Leslee – leslee.lazar@gmail.com
NBRC,
Supervisor: Dr Neerjan Jain.
Background: Biology, current working on experiments with primates.
Neuroscience related responses.
On the social construction of Science
- Do you think that in any situation there are several ‘possible truths’ and that which
one is believed or accepted is more a matter of perspective or do you think there is
one single truth that science is trying to find. i.e. different assumptions and
background perspectives can lead to different interpretations of the same empirical
data? Specially in the field of Neuroinformatics/Neuroscience.
Leslee: At any point in time, there are several explanations/versions of what is seen
as the truth. The current state of Neuroscience is pretty much like that. So, yes there
are other influencing factors as well and over time one explanation dominates. Its
much like the Kuhnian notion of paradigms.
-Is science a search for objective truth? In the real world do you think it is actually so
or are there are other factors that influence scientific knowledge? Eg: economics,
cultual etc
Leslee: Sure there are other factors. Social, cultural, funding etc. Overall though, I
think Science, is the best we have.
Additional Question
What would you say to the statement is that Science is not inherently a better way of
acquiring knowledge than other fields, say history or sociology for example.
Leslee:
Theoretical Frameworks or Models
-Are you more inclined to believe in the ‘active’ brain perspective than the ‘passive’
brain theory? Passive brain – sensory inputs->brain responds. Active brain->Brain
has its own dynamics that influences things?
Leslee: I would be more inclined to the active brain hypothesis.
-Which metaphor comes closest to how you would view the brain
a) An information processor
b) A central controller
c) A network of nodes
Leslee: I am basically doing experimentation and recording the results so I don’t
think in these terms. While we are approaching the brain from a localization
perspective, there seems to be more indications of interactions between different parts
of the brain.
How do you see the mind/brain relationship?
Leslee: Well, these boundaries are not always clear. Even that between live and nonlive matter is pretty blurred if you start to look at it closely. However, having said that
Neuroinformatics Questionnaire
Page 1 of 3
2/16/2016
we are trying to reduce the ‘mind’ to brain activities, so basically, it is a reductionist
approach.
On the use of Technologies (Tools and Techniques)
-What are the tools that you use to understand the brain?
Leslee: There are different tools depending on how you approach things, so you have
everything from scalp level recordings such EEG, to Blood oxygenation (fMRI) to
electrophysiology (which is broadly what I am doing). Each has people who like to
use it. I myself think neuronal level recordings are important to understanding the
brain. Also I think Biology should be the central perspective, sometimes people tend
to overlook it.
-Do you think that technological tools in effect redefine the problem you are trying to
solve?
Leslee: Yes, I think the problem definition does change depending on the
technological tool you use.
- Does this lead to a tendency to redefine problems in terms of available solutions?
Leslee: Yes, I would tend to agree with that.
What do you think of the mechanistic metaphor of the brain? Basically as an
extension of the mechanistic metaphor of the body (the heart is a pump, the arm is
like a lever etc)?
Leslee: Well, that is pretty much what we are trying to do. In some sense it is a
reductionist approach. So yes, I would tend to agree with that.
The Behavioral perspective is given precedence over quantifiable data in assessing
behaviour, do you this as changing?
Leslee: I’d say things are changing. There are enough number of behavioral people
who are using quantification tools in their research. The behavioral is more in the
case of individuals, for wider applicability there are people who are using statistical
approaches.
In terms of quantifying and defining what is considered ‘normal’, do you see this as
being different in the field of Neuroscience than the other Biological Sciences?
Leslee: This is pretty much what we are saying, that the brain can be understood in a
similar manner, ultimately you should be able to ascribe brain processes to functions
that can be identified and measured.
.
Additional Question:
Do you see quantifying and defining what is considered ‘normal’ as a pre condition to
the treatment of disease or disorders?
Where (in your view) if at all does the sub conscious or the unconscious figure in the
brain?
Neuroinformatics Questionnaire
Page 2 of 3
2/16/2016
Leslee: It is very much on the agenda. Only because of the time frame required and
the abstract its nature not much funding is available for it, so only some people
(mostly retired professors!) are doing it.
Additional Questions
On Science and Applications
-In terms of the applications of Science, do you think that Application is independent
of the Science or do you think that certain factors that influence the practice of
science also shape the applications?
Leslee:
-Do you for instance think that the motivation behind any scientific activity also
shapes the result?
Leslee:
On evolution and intelligence
-What do you think of the view that Homo Sapiens as a species are generally
accepted as being at the end of a linear change of evolution?
Leslee: I would agree with that, in terms of intelligence we are.
There are several variations on the views on evolution, there is for instance a view
that it may not take as many generations for evolutionary changes to take place as is
generally accepted?
Leslee:
Additional Question
In the Indian context, what are the similarities and differences if any in the field?
Leslee:
Neuroinformatics Questionnaire
Page 3 of 3
2/16/2016