|
|
Get Four
|  | OCTOBER 25, 2004
A Mapper of the Mind's Marvels Nobel Prize winner Eric Kandel talks about memory processes, science's achievements in mental diseases, and $1 brain scans Dr. Eric R. Kandel is one of the world's most renowned neuroscientists. In 2000, he won the Nobel Prize for medicine for his discoveries about how memories are stored. He's director of Columbia University's Center for Neurobiology & Behavior and a senior investigator at Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Kandel was born in Vienna in 1929 and fled Austria for the U.S. with his family in 1939. He spoke with BusinessWeek Senior Writer Catherine Arnst about progress in the field and what he expects to be the next major breakthroughs. Here are edited excerpts of their conversation: Q: Did you have an "A-ha!" moment? A: Well, there were probably more than one. The first one was the discovery that during the learning process the brain's synapses [the connections between neurons, where information is exchanged] change in function, that they become stronger or weaker. This was a very exciting insight. It meant that developmental processes determine the basic architecture of behavior. Before [this discovery] it was thought that the brain, once formed, was static. That was one of my early findings. There were two other major "A-ha!" moments. One, that long-term memory differs from short-term, and two, that genes are not only the masters, but the servants of environment. Genes respond to the environmental cues of learning. This led to my discovery that CREB [a brain protein] turns short-term memories into long-term memories. Q: What innovations do you think have had the greatest impact on neuroscience? A: Here, as in most areas, new methodologies really allowed the science to open up. New imaging techniques had a tremendous impact. They allowed us to visualize the human brain in action. Functional MRI and PET scans have been fantastically important. The field has benefited enormously from an influx of technology that wasn't necessarily developed for neurological research. I've had the privilege of growing with the field. I came into it from psychoanalysis. The first techniques I picked up as a medical student were cellular techniques. In the '50s and '60s the cell biology of the brain was a big focus. Through my experience in medical school and the National Institutes of Health, I became very interested in cell biology. Then the field was invaded by the alien hordes from molecular biology...and I was able to move into molecular biology. Q: How would you characterize the rate of progress in the field? A: It has certainly been faster than I expected. We now have a pretty good understanding of the brain's storage mechanisms. In 1955, much of the detailed knowledge of mental processes we have now was just a fog. I expect there will be several major breakthroughs in the next decade or so. We've had a wonderful run on cellular molecular biology. The time has now come to use more synthetic approaches to tackle more complex forms of behavior and more complex experimental animals, including people. Q: Can you give some examples? A: There will be more emphasis on trying to get new approaches to human mentation. For example, learning involves anatomical changes in the brain. The reasons you remember this conversation is because of molecular changes in the anatomy of your brain. I'm interested in how that methodology can be brought to bear in psychiatry. We can now develop animal models of mental illness. That's a tremendous achievement. These diseases are much more complex [than other types of neurological disorders]. We now have animal models of schizophrenia and various anxiety states. Now one could begin to explore new kinds of drugs and to see how psychotherapy works. We're trying to find ways to evaluate people before and after psychotherapy. I think this is a major new area of research, and it's on the horizon. Imaging technologies have already had a phenomenal impact in this area. We've already gained completely new insights into many forms of epilepsy. So far we've achieved great things in neurology, but relatively little in psychology. Q: Why is this so? A: In neurology, many diseases are caused by a single gene, and you can figure out how it works. This isn't the situation in psychology. The genes that underlie these diseases are much more complicated. There will be a major emphasis on imaging technologies and the uses of this new methodology on complex systems. Q: Will these advances narrow or expand the gap between the haves and the have-nots? A: There's no simple answer. Will these advances benefit mankind? Unquestionably, yes. Will mankind be sensible enough to distribute these advances equitably throughout the world? That isn't a scientific question or a question of innovation. That's a moral and social question that society has to ask itself. I can conceive of a way of imaging people that would cost $1 a person instead of $4,000. After all, we used to pay $40,000 for each computer and now you can buy a $1,500 laptop. Innovation, historically, has brought the price down. But these are all governmental and societal decisions. 
BW MALL
SPONSORED LINKS
Get BusinessWeek directly on your desktop with our RSS feeds.
Buy a link now! Add BusinessWeek news to your Web site with our headline feed. Click to buy an e-print or reprint of a BusinessWeek or BusinessWeek Online story or video. To subscribe online to BusinessWeek magazine, please click here. Learn more, go to the BusinessWeekOnline home page  | | |
 Copyright 2004, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
Printer-Friendly Version
