Neurology has come a long in the past decade - a quick flick through Principles of Neural Science (Kandel and Schwarz) in its different editions shows us just how great that development has come.

But it also feels like we are only beginning - as shown by a good populist article written in Discover Magazine.

The article highlights those doozies of neuropsychology; consciousness, memory, future visualization, time, emotions - which brought me back to the following: at the moment it feels like physics felt before Einstein - the groundwork, the Newtonian brain - the physiology, and the electrochemistry of synapses, are pretty clearly understood. Yet, what is all means eludes us. For example, the hippocampus is the memory center of the brain, remove it, no memories; therefore it stores memories. Our best guess currently is that it seems to fire different neural networks for different events. So, for example, a memory of cross-country running would record the thalamus (bodily temperature, breathing), the parietal (movement), the limbic (emotional need to run, to win), the motivational centers of the brain, and the occipital “see” the event, the chemistry, the CSN etc;: but the brain seems to distill all into a minute movie clip that it stores in the hippocampus. Is it the exact (cat)ion release across a single synapse that is stored? Now that would be intelegant. Every event? It seems so. Amazing? You bet.

I believe that good experimentation, and the advances in MRI etc; will reveal more about memory coding over the next decade - but only when it can restore amnesiacs, or, God willing, prevent the knotting and explosions of glial cells in Alzheimer’s, will we truly have understood the process. OD is part of that process - by careful rigour we can investigate the cognitive nature of important processes: decision making being a good example. It feels like we have a long way to go but it also feels like neurology and psychology are growing closer and closer and that’s a very positive development.

We live in interesting times.

Brain, behaviour, and Immunity (vol 21, issue 6, autumn 2007) has just published a report that anger causes real damage to the immune system.

The paper by Stephen H Boyle, William G Jackson, and Edward C Suarez based at Duke University,NC. Researchers studying 313 healthy Vietnam veterans have found that anger and hostility may increase the risk for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and high blood pressure.

Stuart Goldenberg in the New York Times wrote the following: Hostility, Anger, and Depression Predict Increases in C3 Over a 10-year Period (Brain, Behavior and Immunity). Over a period of 10 years, the men had regular physical examinations involving a wide variety of medical tests. They also underwent psychological examinations using well-established questionnaires to determine their levels of hostility, anger and depression.

The researchers measured blood levels of a protein called C3, a marker for the inflammation that is a risk factor for cardiovascular illnesses. After controlling for other variables, the scientists found that those in the highest one-quarter in hostility, anger, and depression showed a steady and significant increase in C3 levels, while those in the lowest one-quarter had no increase.

“This may put those men at increased risk for hypertension, diabetes and coronary heart disease,” said Stephen H. Boyle, the lead author of the study and a researcher at Duke University Medical Center. Why these increases in C3 levels happen is unknown, but the authors speculate that anger in hostile and depressed men initiates a series of chemical responses in the immune system that lead to inflammation.Taking steps to control hostility may be helpful. “There are interventions that appear to be useful in lowering levels of anger,” Dr. Boyle said. “I don’t know if their long-term effects on physiology have been tested, but if you’re less angry and hostile, that in itself is a worthy goal.”

As one of the major results of work stress is sudden outbursts of anger the idea that a protein marker can be controlled is a very interesting one. It would be interesting to see whether a practical and simple indicator for C3 can be developed that would allow individuals to judge their own anger awareness.

I publish thoughts at www.gather.com and posted this recently:

Hi Gatherers, as I have been away and very, very busy, which is how I like it, I thought I’d kick-off again with a note of something that has been knocking around my mind for a while..

I am working on development of character in cognitive development and leadership -which is one of my favourites….

And integrity is an integral part of that….

This is from the notes that I jotted down:

Integrity is a consistent committment to a positive set of values.

Such values are good and sound, recognized instinctively by all as they are imbued with the best of all human character. Character and integrity are extinguished by the failure of will in resisting moral corruption (What a philosopher-theologian would term giving in to temptation). Integrity is the opposite of moral corruption. And (sic) is particularly marked by: strength of character, consistency of action, and above all, an authentic character on the side of undispuitable goodness. Integrity is not simply abstract: the crucial component is in our actions and how others see us through our actions over time. Integrity is not just being consistent and being known for consistent choices, it is also the person who is for something significant, a moral being that shows integrity.

For example:
*being honest, *showing fairness, *perseverance, *openess to the views of others, *impartiality, and so on…

I hope that gets a great (non-argumentative!) conversation going…

what adjectives would you add? (I have lots more, but I would hesitate to say all!) Perhaps you have a story to tell?

thanks….