Ask a Neuroscience Professor

[El_Machinae]

If you don't have neuroscience, then I think I'd recommend cell biology and psychology. There are neursocience-specific courses available on iTunes, but if you're still a student, then you're probably swamped already.

As for volunteering: go to the list of professors and figure out which ones are working in the fields you enjoy. Then ask to volunteer Most places have a bit of room for volunteers, and you don't need to be their slaves. They want you to become graduate students, and if they treat their volunteers poorly, you wouldn't want to work for them later. But once you're volunteering, word-of-mouth is a very favourable component of your future career. If a prof knows what you're interested in, he'll recommend you to his friends. As long as you show interest and a work-ethic of course.

My local university has a psychology department, and they're always looking for volunteers for experiments. Those are a LOT of fun. It's also a decent way of figuring out the research that each prof is doing.

There's no reason the volunteering has to be done within your own university, if you have another one in town, you should check it out. Cross-pollination is good, anyway.

 

[Mark1031]

After getting your PhD, did you become a post-doc before becoming a professor? Does doing so give you a more competitive position in the job market?

Yes I did a post-doc. In my field no one gets a faculty job w/o a very successful post-doc. It is the most important part of your career, along with starting prof time. You need to do something big in your post-doc to be competitive. It also helps to work with a big name. My post-doc advisor was quite big- he won the Nobel Prize.

 

[Mark1031]

I dont know what a neuro scientist or whatever you are is cuz im not that smart but I herd of some scientist trying to reverse body aging not just physically on the inside and that we where coded to live and no codes in our body to die just wondering where things like this people come up with, they say in 50 years they can have the technology to prevent much death from ageing related diseases and such u kno i just wanna know where people get crazy ideas and take up on em from and how scientist think we wherent ment to die in codes or w/e in our body..not saying that in specific just wondering in general where scientist get the crazy ideas they come up with and many turn out to work but some like this just seem..rather...insane and like the scientist need to check into a mental hospital

I don't really understand this but aging is a very hot field. It is quite likely that there will be treatments developed that will delay aging. I had a grant to do some work on this. link

 

[Mark1031]

Do you have any tips on how exactly to go about finding a lab and volunteering in it? Are you talking about become an undergrad slave, or is this something I can do without being a student at the university in which the lab is located?

If you are not at/near a major "research" university you may be out of luck. There are not so many people in the world that do this stuff.

 

[El_Machinae]

Is it a good idea to do your Masters in something other than what you want to do your PhD in?

 

[theskald]

If you don't have neuroscience, then I think I'd recommend cell biology and psychology. There are neursocience-specific courses available on iTunes, but if you're still a student, then you're probably swamped already.

devoting 4 years to studying general cell biology... I am starting to wonder if I should just go where the researchers and theorists are, 'cause that's what I'd like to get into, real pushing-the-boundaries-of-our-knowledge stuff.

As for volunteering: go to the list of professors and figure out which ones are working in the fields you enjoy. Then ask to volunteer Most places have a bit of room for volunteers, and you don't need to be their slaves. They want you to become graduate students, and if they treat their volunteers poorly, you wouldn't want to work for them later. But once you're volunteering, word-of-mouth is a very favourable component of your future career. If a prof knows what you're interested in, he'll recommend you to his friends. As long as you show interest and a work-ethic of course.

Sounds like a good place to start

My local university has a psychology department, and they're always looking for volunteers for experiments. Those are a LOT of fun. It's also a decent way of figuring out the research that each prof is doing.

There's no reason the volunteering has to be done within your own university, if you have another one in town, you should check it out. Cross-pollination is good, anyway.

This is true, though in Colorado the pickings are either slim or expensive. Maybe I should move. What University do you go to, by the way? And is it really expensive?

If you are not at/near a major "research" university you may be out of luck. There are not so many people in the world that do this stuff.

I wish there was an "extremely disheartened" smiley. I shouldn't have skipped my junior and senior years... Kids, don't be like me.

Is it a good idea to do your Masters in something other than what you want to do your PhD in?

Ooh, as many people answer this as possible, please. This is information I could really use right now.

 

[Globex]

Where do you publish the results of your research? I often hear that professors publish their works in peer reviewed journals but I have never read one of these journals before.

Are your published works just a brief overview about what your research entails or do they contain large amounts of data and information about the experiments and trials that you performed?

What exactly does it mean when a journal is 'peer reviewed' (do other scientists try to duplicate the results of your experiments to verify them?)

How much writing does your job involve and how much do you publish?

 

[theskald]

Where do you publish the results of your research? I often hear that professors publish their works in peer reviewed journals but I have never read one of these journals before.

Are your published works just a brief overview about what your research entails or do they contain large amounts of data and information about the experiments and trials that you performed?

What exactly does it mean when a journal is 'peer reviewed' (do other scientists try to duplicate the results of your experiments to verify them?)

How much writing does your job involve and how much do you publish?

http://www.nature.com/neuro/

I can answer some of the rest, as well. Usually in a scientific journal, like Nature, the entire research papers, with an abstract and related images, are published once they've passed peer review, which is similar in pain level as trying to get a book published, only they also check you on clarity, consistency, completeness, accuracy of language (meaning it's not like reading Scientific American Mind which gives you a whole lot of conclusions the writer has drawn), and more importantly the methods of your research and the validity of the conclusions drawn. Usually the experiment is replicated by other scientists after publication of the initial research, and many papers have actually been on reproduced experiments, but I'm not certain this is always the case.

In addition to the research papers, Nature and I believe Science both have other articles, including editorials, relevant or interesting news, and even book reviews.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Is there enough scientific evidence to disprove the ordinary person's idea of free will?

 

[El_Machinae]

devoting 4 years to studying general cell biology... I am starting to wonder if I should just go where the researchers and theorists are, 'cause that's what I'd like to get into, real pushing-the-boundaries-of-our-knowledge stuff.

I know what you mean. I think cell biology is pretty important to neuroscience, since most of the information is at the 'sub organ of a cell' level. Systems neuroscience is a lot of fun, but it seems to be mostly synthesized information gained from dealing with the cellular level.

I have a friend who's an fMRI specialist, though, and I don't think he's really done all that much cell biology. Lots of math & physics & programming, I think.

Where do you publish the results of your research? I often hear that professors publish their works in peer reviewed journals but I have never read one of these journals before.

There are a LOT of journals. There's a bit of a prestige system for journals, some of that prestige system is artificially generated and some is due to being deserved. Go to 'pubmed' and type in a search term. Each of those hits are from an article. If you click on the link, you'll have access to the name of the journal.

You don't see these journals in the supermarket because they wouldn't sell there. That's actually very sad. A huge number of articles are free online, and you should be able to access most of them from a university library

Are your published works just a brief overview about what your research entails or do they contain large amounts of data and information about the experiments and trials that you performed?

It's a bried overview of the techniques, because so many techniques are standardized. If there's a new technique, there's more detail.

The language tends to be very specific. The peer review process tries to ensure that you never claim more than you actually show. A great deal of information will be summarized using statistics and pictures. You won't see the results for each lab rat, but you'll see statistics for each test group. There's also an attempt to clearly distinguish between 'facts' and 'theory' ('results' and 'discussion') but I honestly prefer when they include a bit of theory in their results section to justify why they're doing each experiment.

Often a lab will publish something called a "Review article", a specific paper tends to examine one scientific point at a time. A review article creates a synthesis. In the pubmed link, there's a search tab which specifies for review articles.

What exactly does it mean when a journal is 'peer reviewed' (do other scientists try to duplicate the results of your experiments to verify them?)

I've now informally been part of the peer review process. It's gads of fun. Basically, you read their initial paper and you try to tear it apart. You examine each of their conclusions. You examine their statistics. You see if the techniques they use answer the questions they're asking.

To peer review, you need to be an established expert in a field (I am not, but a reviewer lent me a copy of an article to peer review along with him), this means that you have a general idea of how things work in that field. If someone states something controversial, you'll use an extremely critical eye. If something is really controversial, then it might have trouble getting published in a 'high-quality' journal. But that doesn't stop people, because one you publish something, people will inevitably check your result. If it turns out to be true, your status as a research skyrockets. You'll be able to get later articles in high-quality journals

Is there enough scientific evidence to disprove the ordinary person's idea of free will?

The ordinary person's? Yes. It's obvious that we feel like we have free will. But it's equally clear that we don't know when we've made a decision, and it feels like we've made a decision much later than we have. We are also really great at post-justifying, creating an illusionary "I meant to do that" justification for our actions. Finally, it's possible to use the environment to control people's actions to a much greater degree than people have any idea about

 

[theskald]

I know what you mean. I think cell biology is pretty important to neuroscience, since most of the information is at the 'sub organ of a cell' level. Systems neuroscience is a lot of fun, but it seems to be mostly synthesized information gained from dealing with the cellular level.

I have a friend who's an fMRI specialist, though, and I don't think he's really done all that much cell biology. Lots of math & physics & programming, I think.

Yeah, I'm thinking I ought to just bite the bullet and power through some cell biology and chemistry courses. I already have a wealth of knowledge in those areas, but I could use more and it never hurts to have credit. I actually found a neuroscientist conducting research at National Jewish, and I already kinda knew him. Makes me wonder why I never considered National Jewish.

I've now informally been part of the peer review process. It's gads of fun. Basically, you read their initial paper and you try to tear it apart. You examine each of their conclusions. You examine their statistics. You see if the techniques they use answer the questions they're asking.

I've always thought it would be fun for the people doing the reviewing. Agonizing to be on the receiving end, sometimes it can feel like they're trying to make you quit

The ordinary person's? Yes. It's obvious that we feel like we have free will. But it's equally clear that we don't know when we've made a decision, and it feels like we've made a decision much later than we have. We are also really great at post-justifying, creating an illusionary "I meant to do that" justification for our actions. Finally, it's possible to use the environment to control people's actions to a much greater degree than people have any idea about

I take issue with this. I don't buy that we've found "enough information" to disprove free will. Just because we find the mechanisms behind it does not mean it doesn't exist. It is true that we form habits and addictions and have certain interpersonal and ideological tendencies, but decision making is a process we have control over. I may only not know what an "ordinary person's" idea of free will is. Maybe it's quite different from my view.

 

[El_Machinae]

I talked to my fMRI guy, and he says that a focus in Cognitive Psychology would be more useful than going the biology side-route. He asked if you were intested in math, he does a crapload of math and programming. So much of fMRI advances are in the field of getting signal out of what we thought was noise.

Yeah, I was emphasising "ordinary person's conception of free will". Clearly, we agree that you can keep peeling back the layers.

 

[theskald]

I talked to my fMRI guy, and he says that a focus in Cognitive Psychology would be more useful than going the biology side-route. He asked if you were intested in math, he does a crapload of math and programming. So much of fMRI advances are in the field of getting signal out of what we thought was noise.

I appreciate it! I am interested in math, though I don't really have a mind for it. It took me a long time to even understand derivatives even a little bit, though granted I've never had any education in math. As for the psychology, my hesitation comes from the often speculative nature of the psychologists I've met, but while I wasn't looking I guess the field stepped up it's game. Cognitive psychology... Is that essentially the same thing as cognitive neuroscience? I've been reading a lot of books and papers on "consciousness studies" and I've quite liked them, and working every day with a live picture of a person's brain would be fantastic.

Yeah, I was emphasising "ordinary person's conception of free will". Clearly, we agree that you can keep peeling back the layers.

I figured as much, I just wish I knew what the ordinary person thinks free-will is. I imagine it has something to do with a "soul" or being a uniquely human thing.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I figured as much, I just wish I knew what the ordinary person thinks free-will is. I imagine it has something to do with a "soul" or being a uniquely human thing.

"Ordinary" people (Americans) think that they can make meaningful decisions about their life, and for the most part do not think about "free will" vs some other driver of behavior.

 

[pau17]

The ordinary person's? Yes. It's obvious that we feel like we have free will. But it's equally clear that we don't know when we've made a decision, and it feels like we've made a decision much later than we have. We are also really great at post-justifying, creating an illusionary "I meant to do that" justification for our actions. Finally, it's possible to use the environment to control people's actions to a much greater degree than people have any idea about

Really interesting are the split-brain experiments and confabulation, where people deny that they own their own hand or make up weird stories about what it is doing. Creepy stuff, really...

 

[theskald]

Something interesting about this are split-brain experiments and confabulation, where people deny that they own their own hand or make up weird stories about what it is doing. Creepy stuff, really...

You mean the ones conducted with input only to one eye or the other, leading to activity with an "emotional" response from the right hemisphere the nature of which the left has no awareness of, then the right eye sees the action and the left hemisphere attempts to rationalize the action without knowing what triggered it?

Yeah, those are awesome.

 

[pau17]

You mean the ones conducted with input only to one eye or the other, leading to activity with an "emotional" response from the right hemisphere the nature of which the left has no awareness of, then the right eye sees the action and the left hemisphere attempts to rationalize the action without knowing what triggered it?

Yeah, those are awesome.

That may be how our consciousness works in general. What if what we see as a sensible, orderly life and world are just confabulations that we are very good at making up as a society?

 

[theskald]

That may be how our consciousness works in general. What if what we see as a sensible, orderly life and world are just confabulations that we are very good at making up as a society?

I think it makes more sense to ask your left hemisphere if its rationalization really makes sense by putting it to practice. One has to remember that reality doesn't change based on how we perceive it (no, really, try walking in midair), so by putting our perceptions up to the test of reality we can make them a bit more reliable.

Through SCIENCE!

 

[pau17]

I think it makes more sense to ask your left hemisphere if its rationalization really makes sense by putting it to practice. One has to remember that reality doesn't change based on how we perceive it (no, really, try walking in midair), so by putting our perceptions up to the test of reality we can make them a bit more reliable.

Through SCIENCE!

I am talking more about the phenomenological aspects of consciousness, like free will, sense of self, etc. It might be that we merely confabulate the idea that we made a decision freely when we really didn't at all, and that we see ourselves as individual agents when we are mechanical, context-dependent robots. The brain processes underlying these functions occur without us perceiving them, and we apply our philosophical conceptions of personhood after the fact.

 

[theskald]

I am talking more about the phenomenological aspects of consciousness, like free will, sense of self, etc. It might be that we merely confabulate the idea that we made a decision freely when we really didn't at all, and that we see ourselves as individual agents when we are mechanical, context-dependent robots. The brain processes underlying these functions occur without us perceiving them, and we apply our philosophical conceptions of personhood after the fact.

The only way I can think of to test that is to have someone make a decision, then go back in time and see if they can make a different decision

In my opinion, though such speculation is fun to think about, it's not really important. More importantly, I don't consider the split-brain experiments to be compelling evidence for this, just that our left-hemisphere tends to rationalize with whatever it can get, it doesn't really say anything about free will--again, it just relates to how it works.