Survey of Neurobiology 



as a whole is deplorably lagging behind the mark 

 which it could attain if given proper focus, en- 

 couragement and support. The following sum- 

 mary is a very condensed digest of the main con- 

 clusions reached by the conference. For brevity, 

 the field as a whole will be referred to as "neu- 

 robiology." 



BACKGROUND 

 Past Development—ReseaTch on the nervous sys- 

 tem has followed the lines of specialized tech- 

 niques, and therefore, has become highly depart- 

 mentalized, with the various lines, such as physi- 

 ology, psychology, anatomy, histology, embryology, 

 clinical neurology, psychiatry, neurosurgery, and 

 comparative biology, following, for the most 

 part, independent courses. Lack of cross cor- 

 relation of information and the reliance upon ex- 

 cessive superstructures of speculation, built upon 

 narrow and often shaky foundations of fact, have 

 led to serious incongruities among the views pre- 

 vailing in the various separate disciplines, all pur- 

 portedly pertaining to the same nervous system. 

 Inconsistencies and incompatibilities within each 

 field and among the various fields have provided 

 us with a confused, rather than unified, concept 

 of the nervous system, its construction, function, 

 development and diseases. There is a serious 

 danger in attempting to base psychological, an- 

 thropological, psychiatric and sociological theories 

 of far reaching practical implications on neurologi- 

 cal foundations the security of which is open to 

 question. At the conference, many examples were 

 cited of psychological and educational theories, 

 either erected with disregard for, and in conflict 

 with, well founded biological and neurological 

 facts, or based on neurological concepts of doubt- 

 ful validity. The same applies to some of the 

 concepts of health and disease of the nervous 

 system. The amount of human eflFort and energy 

 misdirected and wasted in this manner in the past 

 is in such disproportion to the comparatively small 

 expense of a concerted eS^ort at consolidating the 

 scientific foundations of neurology, that the latter 

 course commends itself not only for academic rea- 

 sons, but on economic and humanitarian grounds. 

 Present Treru/s— Existing deficiencies are of two 

 kinds: of investigation, and of correlation and in- 

 tegration. A survey of the non-clinical literature 

 in neurobiological fields for the period of 1925- 

 1945 has revealed, aside from a general slump 

 since 1939 in consequence of the war, that except 

 for physiology, none of the various fields has con- 

 tinued to grow in proportion to either its sig- 

 nificance or the general expansion of scientific 

 research [see the sample statistics at the end of 

 this booklet]. It was the consensus of the mem- 

 bers of the conference, competent to speak for 



their respective fields, that we possess only rudi- 

 mentary and inadequate information about the 

 finer structural anatomy, cytology, physical chem- 

 istry, chemical composition, physical structure, 

 functional organization, developmental mechanisms, 

 and regenerative and adjustive powers of the ner- 

 vous system. In most of these fields, modem and 

 promising methods of research are available but 

 are not being exploited to best advantage. There 

 are further important lines which have remained 

 almost unexplored, at least so far as systematic 

 fundamental approach is concerned; for example, 

 mode of drug action; biochemistry, particularly, 

 differential chemical properties in relation to brain 

 function; immunology; genetics of normal and 

 diseased neural functions; analysis of the develop- 

 ment of behavior; etc. All of these fields can 

 point to some examples of important past achieve- 

 ments, but these have remained pathetically small 

 islands in a vast sea of ignorance. In other fields, 

 much of the information gathered has been of 

 purely descriptive character, untouched by any of 

 the modern analytical, experimental methods tha*" 

 could have been readily applied. Many specific 

 cases were cited by the conference in support of 

 these statements. Rarely has a group of experts 

 been so unanimous in professing the shortcomings 

 of their respective fields, and so conscious of the 

 need fqr a strong 'forward-looking policy of fun- 

 damental research. 



Only part of the deficiencies in neurobiology 

 are attributable to lack of adequate information 

 and knowledge. A large part can be blamed on 

 the failure to evaluate, correlate and integrate 

 properly the available knowledge so that different 

 lines of research might utilize each other's sources 

 of information, techniques and results to best mu- 

 tual advantage. In this matter there has been 

 a very healthy change for the better during recent 

 years— a change, however, which in order to be- 

 come fully effective, requires more encouragement 

 and support than it now receives. Integrative 

 effort may take the form of either active co- 

 operation between specialists of various methods 

 in the study of common problems, or only of 

 correlation and joint interpretation of data ob- 

 tained independently in the various lines of spec- 

 ialization. The single example of the correlation 

 of experimental, clinical and observational data 

 on functional localization in the brain, obtained 

 from such different lines as anatomy, electroence- 

 phalography, action of drugs, injuries and tumors 

 of the brain, psychiatry in conjunction with neuro- 

 pathology, and experimental psychology, may 

 serve as one illustration for many. To stimulate 

 and facilitate better and wider correlation among 

 the various lines of specialization, one could en- 



