Pub Date : 2023-04-01DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2021.1904714
Wolf Singer, Sascha Topp
Dr. Wolf Singer (b. 1943) is one of Germany's most renowned brain researchers and neurophysiologists. His accomplishments in the creation of new research centers for neuroscience as well as his commitment to European scientific organizations for integrative brain research are highly valued as significant moments of advancement in the neurosciences. Before his appointment as a scientific member of the Max Planck Society and director at the Frankfurt Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, he gained deep insight into the chances and pitfalls of translational initiatives at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich. From the late 1950s onward, the institute adapted to emerging international trends and successfully integrated neurochemistry, neurophysiology, and neuroanatomy into the fledgling interdisciplinary field of neuroscience. This agenda of reorientation was an undertaking of Otto Detlev Creutzfeldt, Detlev Ploog, Gerd Peters, and Horst Jatzkewitz, among others. In the 1970s, Munich's laboratories attracted scientists from several countries in Europe and abroad. This article examines whether specific styles of conducting (neuro)science research existed in the Max Planck Society.
{"title":"Neuroscience history interview with Professor Wolf Singer, emeritus director at the Department of Neurophysiology, Max Planck Institute for Brain Research in Frankfurt am Main.","authors":"Wolf Singer, Sascha Topp","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2021.1904714","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2021.1904714","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dr. Wolf Singer (b. 1943) is one of Germany's most renowned brain researchers and neurophysiologists. His accomplishments in the creation of new research centers for neuroscience as well as his commitment to European scientific organizations for integrative brain research are highly valued as significant moments of advancement in the neurosciences. Before his appointment as a scientific member of the Max Planck Society and director at the Frankfurt Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, he gained deep insight into the chances and pitfalls of translational initiatives at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich. From the late 1950s onward, the institute adapted to emerging international trends and successfully integrated neurochemistry, neurophysiology, and neuroanatomy into the fledgling interdisciplinary field of neuroscience. This agenda of reorientation was an undertaking of Otto Detlev Creutzfeldt, Detlev Ploog, Gerd Peters, and Horst Jatzkewitz, among others. In the 1970s, Munich's laboratories attracted scientists from several countries in Europe and abroad. This article examines whether specific styles of conducting (neuro)science research existed in the Max Planck Society.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/0964704X.2021.1904714","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9425207","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-01DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2021.2001267
Lisa Malich
Today, drug dependence is often understood as a "brain disease" and as an indication for behavioral therapy. In this article, I trace the historical development of the notions of drug dependence as a neuronal and behavioral problem in the local research context of the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich, Germany. Focusing on the period from the 1950s to the 1980s, I argue that the neuroscientific and behaviorist understanding of "dependence" had two different trajectories that were yoked together under the same institution of self-proclaimed basic research: (a) the neuroscientific notion derived from an older toxicological approach to drug effects that was then accompanied by biochemical methods from the 1950s onwards, and neurochemical approaches from the 1960s and 1970s; and (b) the behaviorist notion had predecessors in psychotherapeutic approaches to addiction that emerged in the 1950s and took a psychodynamic orientation at the Institute. When the Institute positioned itself as a basic research establishment and developed a unified structure during the 1960s, these psychodynamic approaches were excluded for being "too applied." Soon afterward, behaviorist psychotherapeutic approaches to drug dependence emerged in the 1970s, emphasizing their foundation in basic research. Even though neuroscientific and behaviorist notions had some overlaps through the use of animal experimentation and by referring to basic research, researchers using the two approaches remained separate in their respective units during the time period under analysis. When conceptualizing the local scientific occupation with "drug dependence," I apply here the history of science concept of a "split object." Like the "boundary object," the split object is plastic enough to adapt to local conditions and robust enough to maintain its genuine identity. Compared with the boundary object, however, the split object does not invite scientific collaboration. It does, nonetheless, enable epistemic coexistence under a common institutional goal.
{"title":"Drug dependence as a split object: Trajectories of neuroscientification and behavioralization at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry.","authors":"Lisa Malich","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2021.2001267","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2021.2001267","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Today, drug dependence is often understood as a \"brain disease\" and as an indication for behavioral therapy. In this article, I trace the historical development of the notions of drug dependence as a neuronal and behavioral problem in the local research context of the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich, Germany. Focusing on the period from the 1950s to the 1980s, I argue that the neuroscientific and behaviorist understanding of \"dependence\" had two different trajectories that were yoked together under the same institution of self-proclaimed basic research: (a) the neuroscientific notion derived from an older toxicological approach to drug effects that was then accompanied by biochemical methods from the 1950s onwards, and neurochemical approaches from the 1960s and 1970s; and (b) the behaviorist notion had predecessors in psychotherapeutic approaches to addiction that emerged in the 1950s and took a psychodynamic orientation at the Institute. When the Institute positioned itself as a basic research establishment and developed a unified structure during the 1960s, these psychodynamic approaches were excluded for being \"too applied.\" Soon afterward, behaviorist psychotherapeutic approaches to drug dependence emerged in the 1970s, emphasizing their foundation in basic research. Even though neuroscientific and behaviorist notions had some overlaps through the use of animal experimentation and by referring to basic research, researchers using the two approaches remained separate in their respective units during the time period under analysis. When conceptualizing the local scientific occupation with \"drug dependence,\" I apply here the history of science concept of a \"split object.\" Like the \"boundary object,\" the split object is plastic enough to adapt to local conditions and robust enough to maintain its genuine identity. Compared with the boundary object, however, the split object does not invite scientific collaboration. It does, nonetheless, enable epistemic coexistence under a common institutional goal.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9778640","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-01DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2021.1959185
Paul Weindling, Gerrit Hohendorf, Axel C Hüntelmann, Jasmin Kindel, Annemarie Kinzelbach, Aleksandra Loewenau, Stephanie Neuner, Michał Adam Palacz, Marion Zingler, Herwig Czech
Although 75 years have passed since the end of World War II, the Max Planck Society (Max-Planck Gesellschaft, MPG), successor to the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, KWG), still must grapple with how two of its foremost institutes-the KWI of Psychiatry in Munich and the KWI for Brain Research in Berlin-Buch-amassed collections of brains from victims of Nazi crimes, and how these human remains were retained for postwar research. Initial efforts to deal with victim specimens during the 1980s met with denial and, subsequently, rapid disposal in 1989/1990. Despite the decision of the MPG's president to retain documentation for historical purposes, there are gaps in the available sources. This article provides preliminary results of a research program initiated in 2017 (to be completed by October 2023) to provide victim identifications and the circumstances of deaths.
{"title":"The problematic legacy of victim specimens from the Nazi era: Identifying the persons behind the specimens at the Max Planck Institutes for Brain Research and of Psychiatry.","authors":"Paul Weindling, Gerrit Hohendorf, Axel C Hüntelmann, Jasmin Kindel, Annemarie Kinzelbach, Aleksandra Loewenau, Stephanie Neuner, Michał Adam Palacz, Marion Zingler, Herwig Czech","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2021.1959185","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2021.1959185","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although 75 years have passed since the end of World War II, the Max Planck Society (Max-Planck Gesellschaft, MPG), successor to the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, KWG), still must grapple with how two of its foremost institutes-the KWI of Psychiatry in Munich and the KWI for Brain Research in Berlin-Buch-amassed collections of brains from victims of Nazi crimes, and how these human remains were retained for postwar research. Initial efforts to deal with victim specimens during the 1980s met with denial and, subsequently, rapid disposal in 1989/1990. Despite the decision of the MPG's president to retain documentation for historical purposes, there are gaps in the available sources. This article provides preliminary results of a research program initiated in 2017 (to be completed by October 2023) to provide victim identifications and the circumstances of deaths.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9425584","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-03DOI: 10.1080/0964704x.2023.2178230
L. Zeidman
Austro-Prussian dualism in 1866 and achieving German unification in 1870–1871, he emphasizes that the Iron Chancellor viewed the idea of the nation as “nothingmore than an instrument in his tool casewithwhich hewould restructure the European order” (178). That this rebuildingwas successful was “not least” due to an “excess” of the fortunes of war (216). In the end, Jahrwants us to understand thatmore reasons led to the founding of the Kaiserreich than just nationalism and thewill of Bismarck. He seeks to address the modern and general antipathy for the founding of the German nation-state 150 years ago. His goal is to bring the complex series of events that led to the emergence of the empire closer to an audience that knows little about these events because “the memory of them has long been overlaid by the subsequent world wars and rests deeply sedimented at the bottom of the collective memory” (291). However, as is often the case when chronicling diplomacy and war, Jahr’s presentation follows the military events of 1864, 1866, and 1870 that made possible the imperial proclamation in 1871. Although Jahr shifts the focus of his narrative away from Bismarck, Moltke, and Roon, he sometimes gets bogged down in the details of the Wars of Unification without providing proper context, which raises the question of why he decided to include such details. Jahr discloses the wars’ causes, the diplomatic environment, the strategies and operations, and the experiences of both the military and civilian population. As much as possible, he allows the contemporaries to speak by utilizing a variety of published sources, in particular letters, diaries, and journals. As for original contributions, the book’s final chapter examines the contrary images of the history of the Kaiserreich created both contemporaneously and subsequently. Its title, “The Spirit of Violence” summarizes the book’s main argument: that the creation of the empire established violence as a norm in German history that prevailed until 1945. In addition, Jahr examines the event of the founding of the empire over the longer term by looking at the very different cultures of commemoration and remembrance in the states involved in the Wars of Unification. Lastly, Jahr’s emphasis on Bismarck’s economic policy, the success of the Prussians in developing their economy faster than their rivals, and the views of the economy by Marx and Engels are presented in the short but important chapter “Armaments and Politics.” Jahr quotes Rudolf Löwenstein, who had prophesied in 1862 that German unity would be established “not through ‘iron and blood,’ but rather through iron and coal” (94). Blut und Eisen is a multifaceted, thought-provoking book. Jahr connects the dramatic events of the 1860s with the great trends of the time and the perspective from above with experiences from below. The description of the military events remains tight and clear. Jahr covers much ground in a well-written, handsome book.
{"title":"A New Field in Mind: A History of Interdisciplinarity in the Early Brain Sciences","authors":"L. Zeidman","doi":"10.1080/0964704x.2023.2178230","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704x.2023.2178230","url":null,"abstract":"Austro-Prussian dualism in 1866 and achieving German unification in 1870–1871, he emphasizes that the Iron Chancellor viewed the idea of the nation as “nothingmore than an instrument in his tool casewithwhich hewould restructure the European order” (178). That this rebuildingwas successful was “not least” due to an “excess” of the fortunes of war (216). In the end, Jahrwants us to understand thatmore reasons led to the founding of the Kaiserreich than just nationalism and thewill of Bismarck. He seeks to address the modern and general antipathy for the founding of the German nation-state 150 years ago. His goal is to bring the complex series of events that led to the emergence of the empire closer to an audience that knows little about these events because “the memory of them has long been overlaid by the subsequent world wars and rests deeply sedimented at the bottom of the collective memory” (291). However, as is often the case when chronicling diplomacy and war, Jahr’s presentation follows the military events of 1864, 1866, and 1870 that made possible the imperial proclamation in 1871. Although Jahr shifts the focus of his narrative away from Bismarck, Moltke, and Roon, he sometimes gets bogged down in the details of the Wars of Unification without providing proper context, which raises the question of why he decided to include such details. Jahr discloses the wars’ causes, the diplomatic environment, the strategies and operations, and the experiences of both the military and civilian population. As much as possible, he allows the contemporaries to speak by utilizing a variety of published sources, in particular letters, diaries, and journals. As for original contributions, the book’s final chapter examines the contrary images of the history of the Kaiserreich created both contemporaneously and subsequently. Its title, “The Spirit of Violence” summarizes the book’s main argument: that the creation of the empire established violence as a norm in German history that prevailed until 1945. In addition, Jahr examines the event of the founding of the empire over the longer term by looking at the very different cultures of commemoration and remembrance in the states involved in the Wars of Unification. Lastly, Jahr’s emphasis on Bismarck’s economic policy, the success of the Prussians in developing their economy faster than their rivals, and the views of the economy by Marx and Engels are presented in the short but important chapter “Armaments and Politics.” Jahr quotes Rudolf Löwenstein, who had prophesied in 1862 that German unity would be established “not through ‘iron and blood,’ but rather through iron and coal” (94). Blut und Eisen is a multifaceted, thought-provoking book. Jahr connects the dramatic events of the 1860s with the great trends of the time and the perspective from above with experiences from below. The description of the military events remains tight and clear. Jahr covers much ground in a well-written, handsome book.","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49571189","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-02DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2023.2178228
D. Lanska
{"title":"The Brain in Search of Itself: Santiago Ramón y Cajal and the Story of the Neuron","authors":"D. Lanska","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2023.2178228","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2023.2178228","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41244854","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1080/0964704x.2023.2178229
William K. Stell
{"title":"La Retina de los Vertebrados","authors":"William K. Stell","doi":"10.1080/0964704x.2023.2178229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704x.2023.2178229","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49483371","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2022.2035187
{"title":"Correction.","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2022.2035187","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2022.2035187","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9186331","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2022.2133569
Soledad de Olmos, Alfredo Lorenzo
The amygdaloid complex is a crucial component of the basal forebrain that participates in the modulation of many homeostatic functions, emotional behaviors, and learning. These features require a widespread pattern of connections with several brain structures. In the past, the amygdaloid complex was divided into corticomedial and basolateral groups. The existence of a neuronal continuum linking the central amygdaloid nucleus to the lateral bed nucleus of stria terminalis through the subpallidal area was first revealed by José de Olmos (1932-2008) with the aid of his cupric-silver technique. This observation gave birth to the concept of the extended amygdala, a conceptual framework that is useful for understanding the anatomofunctional organization of the amygdaloid complex, with relevance for basic neuroscience and clinical interventions. Traditional tract-tracing staining methods were complicated and tedious to reproduce. Axonal terminal endings were lost among a myriad of normal fibers. The need to visualize these terminals drove de Olmos to develop cupric-silver methods that revealed disintegrating synaptic terminals, without staining normal fibers. In this article, we describe the historical events leading to the development of the cupric-silver technique that evolved into the amino-cupric-silver technique, which developed hand-in-hand over the years.
{"title":"Developing the theory of the extended amygdala with the use of the cupric-silver technique.","authors":"Soledad de Olmos, Alfredo Lorenzo","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2022.2133569","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2022.2133569","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The amygdaloid complex is a crucial component of the basal forebrain that participates in the modulation of many homeostatic functions, emotional behaviors, and learning. These features require a widespread pattern of connections with several brain structures. In the past, the amygdaloid complex was divided into corticomedial and basolateral groups. The existence of a neuronal continuum linking the central amygdaloid nucleus to the lateral bed nucleus of stria terminalis through the subpallidal area was first revealed by José de Olmos (1932-2008) with the aid of his cupric-silver technique. This observation gave birth to the concept of the extended amygdala, a conceptual framework that is useful for understanding the anatomofunctional organization of the amygdaloid complex, with relevance for basic neuroscience and clinical interventions. Traditional tract-tracing staining methods were complicated and tedious to reproduce. Axonal terminal endings were lost among a myriad of normal fibers. The need to visualize these terminals drove de Olmos to develop cupric-silver methods that revealed disintegrating synaptic terminals, without staining normal fibers. In this article, we describe the historical events leading to the development of the cupric-silver technique that evolved into the amino-cupric-silver technique, which developed hand-in-hand over the years.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9280776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2022.2143180
Frank W Stahnisch, Michel C F Shamy
This archeology
{"title":"NeurHistAlert 26.","authors":"Frank W Stahnisch, Michel C F Shamy","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2022.2143180","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2022.2143180","url":null,"abstract":"This archeology","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9148951","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2022.2104062
Paul Eling
Swiss physiologist Walter Rudolf Hess (1881–1973) won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1949 for mapping the areas of the brain—particularly, the diencephalon— involved in physiological functions of internal organs. Candace Beebe Pert (1946–2013) was an American neuroscientist and pharmacologist who collaborated with Solomon Snyder (b. 1938) at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Their discovery of the opiate receptor was announced in their article, “Opiate Receptor: Demonstration in Nervous Tissue,” published in Science in 1973. Alexander Romanovich Luria (1902–1977) was one of the leading pioneers in the developing field of neuropsychology during the postwar period. His seminal psychology textbook, The Working Brain, appeared in 1973 and was soon translated into many languages.
{"title":"Neuroanniversary 2023.","authors":"Paul Eling","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2022.2104062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2022.2104062","url":null,"abstract":"Swiss physiologist Walter Rudolf Hess (1881–1973) won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1949 for mapping the areas of the brain—particularly, the diencephalon— involved in physiological functions of internal organs. Candace Beebe Pert (1946–2013) was an American neuroscientist and pharmacologist who collaborated with Solomon Snyder (b. 1938) at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Their discovery of the opiate receptor was announced in their article, “Opiate Receptor: Demonstration in Nervous Tissue,” published in Science in 1973. Alexander Romanovich Luria (1902–1977) was one of the leading pioneers in the developing field of neuropsychology during the postwar period. His seminal psychology textbook, The Working Brain, appeared in 1973 and was soon translated into many languages.","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9279244","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}