Colorado "personhood" ammendment to be on fall ballot

Colorado may be taking a big step toward becoming the next battleground of the pro-choice/anti-abortion forces, at least if Colorado for Equal Rights has its way. They have collected over 130,000 signatures to place a petition on the ballot this fall that would alter the state constitution to define a person as any fertilized human egg.

The amendment, if approved by voters, would guarantee every person, whatever their stage of life, the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law — laying the legal foundation to challenge legal abortion.

Such a definition has greater implications than just abortion, though.

Critics of the Colorado proposal said it is so vaguely worded that consequences are difficult to predict.

"This amendment could make abortion illegal, even in cases of rape, incest, or when the life or health of a woman is at risk," said Toni Panetta, spokeswoman for an opposing coalition — Protect Families, Protect Choice.

"It may encroach on everything from birth control to stem-cell research to inheritance rights," Panetta said.

And any one of a hundred other things people could think of. For example, fertility clinics (as well as their clients) might be charged with murder for disposing of unwanted frozen embryos. Or how about negligent homicide if someone accidental unplugs the freezer, sending hundreds of "persons" to their deaths. Pregnant mothers might be charged with abuse for not taking their prenatal vitamins. Every miscarriage might be investigated for evidence of foul play.

To me this seems a bit silly as the US Constitution supersedes state constitutions in these matters, and so far as a know the US Constitution only talks about the rights of those who are born, not conceived. Of course, I am not a lawyer, so that is just my simple interpretation of things.

(image via NDP teachers)

Blogs on this:

RH Reality Check

Editorializing the Editors

Christian News Journal

The Miseducation of Glenn Beck

CNN's Headline News stopped being my goto news when they changed their format; I guess the simplicity of a 30 minute newscast twice an hour around the clock wasn't profitable. But what really made me shy away from them was their appropriation of the Fox News model and the hiring of Glenn Beck. Why? Because he says things like this.

The top five college and university endowments reported a combined value of over $100 billion at the end of 2007. That's five funds, a hundred billion in cash. Not a nickel in tax. Not an ounce of outrage.

Harvard University, which has the largest endowment in the country, has a total of $34.6 billion. To put into perspective just how much money that is, consider that the largest charitable foundation in the world, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has a total endowment of $37.3 billion.

But while their financial statements may look similar, their missions aren't. The Gates Foundation is working to cure malaria, develop new tuberculosis vaccines, and stop the spread of AIDS. Most of our colleges and universities are only working to spread the radical political views of some of their professors.

Yes, it's not like Harvard is educating thousands of young people every year, or providing economic stability to the city of Boston, or producing a slew of Nobel Prize winners. No, all they do is spread radical political views. Nope, they aren't trying to stop the spread of AIDS. Oh wait, yes they are. They have a whole institute devoted to AIDS research.

But wait, there's more:

For what's been estimated to be about $300 million a year (less than 1 percent of their endowment's value) Harvard could completely waive tuition, room and board for every single one of their students. Instead, they announced an increase in those fees of about 3.5 percent for next year. Being a student at Harvard will now cost a staggering $47,215 a year.

Doesn't Harvard know how many millions of Americans are struggling to afford college? Don't they want to pay their fair share and help those who are less fortunate?

Yes, they do. Which is precisely why Harvard has changed their financial aid rules such that families with incomes under $60,000 are not expected to contribute to their child's education.

But Glenn Beck seems to lack the basic knowledge of how endowments work:

What I do have a problem with -- and it's a big one -- is how Harvard spends that money. Or, maybe it would be more accurate to say how Harvard, doesn't spend that money.

Schools with large endowments (at least $500 million) reported spending an average of 4.4 percent of their stockpiles in 2007. Meanwhile, those same schools made an average of over 19 percent on their money.

And often, schools have no control over that money. Endowments are often set up such that a small percentage of the available income/earned interest can be used for very prescribed expenses. To spend more than the allotted amount would require approval, often from someone other than the school administration. To redirect funds is also often verboten. Harvard simply does not have as much control over its money as Mr. Beck thinks.

If Glenn Beck wants to talk about tax-exempt organizations that don't do much good with their wealth perhaps he should also take on some other targets. Like, let's say, religious institutions.

(image via National Association of Broadcasters)

I assume it comes with maple syrup and canadian bacon

I thought it was just our government that did stupid crap like this but apparently Canada also has a governement sponsored National Prayer Breakfast, to be held today. While this event is non-denominational, just as the American version ostensibly is, there are some who complain that it is too Christian-centered. And how can you blame them when the chairing MP says stuff like this:

"The object of the prayer breakfast is to gather in the spirit of Jesus Christ, and pray together," said Conservative MP David Anderson (Cypress Hills-Grasslands, Sask.), who is the event's chair this year.

The article then goes on to quote a few non-Christian MP's who are not bothered by the Christian emphasis of the proceedings. However, the feelings of legislators don't always square with their constituents:

Though the interest in the National Prayer Breakfast is such that organizers had to seek out a larger venue, a 2006 Ipsos Reid poll conducted shortly after the Conservative government was elected, indicated that Canadians are becoming increasingly uncomfortable mixing religion and politics.

The poll, conducted for CanWest News Service, revealed Canadians would be more open to voting for a party led by a Muslim or atheist than one led by an evangelical Christian.

In 1996, 80 per cent said they would vote for a potential prime minister who is an evangelical, however that number dropped to only 63 per cent of Canadians in 2006. Sixty-eight per cent said they would vote for a leader who is Muslim or atheist, down from 74 per cent and 72 per cent, respectively, in 1996.

Which I think only shows that Canadians are uncomfortable with elected officials who define themselves by their religion, whatever that religion may be. To which I can only reply one way.

How reasonable.

(image via Pancakes for Jesus)

Bush government attempts to limit testing of food supply

Creekstone Farms is one of the many beef producers who have recently made a push toward 'natural beef', which in their case means no hormones, no anti-biotics, and a vegetarian diet (1). To further assure their customers that beef produced at Creekstone is safe, they want to test 100% of their cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (i.e. mad cow disease), a big improvement over the 1% testing rate that the USDA has. Great, a food supplier who is concerned not only about food quality but food safety; so much so that they want to voluntarily, and with their own money, go above and beyond the required testing mandates. You would think the USDA would be all over that. Turns out, not so much:

The Bush administration on Friday urged a federal appeals court to stop meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease, but a skeptical judge questioned whether the government has that authority.

The government seeks to reverse a lower court ruling that allowed Kansas-based Creekstone Farms Premium Beef to conduct more comprehensive testing to satisfy demand from overseas customers in Japan and elsewhere.

Their reasoning is that testing may create false positives that would hurt consumer confidence. I do see the point; but given that the only ones harmed by this would be the owners of Creekstone (who would lose business as a result of a false positive), and that a retest would be relatively easy, it seems that there may be other motives.

Larger meatpackers have opposed Creekstone's push to allow wider testing out of fear that consumer pressure would force them to begin testing all animals too. Increased testing would raise the price of meat by a few cents per pound.

Once again, 'big food' has worked hard to make the price of foodstuffs artificially low, and they would like to keep it that way.

(image via Manishin; story via Tree Hugger)

Blogs on this:
YumSugar
Crooks and Liars
Loaded Dice

(1) Their cattle are corn fed, not grass fed, but I guess you can't have everything.

Jane Stewart honored

Recently Jane Stewart was honored by her institution for 45 years of scientific research.

The event was organized by Harriet de Wit, a 1981 PhD who is now a professor at the University of Chicago. “Dr. Stewart is one of the most creative and respected scientists in the area of behavioral neuroscience,” de Wit wrote us by email. “Her contributions include original ideas as well as rigorous experimental research on a wide range of topics. “In addition to her scientific and educational achievements, she is a warm, enthusiastic and engaging person who has touched the lives of all of us through her friendship and sense of humour.”

Dr. Stewart has had a lasting impact on learning theory, especially as it pertains to drugs of abuse. Anyone who knows her and her work realizes how deserving she is of such recognition.

(image via Concordia Magazine)

Science a high school graduate should know

Hooked on Science has a list of ten science questions that every high school graduate should be able to answer. I would have gotten full or at least partial credit on nine of them. The only one that I was clearly wrong on:

9. How old are the oldest fossils on earth?

I was off by about 2 billion years.

On Guerrilla Gardening

DISCLAIMER: The following post talks about behavior that, while victimless, may technically not be legal where you live. Tantalus Prime does not condone breaking the law and is providing this information solely for dissemination purposes.

Tree Hugger has posted about a topic I had never heard about: Guerrilla Gardening. Many cities have vacant lots, abandoned homes, and untended parks that have become overgrown with weeds, shrubs, or, worse yet, remain infertile patches of earth. Enter the guerrilla gardener who co-opts these areas either for food production or beautification purposes. And apparently there is a handbook on how to do it well.

(image via Yiyan)

Freshwater case creates hostile student body

Previously, I had commented on the John Freshwater case at Mount Vernon Middle School in Ohio. Briefly, Mr. Freshwater, a science teacher, had a Bible on his desk, was asked to remove it by the administration, and refused. Members of the community came out in support of him. His refusal may seem innocuous, but later on, we found out that Mr. Freshwater also posted the Ten Commandments, proselytized to his students, and branded (1) his students with the sign of the cross.

As if Mr. Freshwater hasn't been causing enough trouble with his behavior, his refusal to back down is exposing the extreme religious intolerance of some members of the Mount Vernon student body:

"My daughter Arie told me about a Jewish child who brought his Torah to school when other students brought Bibles in support of Freshwater,” [Beth Murdoch] continued. “He thought he was supporting freedom of religious expression, and the other kids just ripped him apart. ‘What are you doing?’ they asked. ‘You can’t support Mr. Freshwater, you’re Jewish.’ So they don’t get it.

“I don’t think people realize the depth of what’s going on between the students. It’s a mob mentality right now. It’s peer pressure. To not wear a T-shirt and to not bring your Bible when they say bring your Bible and wear a T-shirt, you’re asking for trouble.”

Murdoch said one of Arie’s friends wore a T-shirt to school that read, “I don’t need to wear a special T-shirt to be a Christian.” That individual was reportedly pushed into the lockers and called a “stupid atheist b****.”

Love thy neighbor indeed.

Certainly this isn't Mr. Freshwater's fault; his case simply brought a bubbling torrent of anger to the surface. It would be all too easy to blame this intolerance on the Christian religion; but that would be as crazy as, say, blaming Darwin for the Holocaust. The students responsible for such behavior are not doing it because of their religion, but in spite of their religion.

Nevertheless, the anger is there; and I think we know from whence it comes.

(1) Yes, branded. Hot metal, human flesh. That sort of branding.

Schlafly gains degree; Washington University loses respect

A certain sign that you don't go to a real school is when you have some B level celebrity, say Chuck Norris, give your commencement address. Another is when you give an honorary degree to Phyliss Schlafly.

Most of the graduating seniors at Washington University in St. Louis weren’t even born when Phyllis Schlafly led the successful campaign in the 1970s to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. But they will get to learn about her at commencement ceremonies next week when the university awards her a doctorate of humane letters.

Most people who know of Ms. Sclafly know that she is extremely anti-women. What you may not not know is that she is also extremely anti-science.

Next time I see my brother, I will have to let him know that his alma mater doesn't take education very seriously anymore.

(thanks to The Opinion Mill; image via WU Math Department)

Blogs on this:

John's Blog: The Rantings of a Conservative

Rustbelt Intellectual

Dean's World

WU Student Life Blogs

Get this song out of my head

I got an earworm after watching Juno, and now I can't get this Sonic Youth song out of my head. Plus, I'm a sucker for covers; especially covers of sappy AM Gold standards like the Carpenter's "Superstar".

Seeking book recommendations for a budding neuroscientist

Ah, the joy of a first year neuroscience graduate student. Currently I am going through rotations, my second lab rotation to be precise. I still haven't decided which lab I will do my third rotation through, or even if I will do a third rotation. I must say that this is different from when I did graduate school 1.0, which was in a psychology program. The philosophy of all the psychology programs I have seen is "If you don't know what lab you want to work in, don't even bother applying." But, there we are.

Anyway, I realized following one of my recent posts that I, to my embarrassment, have never read The Logic of Scientific Discovery. While not a necessity, it would probably be a good idea to read the book that has become the basis of all modern scientific investigation. Also, I have a copy of The Art of Electronics that I should look through. And The Axon Guide would be good to at least thumb through. But beyond that, I haven't really thought of any other books I should be looking at.

I'm not thinking popularized books like Descartes's Error or Brainstorming (which are both fine books) but more like the seminal and/or technically informative books listed above. Feel free to e-mail suggestions or post them as a comment.

History of Bruce Chapman and the Discovery Institute

(image via The Daily Iowan)

In case anyone wanted to know such things, Ross Anderson has written an interesting article on the history of Bruce Chapman and the Seattle based Discovery Institute. What I had never realized was that there was so much backstory to the Discovery Institute ... before they decided to go off the deep end.

Still, it was an authentic think tank. Discovery hosted lunchtime debates over topics such as charter schools, freeway tolls and international trade. Chapman, however, was looking for that breakout issue. In 1993, he read an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal written by a young Whitworth College professor named Stephen Meyer. Meyer was defending a California biology professor whose job was threatened because he had questioned evolution theory. "I saw the issue at first as an example of political correctness run amok," Chapman recalled later. "Only later did I see it as an issue in science, and sense the implications."

Once again, Chapman teamed up with his Harvard soulmate, George Gilder, who had become a neo-conservative superstar. They sat down with Meyer and decided that "Discovery should become the home to the scientific critique of Darwinism, and home as well to intelligent design as an alternative theory."

Thus was born what they now call the Center for Science and Culture.

Babu Ranganathan, ramblin' man, shows why intelligent design is not science

Particularly prolific in his defense of creationism/intelligent design, Babu Ranganathan must have taken some advice from the Allman Brothers. That would explain his tendency to write unparalleled, long-winded, pieces. But remember, he is "an experienced Christian writer", something that is obvious from his writing style. For instance, he seems to think that repeating a statement over and over and over again will somehow make it true:

The evidence from science shows that only microevolution (variations within a biological "kind" such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) is possible but not macroevolution (variations across biological "kinds", especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones). The only evolution that occurs in Nature is microevolution (or horizontal evolution) but not macroevolution (vertical evolution).

The genetic ability for microevolution exists in Nature but not the genetic ability for macroevolution. The genes (chemical and genetic instructions or programs) for microevolution exist in every species but not the genes for macroevolution. Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes and not just to produce variations and new combinations of already existing genes) then macroevolution will never be possible in Nature.

He also has the uncanny ability to take the bleedin' obvious and try to make it sound profound:

[If] a woman were to lose a finger it would not result in her baby being born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once-held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring.

Of course I shouldn't be too harsh. This is only bleedin' obvious if you have happened to read a biology textbook published since the McKinley administration. Finally, Mr. Ranganathan also has the experience necessary to write something not just wrong, but so mind-numbingly wrong that it makes you want to remove all the Brodman areas from your brain in numerical order with a grapefruit spoon just so that you will never again have to comprehend something so wrong.

It has been said that the eye of an octopus is more similar to the human eye than any other animal.

Really? More similar than my pet cat's eyes, or the sheep eyes that opthalmology students dissect in order to better understand human vision? The cephalpod eye? The same eye that, in opposition to mammals, has a reversed retina orientation, is not an extension of the nervous system, and has an inflexible lens? That one? Seriously?

Mr. Ranganathan's errors have been pointed out before by others, but there is one thing that he has done for which scientists can be thankful. He has shown, in a surprising show of brevity, why creationism/intelligent design is not science in the traditional sense.

Yes, there are many genetic and biological similarities between species, but are these similarities because of common biological ancestry (macroevolution) or because of a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the various forms of life on earth from the simplest to the most complex. Neither position can be scientifically proved.

Dogs must breathe the same air as humans. The creationists, therefore, believe that the Creator designed similar lungs for both dogs and humans. The evolutionists believe that dogs and humans have similar lungs because they are related from millions of years ago.

So, how to tell which is right? Well, I can't tell you which is right, but I can tell you which is falsifiable. Imagine that dogs primarily used nitrogen rather than oxygen in the air they breathe. Or that chimpanzees had two hearts. Or if the ability to coagulate blood, an incredibly complex, multi-protein cascade were shown to be different in each and every mammal species then that would mean only one thing: evolutionary theory, the idea of common descent, is not sufficient to explain the evidence.

However, such things are not an impediment to creationism. After all, such evidence would just show that the creator chose to design each species with unique traits to set them apart from each other (certainly an easy feat for the omnipotent one). That is the wonderful thing about creationism. No matter what the evidence, it cannot be falsified. So, here is a question I want answered by creationists; and this is not a rhetorical question.

"What evidence, if found, would convince you that your theory (that life is the product of a creator) is wrong?"

This should be the first question asked of any theory purporting to be scientific. Until it is answered, your theory isn't falsifiable. And it sure as hell isn't science.

(image via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Functional connectivity of the basal ganglia and amygdala

This part three of my neuroanatomy essay, with references. Look here for part one and part two.

(image via Nature)

Functional Connectivity of the Basal Ganglia and Amygdala

Functional Connectivity of the Basal Ganglia

The connectivity and function of the basal ganglia as a structure involved in motor control is well-defined, and has been implicated in such neurodegenerative diseases such as Huntington’s and Parkinson’s. There exist two such pathways within the basal ganglia.

The direct motor pathway begins at the striatum, which receives inputs from both the cortex and the substantia nigra pars compacta. Activation here leads to inhibition, via GABA projections, of the internal globus pallidus. Normally this area tonically inhibits the thalamus, meaning that activation of the striatum leads indirectly to activation (or lack of inhibition) of the thalamus, which can then excite cortical areas. Consequently, the direct pathway acts as positive feedback for motor control. The indirect motor pathway also starts with the striatum and its cortical/nigral inputs. However, the indirect pathway first sends inhibitory projections to the external globus pallidus. Normally the external globus pallidus tonically inhibits the subthalamic nucleus, which transiently activates the internal globus pallidus. In other words, activation of the striatum leads to activation of the internal globus pallidus via the indirect pathway; this in turn leads to further tonic inhibition of the thalamus and its projections to cortical areas. Hence, the indirect motor pathway acts as a negative feedback on motor control.

Functional Connectivity of the Amygdala

The amygdala has been implicated in mood regulation and mood disorders, as one may predict from its pattern of connectivity with the rest of the central nervous system. Foremost, the amygdala receives and reciprocates a large number of sensory inputs (Price, 2003). These include olfactory input (olfactory bulb and olfactory cortex to the cortical nucleus and basomedial nucleus), taste and visceral inputs (brainstem and cortex to central and lateral nucleus), as well as visual and auditory input (sensory cortex to lateral nucleus). In addition to the diverse input and reciprocal output, the amygdala also projects to other central nervous system areas. These include the periaqueductal gray (from central and basomedial nucleus), braintstem (central nucleus), and hypothalamus (medial, central, basolateral and basomedial nuclei). Furthermore, the amygdala forms an interconnective loop with the medial forebrain, thalamus, and basal ganglia. This high level of interconnectivity would suggest a structure that does not act in isolation, but that is intimately involved with several aspects of cognitive and affective behavior.

References

Alheid GF, Heimer L (1988). New Perspectives in basal forebrain organization of special relevance for neuropsychiatric disorders: the striatopallidal, amygdaloid, and corticopetal components of substantia innominata. Neuroscience, 27: 1-39.

de Olmos JS (2004). “Amygdala” in The Human Nervous System, Second Edition, Eds. Paxinos G, Mai JK: Elsevier Academic Press, London.

Haber SN, Gdowski MJ (2004). “The Basal Ganglia” in The Human Nervous System, Second Edition, Eds. Paxinos G, Mai JK: Elsevier Academic Press, London.

Koob GF (2003). Neuroadaptive mechanisms of addiction: studies on the extended amygdala. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 13: 442-452.

Kruger L, Saporta S, Swanson LW (1995). Photographic Atlas of the Rat Brain: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Paxinos G, Watson C (1997) The Rat Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates, Compact Third Edition: Academic Press, London.

Price JL (2003). Comparative aspects of amygdala connectivity. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 985: 50-58.

Waraczynski W (2006). The central extended amygdala network as a proposed circuit underlying valuation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30: 472-496.

Hall, atheist soldier, top story on CNN

(image via Atheists in Foxholes)

I don't have much to add to this story. I haven't linked to it before, but am now only because it is the top story on CNN currently. Army Specialist Jeremy Hall is suing the Defense Department for religious discrimination because he is an atheist. Hall seems to have a well grounded sense of where he should put his faith in times of crisis:

[His atheism] eventually came out in Iraq in 2007, when he was in a firefight. Hall was a gunner on a Humvee, which took several bullets in its protective shield. Afterward, his commander asked whether he believed in God, Hall said.

"I said, 'No, but I believe in Plexiglas,"' Hall said.

He is being represented by Mike Weinstein, a lawyer I have mentioned before. From the CNN article:

"The average American doesn't have enough intestinal fortitude to tell someone to shut up if they are talking in a movie theater," Weinstein said. "You know how hard it is to take on your chain of command? This isn't the shift manager at KFC."

This man has shown a lot of bravery signing up to be a soldier in the first place; and now he is showing even more by asserting his religious freedom.

Blogs on this:

The Friendly Atheist

The Subversive Garden

Comparison of the amygdala in humans and rats

This is the second part of my neuroanatomy essay. Look here for part one.

(image via John Whalen's lab)

Amygdala

Human Amygdala

The amygdala is a subcortical, telencephalic structure bounded dorsally by the lentiform nucleus, laterally by the claustrum, and medially by the diencephalon. It generally lies ventral to the putamen, though it is shifted caudally relative to this structure. The human amygdala, as described by de Olmos, can be segregated into three separate divisions, which will be described in turn.

Laterobasal amygdaloid nuclear complex - This ovular structure constitutes the bulk of the amygdala and is further subdivided into five nuclei/areas. The lateral amygdaloid nucleus is the main sensory input area and is the most lateral of these nuclei; it makes up the bulk of the rostral part of the nuclear complex, tapering toward the caudal end. It is bounded laterally by the claustrum, from which it is separated by the external capsule; rostrally by the endopiriform nucleus; caudally by the lateral ventricle; and dorsally by the amygdalostriatl transition zone. The basomedial amygdaloid nucleus supplies output to the hippocampus, and the entorhinal and perirhinal cortices and is the most medial of these nuclei. It is apparent at the rostral extent, but becomes more prominent as one moves caudally. Between these two nuclei is the basolateral amygdaloid nucleus, bounded laterally by a lateral medullary lamina, and medially by a medial medullary lamina. Moving caudally through the nuclear complex, the ventral portion of the basolateral amygdala migrates medially, creating a “J” shaped nucleus. Medioventrally running along the rostral-caudal length of the basolateral nucleus is the paralaminar amygdaloid nucleus. This structure is more prominent at the rostral than the caudal end. Finally, at the rostral end of the nuclear complex is the amygdaloclaustral transition area, which, as the name implies, is the confluence of the claustrum and amygdala along with the endopiriform cortex. However, some do not distinguish this as a true amygdaloid structure.

Extended Amygdala – The extended amygdala as proposed by Alheid and Heimer (1988) was an attempt to separate the substantia innominata into anatomically related and connected structures. Specifically, it was proposed that the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis was connected to the central and medial amgydaloid nuclei. Presently, it is believed that the extended amygdala mediates reinforced behavior such as self stimulation (Waraczynski, 2006) and drug abuse (Koob, 2003).

The two primary nuclei of the extended amygdala are the central and the medial amygdaloid nuclei. The central nucleus is the main output nucleus of the amygdala and lies dorsal to and extends the length of the basolateral and basomedial nuclei of the nuclear complex discussed above. It is flanked medially by the anterior commissure, laterally by the amygdalostriatal transition area, and rostrally by the anterior amygdaloid area. The medial nucleus receives olfactory input and lies medial and slightly ventral to the central nucleus. Both of these areas are connected to separate areas of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis via fibers through the sublentricular portion of the substantia innominata (called the sublentricular extended amygdala). The bed nucleus itself is a small collection of neurons collected along the midline extending rostrally from the amygdala to the posterior commissure.

Olfactory Amygdala – de Olmos further characterizes a third division of the amygdala, the olfactory amygdala. This division receives input from the olfactory bulb and olfactory cortex and projects mainly to the central and medial nuclei of the extended amygdala; it has been subdivided into two nuclei and two areas.

The two nuclei are the ventral and anterior cortical amygdaloid nuclei. The anterior portion borders the piriform cortex rostrally and the medial nucleus caudally. Ventral and caudal to this nucleus is the ventral nuclei, which is proximal to the lateral olfactory tract. The two areas of the olfactory amygdala are the amygdalopiriform transition and amygdalohippocampal areas. These lie between the amygdala and, respectively, the entorhinal cortex and the uncus of the hippocampus.

Rat Amygdala

One apparent difference between the rat and human amygdala is its orientation. Within the rat, the nuclei seem to be rotated about 70-80 degrees such that the central and medial nuclei lie medial to the laterobasal amygdaloid nuclear complex. Within this nuclear complex the nuclei are also rotated such that the basomedial nucleus lies more medial. In addition, the entire amygdala is more lateral in the rat than the human, though this may be due to the relatively smaller cortex giving the appearance of a more lateral structure.

There are differences in terminology. For example, the designations of basomedial and basolateral nuclei are used in rats, but often in humans they are called the basal accessory amygdala and basal nucleus respectively. Also, some structures are not readily apparent in both species. The medial nucleus while apparent in primates is not as prominent as it is in rodents. There are intercalated cell masses dispersed through the amygdala. However, while these exist in both species, they are not as well defined in rodents as in humans. While a distinction is made in the human brain between the medial and ventral cortical nuclei, Kruger only refers to a single cortical amygdaloid nucleus. (Paxinos, on the other hand does distinguish two cortical nuclei, but calls them the anterior and posterior cortical nuclei). Furthermore, neither rat atlas distinguishes perilaminar nucleus from the rest of the nuclear complex.

Comparison of the basal ganglia in humans and rats

Here is the first part of my neuroanatomy final, dealing with the basal ganglia. This is very dry material, with a lot of medial-this and dorsal-that. But the point was to describe anatomy, not physiology.

Also, if you see that I made a mistake, please don't tell me. I've already handed it in and I will find out soon enough. I would rather not know until then.
(picture via Brain Mind)

"Compare the anatomical organization of human and rodent basal ganglia and amygdala. Include a comment on the concept of extended amygdala"

To discuss this topic, I have broken down this essay into several sections. First, I will discuss the organization of the human basal ganglia, followed by a comparison with rat basal ganglia. Second, I will discuss the organization of the human amygdala with the same comparison to rat anatomy. In this section, I will comment on the concept of the extended amygdale. Lastly, I will discuss the functional aspects of both these areas in as much as that helps delineate the connections amongst the various nuclei.

The bulk of my research has come from a few sources. Unless otherwise stated, I have received my information from the following sources. For human basal ganglia, I used Haber and Gdowski (2007); for the human amygdala, de Olmos (2007); for comparison of human and rat anatomy, Paxinos and Watson (1997) and Kruger, et al. (1995). For ease of interspecies comparison, I have used the rostral-caudal and ventral-medial convention in referring to the orientation of the various structures. Also, I have not included any diagrams in this essay; however for my own reference I have used the online atlases available from Michigan State University.

Basal Ganglia

Human Basal Ganglia

The human basal ganglia is a telenchephalic group of subcortical structures consisting of three major parts: the caudate, putamen, and pallidum. The claustrum is an additional, minor telencephalic structure considered to be part of the basal ganglia. There are other structures that, while not anatomically part of the basal ganglia, are functionally considered part of it. These include the subthalamic nucleus, a diencephalic structure ventral to the dorsal thalamus; and the substantia nigra, a midbrain structure ventral to the red nucleus (i.e. nucleus ruber). In addition, as will be shown, cortical and thalamic areas are also functionally tied to the basal ganglia, but are considered to be separate structures.

These three major parts mentioned above can be further broken down; moreover, some of these components are referred to collectively by different names. The caudate and putamen are known collectively as the striatum. The dorsal striatum consists of just the dorsal sections of the caudate and putamen and is sometimes referred to as the neostriatum. The most rostro-ventral section or the caudate and putamen is called the nucleus accumbens, a circular nucleus when viewed coronally, which is further subdivided into core and shell components. Some refer to this nucleus, along with the rostro-ventral areas of the caudate and putamen, as the fundus striati. Further more, the nucleus accumbens, along with the substantia innominata, is referred to as the ventral striatum. Moving more caudally, the pallidum is broken down into three subdivisions: the ventral pallidum, the internal globus pallidus, and the external globus pallidus. The globus pallidus and the putatem are referred to collectively as the lentiform nucleus.

That being said, we can now proceed to the relative positions of these various nuclei. The caudate is the most medial structure of the rostral portion of the basal ganglia. In saggital sections, it is a ‘C’ shaped structure with a rostral head, more caudal body, and a tail ventral to the head and body. The caudate lines the lateral wall of the lateral ventricle and is for the most part contiguous with it. Lateral to the caudate is the putamen, a structure which, in saggital view, is ovular and appears to sit within the ‘C’ of the caudate. The caudate and putamen are separated by the internal capsule, a group of fibers that descend from the cortex to the spinal cord. Lateral to the putamen is the claustrum, separated by the external medullary capsule. The claustrum is in turn bordered laterally by the extreme capsule, which separates it from the insular cortex.

At the most rostral point of the basal ganglia is the nucleus accumbens. As we move caudally, the pallidal structures appear. The nucleus accumbens is replaced by the ventral pallidum. Dorsally, the anterior commissure divides the ventral pallidum from the globus pallidus. The globus pallidus is lateral to the internal capsule and medial to the putamen, separated here by the external medullary lamina. The globus pallidus exists as an internal (medial) and external (lateral) segment separated by the internal medullary lamina. The external segment is the larger of the two and extends more rostrally than the internal segment.

Rat Basal Ganglia

The most striking difference between the human and rat basal ganglia is the orientation of the caudate and putamen. Although both species have an internal capsule, in the rat these fibers lie medial to the caudate. Consequently, there is no clear distinction in the rat between the caudate and putamen. Neither Kruger nor Paxinos make this distinction, and Kruger even names the single structure the “caudoputamen”. Furthermore, the caudate/putamen in the rat is a linear structure, unlike the “C” shaped caudate seen in humans. Moving caudally through the rat brain, the structure moves more and more laterally, but does not have a ventrally extending tail.

Another striking difference is the terminology used for the globus pallidus. Paxinos refers to the internal and external segments as the medial and lateral segments. However, Kruger refers only to the globus pallidus, which is analogous to Paxinos’ lateral segment. Rather than identifying the internal segment as the medial segment, Kruger refers to this section as the entopeduncular nucleus, a structure that extends into the internal capsule.

There are several other minor differences. Paxinos refers to the fundus striate as the lateral accumbens shell. Kruger does not differentiate between nucleus accumbens shell and core, though Paxinos does. There is a structure lateral to the ventral pallidum called the nucleus basilus (alternatively called the basal nucleus or basal nucleus of Meynart) which is referred to by Paxinos; however, Kruger believes this structure, while prominent in primates, is not sufficiently delineated in rodents to warrant assignment. Lastly, the external and extreme capsules in the rat do not appear to extend as far ventrally as they do in the human. Consequently, the barrier separating the putamen from the claustrum from insular cortex in the rat appears less prominent.

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary previews 'Expelled'

Yet another Christian paper writes a review of the Ben Stein movie 'Expelled'. It has the usual platitudes.

Expelled documents the stranglehold that Darwinian evolution holds on contemporary science, particularly as it exists within major research universities.

Stein, the documentary's author and on-screen host, shows the way in which even the slightest departure from the Darwinian party line in favor of alternate theories of human origins such as Intelligent Design often brings swift academic and personal discredit upon the scientist proposing an alternative view.

The article also includes the crowd reaction. I want to focus on just this one:

David Schrock, a master of divinity student from Mendon, Mich., said the film clearly demonstrates the worldview thinking present within the enterprise of science, a reality that makes science an important venue for Christian influence.

"Ironically, Stein points out that science is as much a worldview-shaping belief system as any major religion, Christianity or otherwise," Schrock said. "Stein not only exposes the academic elitism of the modern academy and their slanted unwillingness to admit theories that propose design, no matter how anonymous the designer may be ...."

An anonymous designer? He says that as if it is a good thing. Scientists have been asking and pleading with IDists to name their designer. At least in some way they would then have a somewhat testable theory. Instead, they think it is better to leave this out of the equation, as if making their conjecture less specific will make it better. I should try this the next time I am presenting some research:

Tantalus: ... and as you can see, this behavior is clearly a direct result of the G-d1A protein.

Commenter 1: But you haven't proven that there is any protein. Why don't you run a protein binding assay?

Tantalus: Unfortunately, the G-d1A protein is probably not detectable by these means. But of course, that doesn't mean that it isn't there.

Commenter 2: And that doesn't mean that it is there. Without some evidence, you're just making up a protein to explain the results.

Tantalus: But the implication is that there is a protein.

Commenter 3: No. The behavior could be the direct result of an environmental agent, or an RNA/protein interaction. You haven't even addressed those possibilities.

Tantalus: You're right, it could be the result of a non-protein. But there still is something intervening.

Commenter 1: So, why do you say it is a protein? And why do you name a protein that you haven't even shown to exist?

Tantalus: Okay, let's not call it the G-d1A protein. Let's call it Substance X.

Commenter 2: All you've done is rename something that you believe exists but haven't proven.

Tantalus: But as I said, we can infer that a Substance X exists.

Commenter 3: But what is Substance X?

Tantalus: YOU"RE VIOLATING MY RIGHTS!

Religious expression by public school faculty

A New Jersey public high school football coach has been told by a federal appeals court that he must follow his school district's instructions and not pray with his football team.

Marcus Borden, who has been the head football coach at East Brunswick High School since 1983, sued the district in 2005, saying its policy violated his rights to free speech and due process, as well as to academic freedom and freedom of association.

Now, he was arguing that he was not leading any prayers, just joining in with student led prayers. That might be fine with some people; not with me, but I can understand why some people might be fine with that. But there is one critical piece of information that is lacking.

Judge D. Michael Fisher wrote in his opinion that “the conclusion we reach today is clear because he organized, participated in and led prayer activities with his team on numerous occasions for 23 years.”

“Thus,” Fisher continued, “a reasonable observer would conclude that he is continuing to endorse religion when he bows his head during the pre-meal grace and takes a knee with his team in the locker room while they pray.”

Mr. Broden has set a precedent, so I think the court is ruling quite properly here. This reminds me of another case I saw recently, about a public high school science teacher who will not remove a Bible from his desk in accordance with his school district's instructions:

"Asking any citizen to remove from view any symbol or any book that has deep significance to his or her life borders on tyranny," Freshwater said.

Opponents say they don't have a problem with a teacher having religious beliefs, but that the appearance of a Bible on a teacher's desk could influence students' religious beliefs.

Again many people wouldn't have a problem with this, and actually I wouldn't either. The bible may be a religious symbol just like any other. Or he may be an atheist who just likes to read the Bible. As long as it sits there and is not prominently displayed, I would be okay with that. It's not like he is spouting off religious sermons in his science class:

In the past, Freshwater has taught his students about the "holes in evolution," and about Intelligent Design, the theory that a supernatural power created complex forms of life, said Dave Daubenmire, a spokesman for Freshwater.

Well, at least he is not prominently displaying his religious beliefs:

The Mount Vernon school district asked John Freshwater last week to remove all religious items from plain view. Freshwater took down the Ten Commandments ...

Again, precedent set. The Bible should go.

Blogs on this:
Stop the ACLU
American Constituion Societ ...
Stardust Musings ...
Dr. Jim West

(images via The Boston Globe and The Guardian, respectively)

Small change won't get us where we need to be

I have said before that I am becoming increasingly convinced that making a small change in lifestyle will not help out our current environmental unpleasantness. To hear it put more eloquently, go read what Tom Crompton has to say about it.

There is little evidence to show that [marketing small changes to energy consumption] increases the probability of people embarking upon more effective - and more difficult - changes.

In fact, some research shows that, for a significant number of people, the opposite is true. Having embraced one simple change, some people then tend to rest on their laurels and be less likely to engage in other more significant changes.

But there's also another, more fundamental limitation on the usefulness of marketing approaches to creating behavioural change.

Environmental problems can often be traced to our appetite for "stuff", items that demand resources and energy in their manufacture, sale, use and disposal.

The problem is that we seem to have an in-built tendency not just to consume a lot of things, but to consume ever more things.

And 'stuff' is what it all comes down to. Conspicuous consumption is the real problem. And what do we do with all that stuff? We buy bigger homes, further away from our town centers, to store all our stuff. And we have to buy stuff to get us from our home to our work, and buy a place to stuff the stuff that gets us between our work stuff and home stuff. This whole thing makes me wonder if the very idea of suburbia is sustainable.

Which is why Al gore is getting more and more ticked off and is planning on making another power point presentation.

In an exclusive interview with the British newspaper The Sun, Al Gore finally revealed what many had long been hoping for: a proper sequel to his game-changing 2006 documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." Lamenting that relatively little - aside from a more receptive public mindset - had changed since the release of his first film, Gore said that only concerted action from the world community could now prevent the worst excesses of global warming.

"I have to say the situation has not improved since I made the movie in 2006. Sure, awareness has grown and more people are concerned since scientists said we had just ten years to take action to halt rising sea levels. But the situation has got worse. The entire North Polar ice cap is melting and could be gone in some areas in as little as five years," he told The Sun's Clodagh Hartley.

As for me, I am increasingly skeptical about the ability of man to avert disaster. I'm sure mankind will survive if there is a global environmental collapse. I'm just not sure if I want to be around to see how we do it.