neuroanatomy list ad & more on bee brains

[L. Detweiler]

While many on this list will not be interested in the details of
bee-brain neuroanatomy or arguments thereon, an excellent list for
discussions of this can be requested from
cogneuro-request at ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov, maintained by Kimball Collins
<kpc at ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov>. The list has fairly low volume although
definitely more than connectionists, and I'd like to encourage any of
this amazingly literate connectionist crowd with a strong interest in
neurobiological research to subscribe (recent/past topics: neurobiology
of rabies infections, Hebb's rule, vision, dyslexia, etc.)

* * *

Mr. Skaggs writes an exceedingly hostile flame (a redundant phrase) on
the recent syndicated news article describing research into bee
function and neuroanatomy, calling it `overblown and historically
ignorant'. While I don't have as close of a background to the area in
question as Mr. Skaggs appears to, this is just a short note to balance
the scale a little closer to equilibrium.

The critical feature that I see going on here is a professional
scientist demeaning a non-detailed popular account of scientific work,
esp. in that person's area of expertise, for lapses in precise
description. This happens all the time, of course, both the presence of
the quasi-skewed material and the criticism. Definitely, the article
was the overwrought cheerleeding type, rather stereotypical, but Mr.
Skaggs, on the other hand, plays into the cliche of the pessimistic and
sour curmudgeon-scientist in attacking it.

I'd like to point out that this popular literature serves a very useful
purpose in keeping the lay public apprised of new developments in
scientific fields and, ultimately, encouraging funding. It is not fair
to apply the strict scientific standard of evaluation to something that
appears in the popular press. In this case, there is no significant
error, and the purpose is served in being `approximately correct', and
there is no point to rebutting it. We are bound to lose something in
the translation, and the major points of disagreement are likely to be
over opinion. We should instead be highly encouraged and appreciative
of these attempts to bring increasingly abstruse and technical science
to the interested layman.

I appreciate the popular press to some degree in that it forces
scientists to get at the essence of their research, something they
sometimes lose sight of. The scientist (perhaps the neuroscientist in
particular) is forever saying `it's not quite that simple' or `it
doesn't quite happen like that' or `there are exceptions to that' to
the point that an outsider can give up in frustration, thinking that it
is nothing but a disconnected morass with no underlying message or
cohesion. The general press usually gives a close and fascinating view
into what the `big picture' is. Looking at reporters as nothing but
clueless intruders is a somewhat self-destructive position, IMHO. And
yes, the grandiose statements like `will shed insight into human
learning' can be recognized by other scientists as the necessary fodder
and not criticized but ignored.

Now, to address a few points:

>Coss and Perkel over a decade ago found
>changes in the length of dendritic spines after honeybees went on a
>single exploratory flight.  This is much more direct than the evidence
>described in the "news release".
 
Incidentally, the changes in dendritic growth with learning are IMHO
one of the most fascinating studies of plasticity, and on the cutting
edge of current research, and perhaps others will wish to post
references. (The classic study showed that rats reared in deprived vs.
abundant sensory-stimulii containing environments had less or more
growth, respectively.)

>It is not true that the
>honeybee brain is merely a simpler version of the human brain.  They're
>completely different -- even the neurons are different in structure.

definitely, any animal model always has minor or major imperfections
and pitfalls. But this brings up an interesting point--is there an
analogue to LTP in the insect brain? there is probably at least a
degree of overlap in the kinds of neurotransmitters involved.

However, arguing against the relevance, superiority, and verisimilitude
of one animal model vs. another can turn into a very emotional debate,
and should be engaged with the utmost delicacy or statements come out
with a connotation much like `the car you drive all day is worthless'.