Stories

Rome Neuroschool 2008

Felicity Callard
Senior Research Fellow
Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London


I spend a significant proportion of my working week interacting and collaborating as a social scientist with biomedical colleagues at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London. But the opportunities for me to pursue cross-disciplinary discussions concerning behavioural genetics and translational psychiatric research have been limited, not least because of the pressurized nature of the everyday academic environment and – to be frank – the reluctance that many of us have vis-à-vis moving beyond the paradigms and epistemologies with which we are comfortable. It was therefore a treat and an enormous privilege to spend a week in the company of neuroscientists and other social scientists who were so committed to thinking through the experimental and conceptual assumptions and challenges associated with behavioural genetics. There was a real sense of comradeship: we social scientists struggled to supersede our tendency to assume that neuroscientists were unaware of the need for caution when moving from animal models to the aetiology of psychiatric disorders, and the neuroscientists gamely took on board the fact that critiques of DSM nosology had implications for their experimental designs, as well as for the conclusions they might draw from such experiments.

One of the aspects of NeuroSchool that I found most revelatory was the chance not simply to witness but to conduct behavioural genetics experiments involving transgenic mice. The generosity of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) researchers at Monterotondo comprised not only their sharing of facilities but their enthusiastic contributions to teaching us, supervising us, and interrogating the results of experiments with us.

My experience of NeuroSchool has contributed to my research in specific as well as more wide-ranging ways. That week-long period of intense talk and study resulted in two – and possibly three – cross-disciplinary research collaborations with NeuroSchool participants (one, for example, is a paper with Daniel Margulies that examines the emergent paradigm of ‘resting state’ fMRI research for a special journal issue on ‘Neuroscience and Subjectivity’.) More generally, I returned from EMBL to my ongoing collaborations at the Institute of Psychiatry with a more acute understanding of the methodological and conceptual frameworks underlying my biomedical colleagues’ work. This has, in turn, allowed me to fine tune my qualitative research studies that are investigating how research participants conceptualise the psychiatric genetics and neuroimaging studies in which they are involved.

Finally, I have spent several years wishing that I had a good friend who happened to be a neuroscientist (and who might, therefore, be kind enough to talk through my many queries regarding neuroscience, as well as inspire me towards new kinds of intellectual endeavour). NeuroSchool granted my wish. In fact, I think I can safely say I now have more than one such friend.
 

Nicole Christine Nelson
PhD Student
Cornell University

My experience at the Neuroschool on behavior genetics was intellectually stimulating and great fun, the best of both worlds for an academic workshop. Even before I arrived in Italy, the readings I did in preparation already had me thinking about how my own sociological work on the development of animal model systems related to human pharmaceuticals and evolutionary biology. It was exciting to meet in person some scholars whose work has provided the inspiration for my own, and to meet some new people who were also working on similar topics. The conversations that we had, fueled by both delicious coffee and delicious wine, have provided me with much to think about as I write my dissertation.

For me, one of the most challenging and rewarding aspects of the workshop was the interdisciplinarity of the group. Although I'd spent a lot of time talking with scientists for my fieldwork, this was the first opportunity I had to present some of my thoughts back to an audience that included behavior geneticists, some of whom were doing the type of work that I was studying. Talking about my qualitative research project, with its open ended and highly contextual style of inquiry, was difficult at times because it contrasted so strongly with scientific methodology. My conversations at the Neuroschool made me think about how as scientists and social scientists we often working with opposite but complimentary purposes: while we all shared quite similar understandings about the complexity of behavior, behavioral scientists were looking for common and constant patterns where sociologists identified culturally and historically specific trends. I see this dynamic as one of the useful ways that scientists and social scientists can “push back” on each other, to help create understandings of human biology and behavior that acknowledge the predictive powers of science as well as its assumptions, limitations, and unexpected consequences.

I continue to have great interactions with my fellow Neuroschool alums. The people that I met at the Neuroschool have been extremely helpful in putting me in touch with other people to interview for my research, and I've even visited some of the labs of scientists who attended the conference. This year I'll be organizing a panel on behavior genetics for the annual meeting of the Society for the Social Studies of Science with another graduate student I met at the conference. I look forward to these and many other Neuroschool reunions.
 

Lotta Hautamäki
Doctoral student, researcher
Department of Social Sciences/Sociology
University of Helsinki

I used to think that it was mere impossibility to conflate the worlds of a social scientist and a natural scientist. I thought it is best just to map our own fields of human behaviour and let it so be, all fruitful collaboration was more idealism than realism. I had also, more or less consciously, adapted a critical perspective towards neurosciences, which were and are the object of my research. One week in September 2008 spent in Neuroschool proved my views prejudiced, pessimistic and indeed naïve.

Our discussions, both in and outside the class, the collaboration in the lab, the lectures and the well-chosen readings, all contributed to the change in my perspective. It did not happen at once, the effects of the experience are vital even today and the moral of Neuroschool for me straddled both the practical and more intellectual aspects of doing research. 

First of all, I reached a more intimate understanding about the hands-on practices and reasoning in the neurosciences. This had an immediate effect on the research process of my PhD Study. Shortly after Neuroschool, I started to collect the ethnographical data for my PhD study and the observations as well as the interviews with the informants were most obviously enriched and improved thanks to the newly reached understanding. I am now entering the writing phase of the study with a rich and diverse data as well as more skills and wisdom to interpret it.

Secondly, the multiplicity of different approaches and paradigms I came across in the fellow participants and lecturers was inspiring and opened my mind to see both the scholarly traditions of neurosciences and my own from a new point of view. Instead of a preconceived critical perspective, I gained a more tolerant and respectful attitude towards the differences between and inside the traditions. All in all it is not an overstatement to say that the experiences in Neuroschool changed the way I believe social sciences studying the world of neurosciences could and should be done.

Furthermore, besides being an inspiring academic experience, Neuroschool was great fun as well – the spontaneous take-away dinners at the fountain in Monterotondo, the more or less stray cats surrounding the EMBL lab full of mice and many more memories of the flourishing early autumn nights in Italy have stayed in my mind.

Anelis Keiser
Researcher
Zentrum Gender Studies
Basel University

It had the great opportunity to participate in the Neuroschool in Rome, 2008. It was an unforgettable experience. Being at the EMBL gave you the chance to see how molecular and genetic hands on research work. This very specific contextualisation of the Neuroschool had a productive effect on our interdisciplinary discussions. The way we analysed our presented papers and the way we learn to listen to each other was enriched by the fact of being surrounded by committed and enthusiastic researchers. A fruitful atmosphere!

Personally, I learned a lot about psychiatric genetics. I can understand better the complexity of genetic research, the many variables that have to be considered and the numerous factors that play a role in the experiments. To me, this school really managed to bring closer the social sciences and natural sciences. This was achieved in the minds of the participants, so to say. We were provided with new interdisciplinary knowledge ? a crucial tool in continuing to bridge the gap between biomedicine and social sciences. It is of relevance especially for young scholars to make interdisciplinary experiences early in their careers.

Today, more than ever, we need open minds towards complex problems without scientific borders. Exactly this we practiced during this Neuroschool.

Misty Richards
Fulbright Fellow
Albany Medical College

Left: Michelle Easter, Centre: Misty Richards, Right: Joelle Abi-Rached;
Rome, Italy 2008.

Being part of the inaugural year of the Neuroschool Program was an honor and sincere privilege. The experience was truly unparalleled, as the entire premise of the conference rested on an unconventional approach to integrating science into society. Instead of simply collecting a group of social scientists together or a group of biomedical researchers, the Neuroschool Program brought both cohorts together to discuss the same issues and troubleshoot the same problems.

Never before have I witnessed or experienced two dramatically different schools of thought coming together to work on some of the most challenging problems in behavioral genetics. It was an incredible opportunity to learn how social scientists are trained to approach an issue, especially since I have received the majority of my training in biology and related research. I found it fascinating to see how social scientists truly wrap their minds around many facets of a problem, taking into consideration aspects that might become lost in the A to B mentality of a biomedical scientist. Instead of coming up with a clear cut design that will illicit the most clear cut solution, the social scientists seem to embrace the overlapping concepts, taking the time to approach the sub-questions that lie in a single, complicated question. You see, instead of approaching issues with the mindset that simplifying is the way to address the issue, I found that many social scientists found that respecting the full magnitude of the question at hand – and how it integrates into society- to be the critical factor.

Moreover, the level of expertise in the room was inspiring. Some of the top scientists and students in the world – social and biomedical – were engaging in respectful debate on controversial topics, which is something I would have never envisioned before this experience. Personally, this vision has been a dream of mine for quite sometime, as I am currently trying to blur the lines between biomedical science, social science, and its application in society with my own research. I am currently an MD/PhD candidate and completing a year of research as a Fulbright Scholar in Tokyo, Japan. In Tokyo, I am characterizing a schizophrenia susceptibility gene and characterizing its phenotype through behavioral studies in rats. Moreover, I am also working on the first cross-cultural study between Japan and the United States measuring the level of stigma and discrimination associated with schizophrenia. I truly believe that through studying both the nature and nurture aspects of schizophrenia simultaneously, we will gain a more comprehensive picture of the disease in order to become more conscientious physicians, scientists, and human beings. With this approach and perspective, I think we can help patients live more comfortable and happy lives.

I didn’t solidify these conclusions alone, however, and truly began to grasp these concepts while speaking to others at the Neuroschool Program. Participants encouraged me to work hard towards this alternative approach towards studying schizophrenia and helped me develop my understanding of stigma and discrimination – two subjects outside of my training in biomedical science. I was introduced to an entirely new body of literature, met some amazing people who will no doubt make the world a better place, and stimulated some neurons that I didn’t even know existed in my brain. It was a humbling and inspiring week-long educational adventure that truly laid the foundation for my current research.

Sebastian Scharf
PhD Student
Max-Planck-Institute of Psychiatry


The year is 2008. By a whim of fate, two completely different tribes are huddled together in a desolate, but also scenic landscape. Each tribe has its strengths and weaknesses and to solve the problems at hand, their only chance of success is to work together. Can both tribes overcome the barriers of differences and prejudices to actually benefit from the situation? Of course NOT - I would have said before the Neuroschool...

To be honest: I was sceptical at first! In my craziest dreams I wouldn’t have imagined putting both social scientists and natural scientist in one room to solve a problem together. The difference was vividly described by the nice task of “drawing a brain”. Whereas nearly all the social scientists did draw abstract words or concepts, almost all of the natural scientists invented some sort of brain machines. This was for me the foremost example to truly grasp the differences in thinking.
However, after an initial shy phase, all of the participants worked together brilliantly and it was extremely intriguing to discuss with all of the different persons, as each one of them was truly unique. It was absolutely fascinating to learn about the approaches of social scientists to address issues in comparison with my own. As I am used to focus on problems on a very specific level, it is easy to neglect the broader picture. It was an excellent opportunity for me to follow the effects on the molecular level up to the level of a whole society.

Right now, I’m in the second year of my PhD thesis, which focuses on the effects of chronic social stress in the mouse. Learning about the application of basic research in society, but at the same time also discussing the limitations of model organisms was really interesting and influenced both me and my scientific work.

One of my personal highlights of the Neuroschool was the talk and discussion with Dr. Illina Singh. As she talked about how she wrote an article, one could figure out the differences between the disciplines. Beginning with the concept of data, which can be not empirically generated data points, but just a thought on something (a concept that was very hard for me to grasp in the beginning), up to the style of writing and the different problems encountered. It also showed me the differences in transmitting information from a social scientist to a natural scientist and vice versa. This talk really opened my mind and might have helped to think a bit more like a social scientist or at least understand them a little bit better. For all of this: Thank you!

All in all, the neuroschool was an amazing experience for me as I had some intruiging discussions, was able to broaden my horizon and got to know a lot of extremely interesting people. It is hard for me to specifically abstract the changes the Neuroschool caused in my scientific work but luckily I got colleagues doing that for me, as from time to time my questions or comments are just answered by: “You learned that at the Neuroschool, didn’t you?”.

^