

Hi Ed, I believe there is indeed a Hilgard visiting professorship; however Stanford University has a record of Professor Ramachandran being a Hilgard scholar in 2005. According to their records he was a "scholar" and was at Stanford for one week in 2005. By the way, I have never been able to find any record about the visiting professor invitation at Harvard. Or to be more exact, I believe the visiting professor position is at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (Harvard's teaching hospital). Do you have a citation or source for this information? Neurorel (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

If you simply do a web search for "Hilgard visiting professorship" vs. "Hilgard visiting scholar" you will see that many other academics have listed the "Hilgard visiting professorship" with exactly that language, on their CVs and in their honors. Conversely, if you look at the hits for "Hilgard visiting scholar", you will find that the only hits are to the new term you have introduced here on wikipedia, and mirror sites. There is word doc, that appears in two places for Danny Oppenheim, as the Chair of a search committee, but that is it. As per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names, google searches clearly demonstrate that the "Hilgard visiting professorship" is the common name for this award, and not the neologism that you have dug up here. Edhubbard (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Harvard Visiting Professor Invitation, I have it here in front of me now. It was for the Spring of 2008 for the Geschwind Memorial Lecture and Visiting Professorship. As you note, that is in the Beth Israel Medical Center, which is Harvard's teaching hospital (i.e., part of Harvard). If you feel it is more appropriate to say "Invited to be Norman Geschwind visiting professor, Beth Israel Hospital, Harvard University (2008)" that would be perfectly reasonable, and consistent with what others have done [27] [28]. It is equally correct, if less precise, the way it currently is, in the same way as saying that Ramachandran lives in the United States is not inaccurate, given that he lives in California. In the same way that a California resident has full rights and privileges to move around to other states, a Visiting Professor at Beth Israel would have full rights and privileges to use any and all of the Harvard facilities, as Beth Israel is part of Harvard. Edhubbard (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

2008 Norman Geschwind Prize, Lecture

HI Ed. As I understand it, the Geschwind Prize is awarded by the American Academy of Neurology. In 2008 it was awarded to Andrew Budson,M.D. I assume that Andrew Budson also gave the Prize Lecture. Is it your contention that V.S. Ramachandran was invited to be the Geschwind Visiting Professor at Harvard in 2008? I can find no record of this fact. Also, VS Ramachandran does not appear to be a current member of the American Academy of Neurology. Do you know if he is a past member? Neurorel (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

You're confused. The Geschwind prize, as awarded by the AAN is entirely separate from the Geschwind Visiting Professorship at Harvard. Whoever gave the Geschwind lecture for the AAN is irrelevant to who was asked to be the Geschwind Visiting Professor at Harvard, as is Ramachandran's status as an AAN member. Please spend some time learning about who Norman Geschwind was, the foundational role he played in American Neurology, both at Harvard and through the AAN, and these separate institutions would have lectures and professorships named for him. Edhubbard (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Status of John Smythies at Center for Brain and Cognition

Do you know anything about the status of John Smythies at the CBC. He is listed on the official CBC web page as the Director of the Neuropharmacology & Alternative Medicine Laboratory. As far as I can tell this Laboratory does not currently exist at UCSD. Given his age (89?) I assume John Smythies has retired. Neurorel (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Smythies is still active and publishing [29] [30], although not quite at the prodigious rate he once did [31]. And, critically, he still lists his affiliation as the CBC in these publications. He never really took up much more than an office and space for his papers to write, similar to the way that Francis Crick worked at the Salk Institute in the later years of his life and career, in the Center for Theoretical Neuroscience (although Crick is more famous for his contributions to biology, Smythies' contributions to neuroscience have been as important as Crick's contributions to neuroscience). This is not not uncommon for senior academics, who have a lifetime of ideas and knowledge that they can pass on to future generations by systematizing and organizing those thoughts into publications without the requirements of continuing to run large research laboratories. Edhubbard (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I notice that Symthies continues to affiliate himself to the CBC. However, as best as I can tell he does not run a lab at UCSD that is part of CBC. I assume that the web page for CBC needs to be updated. Neurorel (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Please re-read my comments above more carefully. He never had a "lab" in the sense you are thinking of, but, neither did Francis Crick when he was at the Salk Institute. so long as he continues his work, his academic home will be the CBC. Edhubbard (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Information about CBC appears to be out of date

Hi Ed, I take it we are in agreement: there is currently no Neuropharmacology & Alternative Medicine Laboratory at UCSD. Given the fact that Professor Swinney is deceased and that Professors Pashler and Buxton have started new labs/centers that are not part of CBC it appears that the information about the Center for Brain and Cognition (posted on the CBC server at UCSD) is very much out of date. I think that it would be appropriate to update this article with current information about the CBC if there is any. Do you know what research activities are currently taking place at the Center for Brain and Cognition? Neurorel (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

First, regarding the Neuropharmacology & Alternative Medicine Laboratory, I don't think we are in agreement at all. I think the confusion stems from your understanding of the word laboratory. If by laboratory, you mean a bunch of students running around in white coats, peering over beakers and Bunsen burners, then, no, there is no Neuropharmacology & Alternative Medicine Laboratory, and there never has been. But, then there are quite a hundreds or even thousands of active labs that fail to meet that definition, since few scientific domains conform to that image. On the other hand, if by laboratory, you mean a place where science is happening, involving at least one scientist, in some capacity, then there has long been, and still is, a Neuropharmacology & Alternative Medicine Laboratory as part of the CBC at UCSD, as demonstrated by the publications I cited above.

You're right that Dave Swinney passed away a few years ago, and the CBC page should be updated to reflect this, but getting outside entities to update their websites is not part of our purview here on wikipedia.

As for the Pashler and Buxton labs, you again seem to be misunderstanding. Each of these labs has always existed. Pashler changed the name of his laboratory from the Cognitive Processes Laboratory to Learning, Attention and Perception Lab, but this is not a new lab, just a renaming of the lab with the same PI in the same Department. Buxton, on the other hand, has increased his responsibilities dramatically since the last time the CBC page was updated. He has gone from directing a single laboratory within the Department of Radiology to directing the Entire UCSD Center for Functional Brain Imaging [32]. When the CBC page was last updated, the building that houses the imaging center wasn't even built. These labs have always been independently directed by Pashler and Buxton, but they are also part of the CBC. The CBC is a resource that coordinates and brings together these researchers, and which provides them with a common meeting place, a set of administrative resources, a funds for additional events, speakers, etc. This is what most Centers do. The Center doesn't do research independent of the labs that make it up, but rather helps to coordinate and organize the research activities of many labs. See, for example, the Perceptual Expertise Network [33] which clearly shows how PEN is composed of multiple labs [34] or the Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center [35]. Both of those Centers extend across multiple Universities, but the essential organization point is similar, whether it be the CBC within UCSD, or these other networks/centers across multiple Universities. Edhubbard (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed, First, you do a very good job of explaining the structure of the CBC (as you understand it). Unfortunately, the official web page does a very poor job of explaining the CBC. As for John Smythies' connection to the CBC, the wikipedia article on Smythies refers to him as a visiting scholar at CBC and the MIT Press site refers to him as Director of the Division of Neurochemistry, Center for Brain and Cognition. As far as I can tell from looking at UCSD web pages there is no Division of Neurochemistry at CBC. The CBC web page could certainly use your help. Neurorel (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

First, about the John Raymond Smythies article: as you know, since wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it should not be taken as a source. I didn't even know we had a page on Smythies, and honestly, most of it seems to have been created over a period of one day, by one IP editor who has not edited before or since. Reading it over, it also still lists Smythies as being affiliated with the University of Birmingham, as the Charles Byron Ireland Professor Emeritus. The post is currently listed as vacant [36], which probably means that the Visiting Scholar at CBC was a transition period, from his Emeritus position at UAB to UCSD. As you can see on the UCSD website, Smythies is currently listed as a "research faculty" (i.e., no teaching duties), not as a visiting scholar [37]. Concerning MIT press, I don't know. That list of affiliations is a mess, but maybe that was a temporary title, and it again changed to the one on the CBC website.

Second, about CBC and the website. It should be easy for me to explain the structure of the CBC; I worked there for five years, and have been in similar academic institutions and organizations for over fifteen years. I'm sure that you can explain the structure of any organization you worked in for five years, or a business you worked in for 15 years. I agree that the website is out of date, but these things happen. Scientists are busy, working to publish their actual scientific research, to pursue grants and so on. Websites are less important than research.

Finally, unlike you, I do not go around seeing nefarious purposes behind every out of date entry on a website. I don't know where your particular single-minded fascination with Rama and the CBC comes from, but this is bordering on cyberharrassment, which is illegal by California state law: [38]. I have discussed dozens of different "issues" that you have brought up, from whether the CBC was still active, to whether "letters" to Nature are real publications, or whether the mandatory page charges required at PNAS invalidate a publication, and now on to whether Smythies is part of the CBC, and in every case, you have proceeded from an assumption of guilt, cover-up or some other unsavory purpose. You clearly do not understand the least bit about how academia, academic publishing, and how academic organizations work, but then you immediately run to attacks that border on libel in every case where you don't understand. The internet contains a lot of out of date information, including information put up on the University's own web-servers. Sure, the CBC webpage could use an update, but that does not entitle you to continually attack, change and remove verifiable information from someone's wikipedia page. Edhubbard (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Autism Research: Role of Mirror Neurons

Ed, In the autism discussion it says that Ramachandran did the first research suggesting that Mirror Neurons were responsible for autism in 1999. The paper cited was published in 2005. An earlier paper on autism (2001) does not mention mirror neurons. Is this date correct? Neurorel (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Yes, this is correct: Eric Altschuler, who was a post-doctoral fellow (M.D., Ph.D.) in the lab, did the first studies beginning in 1996 examining basic properties of the mu-rhythm and then specifically applying that work to autism in 1999 (presented at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in 2000):

E.L. Altschuler, A. Vankov, V. Wang, V.S. Ramachandran and J.A. Pineda, Person see, person do: human cortical electrophysiological correlates of monkey see monkey do cells Poster session presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, New Orleans, LA (1997 (November)).
E.L. Altschuler, A. Vankov, E.M. Hubbard, E. Roberts, V.S. Ramachandran and J.A. Pineda, Mu wave blocking by observer of movement and its possible use as a tool to study theory of other minds Poster session presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, New Orleans, LA (2000 (November)).

As the work was presented at the 2000 SFN meeting, the abstract was submitted no later than April of 2000 (today is actually the first day of abstract submission for this year's SFN meeting) so the work was correctly listed as having been done in 1999. Bear in mind that almost all scientific work has at least a six month lag, and sometimes years (yes, plural) between when the work was conducted and when it appears in the literature because of the time involved in the process writing, submitting and peer reviewing scientific articles.

To keep the historical record straight, these are the first two citations (because of alphabetical order) in the 2005 article, noting Eric's work and also that the lab had long been interested in this idea. Lindsay Oberman, a PhD student in the lab actually headed the larger scale study that was published in 2005. I'm also going to change the link to that article to the one on the CBC website so that everyone (not just those with ScienceDirect access) can see the actual content. Edhubbard (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If you go to the SFN abstract archives here, then browse the 2000 meeting under "G. Motor Systems and Sensorimotor Integration" and go to page 9 of the records, you will find the full text of the abstract (number 67.23) in which the abstract clearly states "The human mu EEG wave (8-13 Hz, recorded over the central sulcus, has long been known to be blocked or attenuated by movement or thinking about moving). We found that it is also blocked by the observation of a person moving (Altschuler et al. Soc. Neur. Abs. 1997; 23: 1848), and suggested that mu wave blocking is a human correlate of the mirror neurons found by Rizzolatti and colleagues. We have now replicated and extended these results in a new group of subjects. We found that the mu wave is not blocked by observation of equivalent movement of an inanimate object—a ping-pong ball going up and down. There were even some subjects in whom the mu wave was not blocked by imagining movement but was blocked by the observation of movement. Thus, mu wave blocking might provide an easy, safe, inexpensive, non-invasive method to study theory of other minds, for example, in children with autism. We have studied one child with autism and his fraternal twin (control). In both the subject and the control the mu wave was blocked by movement but not by the observation of movement. A larger study of mu wave blocking in autistic and control children is underway." Edhubbard (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You can actually see that this whole history is correctly recounted, too, in the profile of Ramachandrdan by Colapinto in the New Yorker, which does require that these sorts of stories be fact checked full text here.

Let Ramachandran speak for himself!

Ed, The account of Ramachandran's speculation/research about the relationship between autism and mirror neurons is really very simple: 1) He was thinking about this question as early as 2000, 2) He, in fact, presented two distinct theories of autism, 3) He has recently (April, 2011) acknowledged that the mirror neuron hypothesis remains unproven. He has made clear and concise statements regarding these points; statements that have been cited in the material you keep removing. Ramachandran is the expert on what he thinks concerning mirror neurons and autism --not Ed Hubbard. Let him speak for himself! Neurorel (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

If your goal is really to "let Ramachandran speak for himself" then you're doing a terribly bad job of that. You are, in fact, engaged in quote mining, taking one sentence out of the context of the entire almost three minute interview to support your own personal view, rather than taking the entire interview as the starting point, and attempting to summarize what Ramachandran says. Your repeated attempts to quote mine violate one of the three fundamental pillars of wikipedia, no original research, which states:

Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context.
Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below.

So, let's look at the entire interview that you link to [39]:

V.S. Ramachandran: Children with autism, they are lacking in empathy, emotional empathy, which enormously involve mirror neurons. They are unable to adopt somebody else’s point of view on a conceptual level, possible even on a perceptual level. And is also something that you ascribe, this function to mirror neurons, that’s missing in autism are impoverished in autism. So there's lack of emotional empathy.

There’s also a lack of pretend play. Pretend play by definition in normal children or non-autistic children, requires that you put yourself in the shoes of that doll or that action figure. Pretend you are Superman. Suspend reality for a short while and pretend you are Superman. This autistic children are incapable of doing is undoubtedly one of the functions of mirror neurons. You need to tap into the mirror neurons in order to put yourself in the shoes of the action figure.

And also, sophisticated imitation, which is missing in many autistic children, is another function of mirror neurons. Impoverished language is something that you see in autistic children.

So if you make a list of all the properties, emotional empathy, theory of other minds, imitation, pretend play and you look at all those functions of mirror neurons and make a tabular column of the functions that are deficient in autism, there’s almost a perfect fit. This is what led us to suggest over 10 years ago, or maybe about 10 years ago, that mirror neuron dysfunction might be the basis of autism, it might be one of the major causes of autism.

Now there are several groups which have shown this to be true doing brain imaging, but there’s one group who claims they don’t see a mirror neuron deficit. So what I’m arguing is—this is highly speculative at this point, I would say there are evidence that is suggestive, but not compelling or persuasive, but not compelling. So, we will have to wait and see.

Big Think: If this turns out to be the case, how will it impact the way autism is treated?

V.S. Ramachandran: The question is, is the mirror neuron system completely deranged or is there less than residual activity still there. And I suspect there is some residual activity. Can you tap into that activity using biofeedback? You know, there are EEG signals associated with mirror neurons and mirror neuron deficiency. So can the patient be taught to enhance by watching the computer screen and by using biofeedback, enhance the EEG signal, thereby indirectly recruiting more neurons and enhancing the activity of the mirror neurons? This is still very experimental, but people are trying it.

The other possibility is mirror neuron systems may have specific transmitters associated with them. It wouldn’t be surprising, for example, for we all know that “E” enhances… Ecstasy enhances empathy. It’s quite possible it is acting through the mirror neuron system. Especially parts of the mirror neuron system that are in the insular cortex and parts of the mirror neuron system that are concerned with the emotional empathy. Maybe if you knew what transmitters were involved you can engineer drugs that tap into that and enhance activity in the mirror neuron system.

Another way is to do exercises by synchronized dancing, like the Rockettes using multiple mirror reflections to enhance activity in mirror neurons. All of this is hypothetical and purely speculative, unlikely to work, but worth trying.

So, what becomes clear when you read the entire interview is that Ramachandran is still clearly advocating the idea that the mirror neuron system is dysfunctional in autism. He references the rest of the scientific literature when he says "Now there are several groups which have shown this to be true doing brain imaging, but there’s one group who claims they don’t see a mirror neuron deficit. So what I’m arguing is—this is highly speculative at this point, I would say there are evidence that is suggestive, but not compelling or persuasive, but not compelling. So, we will have to wait and see." By taking that one sentence, expression appropriate of scientific caution out of context and inserting it as the only part of "letting Ramachandran speak for himself" you are in fact, systematically mis-representing Ramachandran's views by quote mining by taking the quote out of context and engaging in original research by using one sentence "in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source".

Based on your insistence on adding this, which suggests your personal disagreement with the idea, I added a great deal more of the current status of the scientific literature to show that your disagreement is based on an incomplete knowledge of the literature. similarly, although the original version of the text cited only one of the papers that came out of the Ramachandran group, I added citations to several of them, since you also seem to be under the misimpression that Ramachandran and colleagues only did the one study that was cited by the previous version of wikipedia. I then added text from the abstracts (i.e., abstracts are the part of scientific articles that are intended to serve as a summary of the entire article) of not one, but two independent scientific review papers. These edits satisfy not only WP:RS but the stricter criteria of WP:MEDRS, which requires the use of literature reviews, as opposed to primary scientific literature in biomedical articles. As this is a biography, not a primarily biomedical article, I have gone above and beyond the requirements of a biography to meet the higher bar of MEDRS. However, all of this has been done in response to your insistent quote mining. If you'd like to go back to the prior consensus version, prior to your attempted quote mining, I'd be happy to do that. Edhubbard (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Neurorel, your latest edit, copying material directly from the mirror neuron (in particular from the section Mirror_neuron#Doubts_concerning_mirror_neurons) is inappropriate for at least two reasons. First, as Ramachandran's work has focused specifically on the role of the MNS in ASD, the broader debate about mirror neurons is beyond the scope of this biography article. It certainly should be, and is, included in the main article on mirror neurons, but it is outside the scope of this article. Second, and perhaps more importantly, your edit is not in accord with neutral point of view. The entirety of the mirror neuron article is written from a neutral point of view, and appropriately describes the state of the evidence both for and against mirror neurons, for their existence in humans, and so on. By selecting only one small section of that entire article to copy into Ramachandran's bio article, you are selectively presenting material that accords with your own POV, and completely ignoring the vast body of data on mirror neurons, and mirror neurons in humans. In particular, you are violating a specific component of NPOV, which is the amount of weight you are giving to the skeptical viewpoint. Although there are those who criticize specific aspects of the mirror neuron hypothesis, and although there are still valid scientific debates, by presenting what is actually the minority view as the only view, you are giving undue weight to that viewpoint. In my edits, I have been careful to present both the evidence for (which is the majority of the studies) and the evidence against the specific role of mirror neurons in ASD. Additionally, I have added independent scientific review articles that demonstrate that non-involved scientists have also reached the conclusion that the majority of the evidence favors the idea that the MNS is abnormal in ASD. Edhubbard (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions about information on new Center for Brain & Cognition web site

I have a question about some of the information on the new CBC web site. Ed Hubbard said on January 21 (Webpage)

"The current "Laboratory" page is a little out of date, as Paul McGeogh has now returned to the UK as a practicing physician,"

The new CBC web site lists Paul McGeogh as a post-doc; however there is no listing for him on the Psychology Department's roster of post-docs. Is this old information that has been accidentally carried over to the new site? Also, the new site states that Professor Ramachandran is an adjunct professor at the Salk. However, the Salk Institute does not list him as an adjunct professor on their current roster. Is this outdated information? If Professor Ramachandran is an adjunct professor at the Salk we should certainly include that information in the wiki entry. Neurorel (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Autism & Mirror Neurons

Ramachanran has said in several articles (including the ones I have repeatedly cited) that dysfunctional mirror neuron systems cannot explain all the symptoms of autism. That is why he describes the salience landscape theory as a complementary explanation. Also, the significance of mirror neurons as a "cause" of autism is not a settled question by any means. Damaged mirror neurons might very well be an effect of autism. There is research both for and against Ramachandran's hypothesis. Ramachandran has acknowledged this fact by advising that people should take a wait and see attitude. Also, I suggest that we avoid burying the basic story under a mountain of details. If readers of the wiki article on Ramachandran want to dig into the details of this debate they can do so by going to the wiki article on mirror neurons or autism.Neurorel (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

This was the earliest version of the section before this debate began:

Ramachandran's group was the first to suggest and show experimentally in 1999, that a loss of mirror neurons may be the key deficit in autism that explains many of the symptoms and signs of the disorder (collaborators included Ramachandran's students and colleagues: Lindsay Oberman, Eric Altschuler, and Jaime Pineda).[25] Although these findings have been replicated by several groups,[26][27] other studies have not found evidence of a dysfunctional mirror neuron system in autism.[28]

Since then, you have quote mined, you have resisted any attempts to include additional data, and have simply argued that Ramachandran should be allowed to decide. Then when I present more data on the status of the theory (both data for and against the hypothesis) and the conclusions of two comprehensive reviews, then, and only then, do you suggest that the section should be concise, and that readers should be allowed to read your preferred quote mine version. Wikipedia requires that we assume good faith, but it does not require that we insist on believing it in the absence of all evidence to the contrary. You are not here attempting to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia, nor are you attempting to simply clarify a particular issue. You are here attempting to impose your own personal point of view on this article, you are engaging in tenditious editing, and you resist all attempts to discuss anything other than your preferred POV. This is quite abundant from your entire editing history, as a single-purpose account editing only in a way that serves to attempt to minimize, question, and generally argue against everything that Ramachandran has done. If you are so convinced he's wrong, go get a PhD, do the required research and prove him wrong, but don't take standard scientific statements of caution and prudence out of context and twist them to misrepresent Ramachandran's view or the state of the science. Edhubbard (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

From my point of view, you seem unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Ramachandran has expressed doubts about using dysfunctional mirror neurons as the sole explanation of autism. Why ignore the salience landscape theory he advanced? Also, I believe that your view of the research consensus about Mirror Neurons is out of date. I suggest that you review Rizzolati & Sinigaglia's 2010 paper in Nature Reviews. It clearly suggests that mirror neurons have a limited role and that they may not be involved in understanding/coding the intentions of others at a cognitive level. You might also want to read the chapters on mirror neurons and autism in Patricia Churchland's new book: Braintrust.Neurorel (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

Ok, so this is going to be long... please take the time to read it thoroughly.

First, on the "doubts" aspect. I think that the source of the misunderstanding there comes from a classic problem when scientists communicate with non-scientists. All scientists have "doubts" about everything. It's part of our training, and part of the way that we are trained to think from the first day of our scientific training. Scientists are never 100% certain about anything: see Science#Certainty_and_science and Scientific_method#Truth_and_belief. As part of our training, scientists learn time and again, that, as we learn new things, develop new methods, and acquire new data, we will revise our views, and our understanding of phenomena in question.

For example, we all know the History_of_gravitational_theory. Newton proposed a theory of gravity that explained how two objects attracted each other as a function of their masses, and square of the distance between them. Newtonian gravity was amazingly successful for over 200 years, leading to a complete revolution in our understanding of physics. Then in the early 1900s Einstein noted a number of problems with gravitational theory when applied to objects moving very quickly and for extremely massive objects. Einstein's general relativity showed that Newton's theory was only a special case (an immensely successful one, to be sure) of relativity, and showed an equivalence between gravity and acceleration. It also explained certain anomalies that were unexplained by the application of Newton's theory, such as the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. So, even very successful models are incomplete, and are subject to revision. To take another example, Einstein, in developing relativity included a "fudge factor", the Cosmological_constant to work out how why the universe was not contracting inwards under the weight of its own gravitational attraction. When it was later demonstrated that the universe was expanding, Einstein referred to the cosmological constant as his "biggest blunder" since it blinded him to the idea that the universe was not in a steady state, and most people, including Einstein, decided that the cosmological constant was unnecessary. However, with the recent discovery that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating, there is renewed interest in the cosmological constant as it may be required to explain the acceleration of the universe. So, the lessons from these examples (and hundreds of others like them in the History of science) is that all scientific knowledge is provisional, subject to revision, as we learn more.

Every scientific theory is incomplete, and every scientific theory will undergo revision. And, yet, as scientists, we come to interim conclusions, on the basis of the available evidence, and this guides future research. This complex mix of withholding definitive conclusions and at the same time, sharing the best of what we know given the current state of knowledge is not something that other fields have to do. Lawyers argue the evidence and a judge comes to a conclusion. Barring appeals, a final, definitive decision is made. A doctor sees a set of symptoms, and makes a decision (sometimes life or death). Science, on the other hand, is a constant process of rebuilding, re-evaluating, and attempting to understand new data in light of previous data. The great philosopher Otto Neurath likened science to a boat that we are constantly rebuilding, while trying to stay afloat in it [40].

As a result of this deeply ingrained knowledge and habit of thought, scientists have developed a specific way of communicating, that captures both what the data show us, and also the fact that knowledge is never certain (see sections above again on certainty). We say things like the evidence suggests or the data are consistent with... or that the data are compelling, but not conclusive. This has long been a source of confusion and misunderstanding between scientists and the non-scientific lay public.

A particularly clear statement of the problem is here: "[S]cientists and journalists interpret objectivity and accuracy differently. For journalists, objectivity means evaluating the evidence and committing to the right answer once that evaluation is complete and accuracy means getting the facts right on deadline. For scientists, on the other hand, accuracy is equated with truth, and with taking the time to test information against misinterpretation before expressing an opinion. As a result, scientists may not be able to give journalists the hard and fast answers they require. The coverage may then misinterpret caution for mystification." [41]

This is not a new problem. Back in 1979, then Berkeley Professor of Public Policy, Arnold J. Meltsner wrote about the difficulties of communicating scientific findings to the lay public, and said "Used to very abstract symbols, qualified statements, and precise language, [emphasis mine] scientists are not used to the distortion and suppression in the use of thier knowledge which may or may not make news or contribute to the formulation of policy." [42]

Article protected for three days

Because of what appears to be an edit war brewing on this article, I have protected the article for three days. It will likely be The Wrong Version — I know next to nothing about the subject matter — but it will force the discussion from edit summaries to article talk page. If consensus cannot be reached through discussion there, please consider the next steps in dispute resolution. Favonian (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The lockdown is noted, and seems entirely justified. It's rather insulting to be described as a "meat pupper" by poster Edhubbard, and is itself on the verge of violating good wikipedia practice. However, in keeping with wikipedia's willingness to entertain debate, I posted this with Favonian, and it may obviously be read by any and all:

Favonian -- Thank you for intervening with a lockdown on the VS Ramachandran page. As you and other editors have likely noted, the person representing him/herself as "Edhubbard" has maintained a death-grip on that entry, reversing well-constructed and reasonably phrased editing changes in as little as four minutes. There is a degree of proprietorship assumed there that seems to me entirely out of step with the spirit of civil, scholarly, and intelligent discussion that is such a trademark of wikipedia. And, frankly, I think accusing other editors of being "meat puppets," which is her/his phrase, also violates the spirit of discourse. Editor "Edhubbard" is maintaining this page as if it were a doctoral dissertation (I don't know: Perhaps for him/her it is) and that makes the entry less than candid and less than useful to the general reading public. There are already extensive discussions of mirror neurons and autism under their respective entries— the Ramachandran entry needs to stay focused on Ramachandran's research and opinions. It is my view that wikipedia entries are not supposed to be hagiography, not as biographical entries of living people, anyway. But that appears to be the way "Edhubbard" is seeking to sustain the entry -- which isn't his/hers. As some other contributors to the page have noted -- and I have been interested in these matters for some time -- there are, in fact, ambiguities and uncertainties to some of Ramachandran's work, which should be noted -- as Ramachandran himself notes them, and as editor "Neurorel" pointed out in his/her last posting that was almost instantly reversed by "Edhubbard." So I am concerned that "Edhubbard" has gone off the reservation, in terms of good wikipedia practice. In science, recognition of ambiguity is good, and recognition of error is both salutary and solid practice. In the case of "Edhubbard," the phrase "helicopter mom" and "hovering" come immediately to mind. (Pfstarrs (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

Hi Pfstarrs. As you will note above, the goal of the talk page is to talk about the content of the article, so I will not reply to most of your comments above. Rather, let's talk about the article content. In particular, the current debate centers around the section on mirror neurons and autism Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran#Pathophysiology_of_autism. Before all of this debate started, there was a fairly short, factual statement about mirror neurons and autism [50]. Since the article is locked, I'm not sure how I can grab all the wiki-mark-up and so on, but here's the text of the old version (on April 21).

Pathophysiology of autism

Main article: Autism: Pathophysiology

Ramachandran's group was the first to suggest and show experimentally in 1999, that a loss of mirror neurons may be the key deficit in autism that explains many of the symptoms and signs of the disorder (collaborators included Ramachandran's students and colleagues: Lindsay Oberman, Eric Altschuler, and Jaime Pineda).[26] Although these findings have been replicated by several groups,[27][28] other studies have not found evidence of a dysfunctional mirror neuron system in autism.[29]

Since then, the size of that section has ballooned, as Neurorel and I have debated via the article and the talk page about what should be or should not be in the article. I have attempted to provide a balanced summary of the state of the field, including reliable sources showing both evidence for and against the MNS hypothesis, and have included reliable sources showing that other researchers have concluded that the weight of evidence favors the hypothesis being true. The April 21 version was similarly balanced, but too short. As Neurorel has attempted to add critiques of this idea, I have added additional material in an attempt to find a balance and to move beyond the it's perfect/it's hogwash dichotomy. I agree whole heartedly that ignoring the controversy over the MNS and ASD is inappropriate (and indeed, the old version had a short mention of it), but at the same time, pushing the view that this idea is completely wrong is also inappropriate. Finally, as a biography, not the main article on the science of this, the full extent of the debate does not belong here, but rather in the main mirror neuron article. So, our goal here has to be to find a WP:Consensus on what is appropriate in terms of reflecting Ramachandran's contributions (it is after all, his biography) and the state of the field, within a reasonable space. Perhaps going back to the April 21 version as a starting point would be good. Edhubbard (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm stepping in here as an editor who is new to this page, and I think this suggestion for a short paragraph briefly acknowledging both sides of the issue is a good idea. I'd even suggest deleting the names of the students and collaborators. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just going through the history to see when the students names, etc were added, and I am honestly pleasantly surprised by the relative stability of that section until recently. Here is the version of that section from January 10, 2008. Much of the rest of the article has changed for the better, and there have been some minor edits since (formatting references, etc) to that section but the basic content has been this way for a long time. As the presumptive consensus version, the April 21 version (the version copied above) seems reasonable to me. Removing the students and collaborators also sounds fine, since they are properly cited in the references. Edhubbard (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My problems with this article 1)it is too long, and 2) parts of it (such as the third paragraph)look like an advertisement. When I have tried to condense all the accolades, honors, and awards into a single, smaller section Hubbard has reverted my changes.Edgeform (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Edgeform

I've looked at the page a bit more. Unless there is a problem with the sourcing, I don't think the third paragraph of the lead is a problem. This is how Wikipedia addresses notability: by citing what independent sources have said about the person. (But if there are sourcing problems there, then that's another matter.) What I see is: (1) the sections about the science could be shorter, generally, and (2) we really don't need as much detail in the Awards and honors section. The visiting professorships should be in text form instead of list form, and be placed under Scientific career, and the invited lectures should be greatly shortened. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I welcome the timeout for this article. Also, fresh eyes should be a big help. My thoughts:

We should not attempt to re-argue the pros and cons of the mirror neuron theory of autism in the entry on Ramachandran. The bigger controversy (and it is a controversy) is covered very nicely in the wiki entry on mirror neurons. The entry on Ramachandran should be about his views and research on this topic (not Ed Hubbard’s views). Succinctly stated, these would be:

Ramachandran was one of the first neuroscientists to advance the theory that dysfunctional mirror neuron systems might be the cause of autism. Between 2000 and 2006 he co-authored several papers (3?) advancing this theory. (His views are summed up in a 2006 Scientific American article.) However, in 2008 he qualified his view of this theory when he co-authored a paper with Lindsay Oberman (his former graduate student) in which they found evidence that the mirror neuron system appears to be working in children with autism if they are observing the actions of familiar people (as stated in the wiki entry on mirror neurons). In a recent interview (April 2011) Ramachandran states that a “wait-and-see” attitude should be taken toward this theory.

In general the article is not well edited. It is far too technical in the sections on Ramachandran’s research and theories. It also fails to present the fact that Ramachandran has advanced a number of novel ideas such as his theory that mirror neurons are the evolutionary basis of self-awareness or that there is a neurological basis for art. Ramachandran has made many public presentations about these ideas and yet there is no mention of these ideas in the article -- he is a prominent scholar who is, in the spirit of his mentor Francis Crick, given to advancing multiple independent hypotheses, some of which will, inevitably, be proven incorrect. However, I would suggest that there be one (or two) concise sections that quickly sketch his theories and research. It should be no more than about 1/3 the length of the existing sections. In-depth analyses of the particular topics should be reserved for separate article in wikipedia.

There is a question in my mind as to Ed Hubbard’s biases in this matter: Since Ed Hubbard (who is a former graduate student of Ramachandran) is a co-author of one of the papers supporting the dysfunctional mirror neuron theory of autism it would seem fairly obvious that he is professionally invested in one particular view of this issue.

If I interpret the archives correctly, Ed Hubbard has been working on this entry since 2006. It might be understandable for him to think of himself as the Sheriff of Dodge – he often reverts other editors as though he believes that he is the final authority on what should be included. I believe that Wikipedia should consider putting a limit on the number of edits any particular editor can make in a given time period. For example, once you have made a given number (perhaps a dozen) edits on a particular article there is a hands-off policy from pursuing further edits for 30 days.Neurorel (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

My advice is to steer clear of what you say in the last two paragraphs of your comment. If there are conduct issues, they can eventually be addressed through the appropriate branch of dispute resolution. For now, please (everyone!) let's stick to discussing content. And in that regard, I'm very receptive to what you say in the first four paragraphs of your comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is always nice to see the talk paged being used more and more - even if it is with the help of brief article protection. It looks like there was a lot of information coming and going, so I hope the interested parties have made sure the good (especially the more technical) stuff has found a place somewhere on either the Mirror neurons or Autism Spectrum Disorder pages! As always, it is important to give criticisms and controversies appropriate mention (neither downplayed, nor over-exaggerated).

Mostly I wait to see what Edhubbard thinks. We need not pretend he owns the page to appreciate the time he has volunteered. There were some productive points by Neurorel, so maybe Edhubbard could identify the remaining points of contention?-Tesseract²(talk) 19:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Postdoctoral Fellowship at Oxford

Is there a reference for this statement? If Ramachandran finished his PhD at Cambridge in 1978 and arrived at CalTech in 1979 when was he a post-doct at Oxford? I believe he did participate in projects with the faculty at the Oxford Physiology Department, but did he do this after obtaining his PhD? Neurorel (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

The sentence stating that Ramachandran was a post-doc at Oxford after completing his PhD in 1978 and before beginning his fellowship at Caltech with Jack Pettigrew in 1979 should be reinstated: [51].

First of all, given that Ramachandran recieved his PhD no later than 16 June, 1978 (which is the date his dissertation was approved [52]) and did not begin his time at Caltech until 1979, there is a period of about six months where Rama would have been a post-doc.

Second, consistent with this understanding, there is a reference here to Ramachandran being a post-doc at Oxford for "a term", which I would interpret as one academic term, in 1978 [53]

Finally, the edit summary is incorrect, as Ramachandran published two of his three papers with Whitteridge in 1979, not 1978 (that is, clearly after his Phd was awarded):

[54]

Indeed, we can see that his February 1979 paper with Whitteridge was first received at Nature on the 29th of June, 1978 and accepted on the 15th December, 1978 [55]. Although this implies that data collection and the initial submission were completed before or near to completing his PhD, revisions, resubmission, additional analyses and other such activities would typically be expected between the initial submission and final acceptance. This is likely the exact work that Ramachandran was pursuing during that "term" at Oxford. Edhubbard (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Phantom Limbs

I believe this section should be shorter and provide more historical context. The article by Ramachandran in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, November 1993( Behavioral and magnetoencephalographic correlates of plasticity in the adult human brain) looks like a good place to start.[56]Since Ramachandran mentions the work of Merzenich, Pons and Yang in his article I think they should be mentioned briefly to provide the context of the work Ramachandran was doing. I would prefer to leave out some of the technical detail (reserving that for a separate article) and provide more of the history. Question: is there a non-technical way to state Ramachandran's contribution in this area? Neurorel (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Neurorel

This one will take a little longer, but to minimize typing and reading:

Phantom limbs were first described in the medical literature by Silas Weir Mitchell in 1872.
Freudian/psychodynamic theories generally accounted for them by assuming they represented wish fulfillment (the wish that the limb still be present)
Neurological theories generally assumed that phantom limbs were the product of "neuromas", tangled balls of nerves in the stump.
Phantom limbs are often painful and treatments like opiod analgesics and even repeated surgery (to remove the neuromas) generally failed to provide relief to patients.
Based on the work of Pons, Merzinich, Kaas and others that showed that the representation of the body surface in the brain (the homunculus) can reorganize rather dramatically after amputation or loss of sensory input, Ramachandran inferred that this could be a neural basis for phantom limbs.
In order to disentangle the neuroma and cortical reorganization theories, Ramachandran needed an experimental test. He first performed this in 1991/1992 (published in Science in 1992, see references below), by stroking a subject's cheek. In most mammals, the face is adjacent to the hand in the somatosensory homunculus, and so, in patients who have lost a limb, regions that were previously dedicated to the hand would be invaded by input from the face and the remaining portion of the arm. So, if the cortical reorganization theory is correct, then touching the cheek should lead to felt sensations in missing limb, which is exactly what Ramachandran observed. Note that only the cortical reorganization model predicts this. The Freudian account has no reason to predict anything like this. Although both and the neuroma theory and the cortical reorganization theory predict referred sensations from the stump, only the cortical reorganization theory predicts referred sensations from the face (explaining this key point was why I added the homonculus image over three years ago [57]).
This observation (prior to the MEG study, which was largely confirmatory) accomplished three things simultaneously:

It provided a neural explanation of phantom limbs, and also why phantoms were so resistant to pain control strategies that targeted the peripheral nervous system.
It showed that the same cortical reorganization that had been observed in monkeys with single-unit physiology was taking place in adult humans (there's always some question about how much we can/should infer from monkey physiology) and
That this cortical reorganization had clear perceptual consequences.

So, to provide background, some of this should at least be mentioned. Also, the 1992 Science paper is the best place to start describing Ramachandran's work, as the 1993 PNAS paper was largely confirmatory based on the observations already made in the 1992 Science paper. (As an aside, Ramachandran's use of a cotton swab to test theories in neuroscience is part of where the comments about "simplicity" and "elegance" from other scientists come from). This is laid out in lay language over the first few chapters of Ramachandran's 1998 book Phantoms in the Brain, and in numerous peer reviewed academic articles.

Subsequent studies showing, that for example, people born without limbs also felt phantom limbs also spoke against the idea that phantoms were a result of amputation induced neuromas (for a review, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9762952), while the presence of phantom breasts within 24 hours after mastectomy for breast cancer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9601659) indicated that some cortical reorganization could take place on a very short time scale.

For additional key references see:

Ramachandran VS, Rogers-Ramachandran D, Stewart M. (1992). Perceptual correlates of massive cortical reorganization. Science. 258(5085):1159-1160.
Ramachandran, VS & Hirstein, W (1998). The perception of phantom limbs: The D. O. Hebb lecture. Brain, 121, 1603-1630.

A full listing of Ramachandran's work on phantom limbs can be found via pubmed here

Finally, a couple of notes on the mirror box:

It is not quite correct to say that he is "credited" with inventing the mirror box, as the scientific record makes clear that he did invent it. In fact, although the first citation is classically given as his 1996 Proceedings of the Royal Society of London paper, Ramachandran, Rogers-Ramachandran and Cobb describe preliminary results with the mirror box as early as 1995 in a Nature publication:

Ramachandran, V.S., Rogers-Ramachandran, D. and Cobb, S. (1995)Touching the phantom limb Nature 377, 489 - 490. doi:10.1038/377489a0 pubmed id 7566144.

Second, although the word synesthesia (Am. spelling)/synaesthesia (Br. spelling) is used in the mirror box article, this is quite different from the sort of synesthesia that involves learned systems like the grapheme-color synesthesia that he studied later in his career (although we believe that similar neural mechanisms are at play)

Compare Ramachandran, VS & Rogers-Ramachandran, D (1996). Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 263, 377-386 with Ramachandran, VS & Hubbard, EM (2001). Psychophysical investigations in to the neural basis of synaesthesia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 268, 979-983. Edhubbard (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ed, just a minor point: about "credited", I think that's just a way of saying that he is recognized as the originator, and it is not implying any doubt about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)