Advertisement

Interview: Speaking of Memory

Considered a renegade by his peers, Nobel Prize-winner Eric Kandel used a simple model to probe the neural circuitry of memory.

By | October 1, 2011

DIETMAR TEMPS

Sixty-four years ago, inspired by cell and molecular biologists who studied complex questions in the simplest available model systems, neuroscientist Eric Kandel bucked then-current trends in brain research by choosing to explore memory using an evolutionarily ancient organism, rather than human subjects.

Kandel began his career in neuroscience studying cells in the human hippocampus, which had been identified as the seat of memory formation by Brenda Milner from McGill University, but he soon realized that it would take a long time to tease apart memory in such a complex system. He shifted his focus to the sea slug Aplysia, a model in which the neural pathway of a simple reflex could be delineated. Aplysia only has 20,000 neurons, and many of them are so large and distinctive that they had been named and their functions identified. Kandel worked out the neural circuitry that was established during learning and memory, and examined what molecular changes occurred in the cells of that circuit. By taking this reductionist approach, considered radical at the time, Kandel set an example for scientists who would use Aplysia and other model organisms to trace the circuits responsible for many different behaviors. His approach netted him a share of a 2000 Nobel Prize for insights into signal transduction in the nervous system. Here Kandel reminisces about his early days in the field, discusses the evolution of cognitive neuroscience, and shares his thoughts on love.

What was neuroscience like when you started working in the field?

When I started in the field, it was a minority science that very few biologists were interested in because it was technically quite arcane. The two major tools for brain science were anatomy, which most people found boring, and electricity, which most people found incomprehensible. So that combination was enough to put off most biologists. But now everybody and his uncle want to work on the brain. The number of people applying to graduate schools, MD/PhD programs, is really extraordinary. It’s a big change.

How has the field changed from then until now?

When I entered the field in 1957, it was a very small and very primitive discipline. One of the characteristic features was that its three main subdisciplines—the anatomy of the brain, the biochemistry of the brain, and the physiology of the brain—were all separate fields. One of the early strides forward occurred when Harvard’s Stephen Kuffler launched the field of neurobiology, a discipline that combined all three of them into a coherent whole.

Some professors held the view that there are two kinds of people: people who like people, and people who like science. I thought this was the most absurd position in the world.

The second step forward was the bringing together of neurobiology and psychology—the science of the brain and the science of the mind—into cognitive neuroscience. We did the first experiments on a simple level doing this in terms of Aplysia, where we combined behavioral and cellular analyses. But people were beginning to do this in flies, in rats, and in monkeys—more complicated organisms.

And a final step in the evolution of field was the merger of molecular biology and cognitive neuroscience, to develop a new science of the mind—a new approach to thinking about the brain and its mental functioning.

I think the major change that has occurred during my career is the fact that people no longer study the nervous system simply as a set of abstract subsystems, without recourse to behavior. They now almost invariably study the nervous system in relationship to one or another behavior. And the realization on the part of psychologists, most of whom, of course, were there and knew this, that all mental processes come from the brain and that neuroscience and psychology are really different sides of the same coin.

What were the biggest obstacles you faced?

For the longest time psychiatry was heavily influenced by psychoanalysis. And psychoanalysis has a lot of strengths, but doing basic research is not one of them. So in psychiatry, when I was a resident, we were discouraged from doing science. I was an exception in being allowed to do it because I had done science before. But the official policy was, “You learn best from your patients. You don’t learn that much from science.” There were some professors who held the view that there are two kinds of people: people who like people, and people who like science. I thought this was the most absurd position in the world.

Did others in the field think that you wouldn’t find anything when you turned to Aplysia?

Yes, and that I was wasting my time. There was a hierarchical system in neurobiology, and working in invertebrate animals was not looked upon favorably, except in a very special case: the squid giant axon. People thought that the mammalian brain was what you had to understand and that behavioral and learning principles would not apply across species. And that was wrong. Giving up my work in the mammalian brain to go work on invertebrates, they thought, was a major step backwards. It proved for me to be a step in the right direction.

Are there unanswerable questions in neuroscience; ones that should be left to philosophers and poets?

I see no reason to believe that science can’t solve, in a meaningful way, all the problems of the brain. At least there is no impediment that has occurred so far. Who’s to know what will emerge 50 to 100 years from now. But for the foreseeable future I think it’s our lack of ingenuity that is limiting, not the intrinsic difficulties; the problems are difficult—but not insurmountable.

Even love?

The biology of love? Well, it depends on what level you want to call love. Love will always have features that, moment to moment, would not be understood. But the principles underlying love, I think we will understand. Why specific people fall in love with one another—one can probably even now define certain ground rules. But I think there’ll always be magic to life, even though science explains a great deal.

Eric Kandel is a professor at Columbia University in New York, and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Senior Investigator.

Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Guest

Anonymous

October 24, 2011

Sometimes we can draw back from what has gone on in the history of science, and see patterns in it that even some who are working at the cutting edge seem unaware of.

There is a tendency by some, inside and outside the sciences, to look at a reputation for success, and to think, "Now there was a guy who understood what others did not.  More should emulate his example."

Success in making progress in science is equivalent to winning a lottery.  If, instead of looking at the "winner" to learn how he or she pulled off a veritable coup, we would do well to look at that winner as a point in a statistical picture.  Out of a hundred who try some totally atypical approach from what the "herd" is thinking and doing, and who end up, say, winning a Nobel Award, 99 might simply run into a wall.

This is not meant to take away anything from the courage, or the prescience (by hindsight) of those who accomplish some remarkable result.  It is merely to point out that many myths arise based upon studying winners only, to see what winners are made of.

Imagine this.  Image a study of winners of a state lottery over, say, a ten year period.
Suppose we find that, on average, those winners had been male, between the ages of 40-43, had tended to be 5' 10" in height, had tended to weigh in the vicinity of 180 pounds... etc.

And suppose you or I approximated all those characteristics except that we weigh 200 lbs.  Should we go on a diet, to get down to 180 lbs., in order to fit the profile.

If so, then we should also study Nobel Prize winners and emulate their every move.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

October 24, 2011

Sometimes we can draw back from what has gone on in the history of science, and see patterns in it that even some who are working at the cutting edge seem unaware of.

There is a tendency by some, inside and outside the sciences, to look at a reputation for success, and to think, "Now there was a guy who understood what others did not.  More should emulate his example."

Success in making progress in science is equivalent to winning a lottery.  If, instead of looking at the "winner" to learn how he or she pulled off a veritable coup, we would do well to look at that winner as a point in a statistical picture.  Out of a hundred who try some totally atypical approach from what the "herd" is thinking and doing, and who end up, say, winning a Nobel Award, 99 might simply run into a wall.

This is not meant to take away anything from the courage, or the prescience (by hindsight) of those who accomplish some remarkable result.  It is merely to point out that many myths arise based upon studying winners only, to see what winners are made of.

Imagine this.  Image a study of winners of a state lottery over, say, a ten year period.
Suppose we find that, on average, those winners had been male, between the ages of 40-43, had tended to be 5' 10" in height, had tended to weigh in the vicinity of 180 pounds... etc.

And suppose you or I approximated all those characteristics except that we weigh 200 lbs.  Should we go on a diet, to get down to 180 lbs., in order to fit the profile.

If so, then we should also study Nobel Prize winners and emulate their every move.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

October 24, 2011

Sometimes we can draw back from what has gone on in the history of science, and see patterns in it that even some who are working at the cutting edge seem unaware of.

There is a tendency by some, inside and outside the sciences, to look at a reputation for success, and to think, "Now there was a guy who understood what others did not.  More should emulate his example."

Success in making progress in science is equivalent to winning a lottery.  If, instead of looking at the "winner" to learn how he or she pulled off a veritable coup, we would do well to look at that winner as a point in a statistical picture.  Out of a hundred who try some totally atypical approach from what the "herd" is thinking and doing, and who end up, say, winning a Nobel Award, 99 might simply run into a wall.

This is not meant to take away anything from the courage, or the prescience (by hindsight) of those who accomplish some remarkable result.  It is merely to point out that many myths arise based upon studying winners only, to see what winners are made of.

Imagine this.  Image a study of winners of a state lottery over, say, a ten year period.
Suppose we find that, on average, those winners had been male, between the ages of 40-43, had tended to be 5' 10" in height, had tended to weigh in the vicinity of 180 pounds... etc.

And suppose you or I approximated all those characteristics except that we weigh 200 lbs.  Should we go on a diet, to get down to 180 lbs., in order to fit the profile.

If so, then we should also study Nobel Prize winners and emulate their every move.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

November 18, 2011

Speaking Of Memory And Of Culture-Genetics

 

 

A. From “Speaking of Memory, Eric Kandelâ€쳌

http://the-scientist.com/2011/...

 

Are there unanswerable questions in neuroscience; ones
that should be left to philosophers and poets?

Who’s to know what will emerge 50 to 100 years from now. But
for the foreseeable future I think it’s our lack of ingenuity that is limiting,
not the intrinsic difficulties; the problems are difficult—but not
insurmountable.

Even love?

I think there’ll always be magic to life, even though
science explains a great deal.

 

B.  BioCulture

June 16, 2006

http://universe-life.com/2006/...

 

To paraphrase a
statement by Eugene Thacker in the opening pages of Biomedia (ISBN
0-8166-4353-9):

I posit
that as every organism's cultural element is an artifact which involves
biological intra-/inter-cell expression and/or process, biological and cultural
domains are not ontologically distinct, but instead culture inheres in biology. 
Dov Henis

 

C. On  “our lack of ingenuityâ€쳌 and “science explainsâ€쳌

 

Bigger Human
Brain, Horses And Wagon

 http://universe-life.com/2011/...

 

On Culture And
Genetics, Horses And Wagon

http://universe-life.com/2011/...

If you saw it
once, you saw it a million times: it’s the horses pulling, not the wagon
pushing !

 

Dov Henis

(comments from 22nd
century)

http://universe-life.com/

 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

November 18, 2011

Speaking Of Memory And Of Culture-Genetics

 

 

A. From “Speaking of Memory, Eric Kandelâ€쳌

http://the-scientist.com/2011/...

 

Are there unanswerable questions in neuroscience; ones
that should be left to philosophers and poets?

Who’s to know what will emerge 50 to 100 years from now. But
for the foreseeable future I think it’s our lack of ingenuity that is limiting,
not the intrinsic difficulties; the problems are difficult—but not
insurmountable.

Even love?

I think there’ll always be magic to life, even though
science explains a great deal.

 

B.  BioCulture

June 16, 2006

http://universe-life.com/2006/...

 

To paraphrase a
statement by Eugene Thacker in the opening pages of Biomedia (ISBN
0-8166-4353-9):

I posit
that as every organism's cultural element is an artifact which involves
biological intra-/inter-cell expression and/or process, biological and cultural
domains are not ontologically distinct, but instead culture inheres in biology. 
Dov Henis

 

C. On  “our lack of ingenuityâ€쳌 and “science explainsâ€쳌

 

Bigger Human
Brain, Horses And Wagon

 http://universe-life.com/2011/...

 

On Culture And
Genetics, Horses And Wagon

http://universe-life.com/2011/...

If you saw it
once, you saw it a million times: it’s the horses pulling, not the wagon
pushing !

 

Dov Henis

(comments from 22nd
century)

http://universe-life.com/

 

Avatar of: Dov

Dov

Posts: 1457

November 18, 2011

Speaking Of Memory And Of Culture-Genetics

 

 

A. From “Speaking of Memory, Eric Kandelâ€쳌

http://the-scientist.com/2011/...

 

Are there unanswerable questions in neuroscience; ones
that should be left to philosophers and poets?

Who’s to know what will emerge 50 to 100 years from now. But
for the foreseeable future I think it’s our lack of ingenuity that is limiting,
not the intrinsic difficulties; the problems are difficult—but not
insurmountable.

Even love?

I think there’ll always be magic to life, even though
science explains a great deal.

 

B.  BioCulture

June 16, 2006

http://universe-life.com/2006/...

 

To paraphrase a
statement by Eugene Thacker in the opening pages of Biomedia (ISBN
0-8166-4353-9):

I posit
that as every organism's cultural element is an artifact which involves
biological intra-/inter-cell expression and/or process, biological and cultural
domains are not ontologically distinct, but instead culture inheres in biology. 
Dov Henis

 

C. On  “our lack of ingenuityâ€쳌 and “science explainsâ€쳌

 

Bigger Human
Brain, Horses And Wagon

 http://universe-life.com/2011/...

 

On Culture And
Genetics, Horses And Wagon

http://universe-life.com/2011/...

If you saw it
once, you saw it a million times: it’s the horses pulling, not the wagon
pushing !

 

Dov Henis

(comments from 22nd
century)

http://universe-life.com/

 

Avatar of: Mark Riggle

Mark Riggle

Posts: 6

November 29, 2011

In response to Keepitlegal:  [In science] chance favors only the prepared mind - Pasteur

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

November 29, 2011

In response to Keepitlegal:  [In science] chance favors only the prepared mind - Pasteur

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

November 29, 2011

In response to Keepitlegal:  [In science] chance favors only the prepared mind - Pasteur

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Cisbio
Cisbio
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist