Too much neuroscience or neuroweapons lead to more than loss of memory.
Such a disturbing story, of an almost entirely pure amnesiac (H.M., a man) living almost entirely as a research subject for decades, of the scientist who built her career through her study of him, of another man outside this research but probably too intimately and multiply connected to it to be expected to write about it impartially (this is the writer of the story), of that same scientist who destroyed her original research for questionable reasons, of another scientist who preserved the amnesiac's brain and made new discoveries only to be forced to return his data and revise his findings, of the need to archive such informational and bodily data, and of, after all, "dusty archives" (even though it is unlikely the archives the writer visited actually were dusty). Food for archival thought, and an interesting ethical case study about a non-archivist who had a serious responsibility to humanity to ensure her papers were preserved.
5
Not weighing in on the ethics or legalities here, as there are others far more informed and qualified to judge, but I'm puzzled about one thing: how did Dr. Corkin find and connect with Thomas Mooney, a distant third cousin of Henry Molaison, with a different surname?
18
This article sickened me, although not for the same reasons as Dr. Corkin's defenders and apologists who are commenting on this article, questioning the author's motives. The article sickened me because Henry was treated like an OBJECT to be owned, both in life and in death. He was something to build a career on, to endlessly poke, prod, interrogate and get publishable papers from And in the end, his very tissues were seen as something to be "owned". Dr. Corkin even claimed copyright on his family photos. Sickening, and I say that as a healthcare provider and an educator who teaches science to nursing students. I am as fascinated by the human brain as the next person, but my word, there have to be ethical principles that are followed, and basic human respect. That is what is so missing from this story: respect for Henry as a human being. And in the ultimate petty, childish act, Dr. Corkin shredded the data, so that only her interpretations, the ones that fit her theories nicely, remain.
28
Daniel Kahneman! (Thinking Fast & Slow) where are you when we need you?
The comment section with this article is a great example of "thinking fast" mob mentality—spiced up by sexism no doubt. Look at all the uninformed people readily piling on against a dead scientist protecting her patient as HIPAA and the IRB require in human subjects research.
The comment section with this article is a great example of "thinking fast" mob mentality—spiced up by sexism no doubt. Look at all the uninformed people readily piling on against a dead scientist protecting her patient as HIPAA and the IRB require in human subjects research.
5
It would be shocking to me if Sue Corkin actually said that the peer reviewed status of her published works makes them more important than the source data. If true, that would be a stunning misunderstanding of science.
3
What a horrific and depressing story. What disturbed me the most was not Corkin's shredding of the documents, but her chilling response to seeing Henry's brain removed: "ecstatic." Moreover, performing pain experiments on a human subject without the cognitive ability to agree to these experiments strikes me as positively repulsive. Poor Henry--to be at the will of someone who didn't bother looking up his next of kin.
12
So here's something that has the potential of ruining your day.
Let's say you had a very small stroke. Nothing that would even give you any indication that you had one, but enough to cause some minor damage to a small portion of your brain. And let's say that the portion of your brain held a specific memory of something.
When that small part of your brain is gone, so goes the memory. But how would you know that you no longer knew something?
If it were something really obvious like the memory of what a car is then it would become quickly clear that something bad was happening. But how about the memory of the first hamster you owned as a kid?
There would be nothing of any significance even decades later to trigger the attempt to recover that memory. As such, you would not even know that you no longer know.
Let's say you had a very small stroke. Nothing that would even give you any indication that you had one, but enough to cause some minor damage to a small portion of your brain. And let's say that the portion of your brain held a specific memory of something.
When that small part of your brain is gone, so goes the memory. But how would you know that you no longer knew something?
If it were something really obvious like the memory of what a car is then it would become quickly clear that something bad was happening. But how about the memory of the first hamster you owned as a kid?
There would be nothing of any significance even decades later to trigger the attempt to recover that memory. As such, you would not even know that you no longer know.
6
99% of everything that we have learned about the central nervous system (CNS)and peripheral nervous system PNS) is from injury or disease.
Our physical examination of the body involves OUR SIGHT (seeing the color of the skin-pale, hives, TOUCH-softness, hardened areas, HEARING-sounds of the heart valves snapping shut--the lub-dub we hear with stethoscopes, SMELL-the fruity breath with diabetic coma, SPEECH-asking a patient’s history.
The only thing we can actually SEE is looking directly at the back of the eye (retina) at the second cranial nerve-the optic nerve coming out of the retina. We can see if this nerve is swollen, or changed color. That’s it!
The rest of the exam is by seeing how the body behaves as it is innervated by nerve fibers. If the nerve has lost its insulation from disease (multiple sclerosis) or has been cut, the muscle can’t move normally or is paralyzed.
This is why the tests given by neurologists OR the the cop who pulled you over for a possible DUI asks you to do weird things. Walk a straight line, touch your finger to your nose with eyes closed, hearing tests, tapping on your knee looking for that reflexive action.
Otherwise we can only SEE nerves during surgery or on autopsy--such as CTE with NFL and boxing patients.
Strokes or lack of oxygen to Broca’s area? Unable to speak. Wernicke’s area?-Can’t understand speech. Named after the MD who discovered the lack of function.
Bizarre way to study a very important system in our bodies!
Our physical examination of the body involves OUR SIGHT (seeing the color of the skin-pale, hives, TOUCH-softness, hardened areas, HEARING-sounds of the heart valves snapping shut--the lub-dub we hear with stethoscopes, SMELL-the fruity breath with diabetic coma, SPEECH-asking a patient’s history.
The only thing we can actually SEE is looking directly at the back of the eye (retina) at the second cranial nerve-the optic nerve coming out of the retina. We can see if this nerve is swollen, or changed color. That’s it!
The rest of the exam is by seeing how the body behaves as it is innervated by nerve fibers. If the nerve has lost its insulation from disease (multiple sclerosis) or has been cut, the muscle can’t move normally or is paralyzed.
This is why the tests given by neurologists OR the the cop who pulled you over for a possible DUI asks you to do weird things. Walk a straight line, touch your finger to your nose with eyes closed, hearing tests, tapping on your knee looking for that reflexive action.
Otherwise we can only SEE nerves during surgery or on autopsy--such as CTE with NFL and boxing patients.
Strokes or lack of oxygen to Broca’s area? Unable to speak. Wernicke’s area?-Can’t understand speech. Named after the MD who discovered the lack of function.
Bizarre way to study a very important system in our bodies!
This isn't really accurate: go look at any major journal and you'll see that the majority of research in the past and now actually comes from testing healthy human and animal subjects.
Wow, there never seems to be a shortage of examples demonstrating the destructive power of negative ego. It's disturbing that Corkin and MIT had the power to "own" H.M. This story reminds us that science might be a bit more like history than we imagine insofar as it tends to be narrated by the victors. Who then, in this despicable battle, is truly victorious?
6
A no-brainer: publish or perish makes ethics perish.
13
Dr. Corkin comes across as evil! why were though no checks or balances to her power over Patient H.M?
5
A few have tangential comments regarding the ethics involved but fail to get to the heart of the issue. Seems the formal study began in the early 70's by which time the Tuskegee trials were exposed.
The main issue here is whether Henry M had the capacity to give consent--clearly he did not. Did his 'guardian' have authority to give consent? Very questionable at best. Did this 3rd cousin have any real understanding of what he was consenting to? This was glossed over, but its doubtful. Consent in this era was pretty loosey goosey. But as the years passed consent and research ethics related to human subjects advanced. Where was the Harvard/MIT/UCSD review boards in all of this over the years?
The whole story is a study in questionable research ethics, the potential for implicit or explicit bias when the researcher conducting experiments has a vested interest in the outcome, and the tricky navigation of an academic career that hangs in the balance in a highly competitive environment--where recognition for scientific advancement is the coin of the realm.
The main issue here is whether Henry M had the capacity to give consent--clearly he did not. Did his 'guardian' have authority to give consent? Very questionable at best. Did this 3rd cousin have any real understanding of what he was consenting to? This was glossed over, but its doubtful. Consent in this era was pretty loosey goosey. But as the years passed consent and research ethics related to human subjects advanced. Where was the Harvard/MIT/UCSD review boards in all of this over the years?
The whole story is a study in questionable research ethics, the potential for implicit or explicit bias when the researcher conducting experiments has a vested interest in the outcome, and the tricky navigation of an academic career that hangs in the balance in a highly competitive environment--where recognition for scientific advancement is the coin of the realm.
19
What makes you assume that everyone who ever worked with HM, everyone who ever read about him, and all the review boards that oversee federally funded research didn't consider the ethics? They definitely did, and infinitely further than the article has presented them.
6
This book author achieved his intent: Everyone is outraged and Suzanne Corkin is no longer able to respond. It makes for a great Agatha Christie mystery, and he will sell many books, but it leaves out the requirements of Institutional Review Boards' human subjects research requirements for confidentiality. He mocks her outrage that HM's name was used, but she is the ethical person in all of this. There was no other way for Dr. Corkin to keep the agreement of confidentiality and privacy rights in this single case study.
NIH guidelines on data-sharing in human subjects research
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm
The shear volume of hatred heaped on this dead scientist reeks of ignorance and sexism.
NIH guidelines on data-sharing in human subjects research
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm
The shear volume of hatred heaped on this dead scientist reeks of ignorance and sexism.
25
"sexism" Many of those who are criticizing Dr Corkin in this comment section identify themselves as female.
"ignorance" Destroying the data and trying to hide the frontal lobe injury was ignorant.
"ignorance" Destroying the data and trying to hide the frontal lobe injury was ignorant.
5
Several readers have correctly noted the author's conflict of interest with Prof. Corkin, arising from the fact that both were working simultaneously on books about HM. To my eyes, the author's apparent resentment at Prof. Corkin for not cooperating with his own research shines through this article, and his negative portrayal of Prof. Corkin's role in HM's saga seems very likely to be biased.
As a former colleague of Prof. Corkin at MIT, I can attest to the highly positive reputation she had in our community. In addition to her world-renowned memory research, she was a tireless advocate for young scientists. One of her particular interests was in the advancement of minority women in science, a cause that touched some of the most disadvantaged and deserving students at our Institution. Prof. Corkin's general concern for others was unambiguous, and the suggestion that her ethics were somehow suspended in her dealings with participants in the HM saga is both far fetched and one sided.
I add that MIT, like all US academic institutions, obeys a rigorous process for oversight of all research involving human subjects, including the disposition of data. A panel including academics, professional staff, and lay community representatives reviews every procedure for conformity with Federally-mandated ethical guidelines. With this system in place, it is unlikely that any of Prof. Corkin's practices could have deviated substantially from communal norms.
As a former colleague of Prof. Corkin at MIT, I can attest to the highly positive reputation she had in our community. In addition to her world-renowned memory research, she was a tireless advocate for young scientists. One of her particular interests was in the advancement of minority women in science, a cause that touched some of the most disadvantaged and deserving students at our Institution. Prof. Corkin's general concern for others was unambiguous, and the suggestion that her ethics were somehow suspended in her dealings with participants in the HM saga is both far fetched and one sided.
I add that MIT, like all US academic institutions, obeys a rigorous process for oversight of all research involving human subjects, including the disposition of data. A panel including academics, professional staff, and lay community representatives reviews every procedure for conformity with Federally-mandated ethical guidelines. With this system in place, it is unlikely that any of Prof. Corkin's practices could have deviated substantially from communal norms.
37
That MIT conformed with federal regulations did not help save the records, did not it?
Since you are working there, perhaps you are able to illuminate us why MIT gave H.M.'s brain away. The institute surely has got the means and the brains to set up an own brain 'observatory' and a repository.
Since you are working there, perhaps you are able to illuminate us why MIT gave H.M.'s brain away. The institute surely has got the means and the brains to set up an own brain 'observatory' and a repository.
19
So why are the remains of Henry's brain missing?
Given the lack of detail in the article about what was actually shredded, we probably shouldn't assume anything about what was destroyed.
They may have considered that UCSD had better equipment and better trained personnel for processing the tissue, and wanted to foster collaboration between the universities. And setting up new facilities takes an absurd amount of money, space, administrative oversight, so it may be UCSD was better equipped to handle it.
They may have considered that UCSD had better equipment and better trained personnel for processing the tissue, and wanted to foster collaboration between the universities. And setting up new facilities takes an absurd amount of money, space, administrative oversight, so it may be UCSD was better equipped to handle it.
3
thank you for your commitment, effort, this story and the brain - mind mystery.
5
What an inset
2
What an inestimable shame that Dr. Corkin chose to rest on her tattered laurels.
8
"Corkin: Well, you can’t just take one test on one day and draw conclusions about it. That’s a very dangerous thing to do."
Dittrich's response was to do *exactly* what Corkin was afraid of:
"Even as a nonscientist, I couldn’t help noticing that some of the unpublished data I came across while reporting my book went against the grain of the established narrative of Patient H.M. For example, unpublished parts of a three-page psychological assessment of Henry provided evidence that even before the operation that transformed Henry Molaison into the amnesiac Patient H.M., his memory was already severely impaired. "
We mustn't forget that Dittrich was in direct competition with Dr. Corkin for the story of HM. Of course, this article didn't come out until after Dr. Corkin had passed, leaving her no way to defend herself against such slander.
Dittrich's response was to do *exactly* what Corkin was afraid of:
"Even as a nonscientist, I couldn’t help noticing that some of the unpublished data I came across while reporting my book went against the grain of the established narrative of Patient H.M. For example, unpublished parts of a three-page psychological assessment of Henry provided evidence that even before the operation that transformed Henry Molaison into the amnesiac Patient H.M., his memory was already severely impaired. "
We mustn't forget that Dittrich was in direct competition with Dr. Corkin for the story of HM. Of course, this article didn't come out until after Dr. Corkin had passed, leaving her no way to defend herself against such slander.
21
Corkin herself was publishing a book on the subject. In setting herself up as the one who determined whether the raw data "supporting" her findings got preserved or destroyed -- and given that she had a book coming out in which only HER version of events would be set out -- she had a clear conflict of interest.
7
Corkin commited a huge disservice to the scientific world by shedding all that data. Dose she have something to hide...you wonder.
14
Which data were shredded? Sue left the HM files at MIT. They are being organised to be handed over.
3
What stood out most for me was the issue of data retention. Most institutions have data retention policies that authorize destruction of data after a certain number of institution specified years has passed. Are we now to demand exceptions for brain data? What would be the rubric?
1
This article actually doesn't give any detail about what was shredded. Don't make assumptions.
2
Dr. Corkin was suffering from a serious illness when Luke Dittrich interviewed her, and "She died not long afterward." How convenient for someone with a one-sided story and an axe to grind.
29
All of our stories are "one-sided" pretty much by definition. Corkin's version was no different in that respect. As for her death being "convenient" -- well, what was Dittrich supposed to do? She did die after all and, as far as I know, Dittrich didn't kill her. So what's your point (apart from the fact that you appear to be annoyed by the article)?
5
Karen, If she had an illness that prevented her from making rational decisions, why did her colleagues let her destroy the remains of Henry's brain?
The problem is, there is a good possibility Dr Corkin's research was to some degree "one sided". Research endeavors are supposed be neutral, without an agenda.
3
It saddens me that the data collected about HM may have been destroyed. The data could have continued furthering our understanding of how the brain processes memories. More important to me is the progress made in brain surgery. I had a temporal lobectomy in 1983, with removal of the hippocampus and part of the amygdala in my left temporal lobe. Thanks to HM, they knew to provide the WADA test in advance - a test which determined my capacity of memory formation in the hippocampus and amygdala in my right temporal lobe. Having shown that they were functioning well, surgery was scheduled. The outcome? I am 100% seizure free, after more than 20 years of numerous seizures that left me unemployable and living on SS disability. Today, I am employed full time and love my career - addressing racial equity issues around the country. Thank you, HM; your contributions not only made my quality of life possible, they gave me the opportunity to make a bit of difference in this world through my work.
45
You are incredibly fortunate you weren't left with serious language production issues. Expressive aphasia ("Broca's aphasia") is very common when there is insult to the left temporal lobe. Perhaps you are one of the 5% of left-handers whose right hemisphere is dominant for language?
2
Age tends to diminish our cognitive function, sooner or later. Corkin does become the villain here. Lots of brain surgery should not be done. I have strong feeling on this topic-- having had a cousin die because of complications that occurred albeit many years later. (supposedly cancer at the base of the brain, diagnosed in the course of nasal polyp surgery no longer done. Immediately post surgery she had a severed olfactory nerve (no smell and food virtually tasteless), a drooping eye (double vision), a boxer's nose (some attempt to repair). Oddly, years later (exactly when is impossible to determine) her brain appeared to swell, then shrink and there was some attempt to fix a hole in the skull. She died at age 69,,,and it cannot be said that she suffered badly at the end, altho she was hospitalized several times during the four months preceding her death in hospice and unconscious for the final two or three weeks. What was odd was her loss of function, first cognitive (6 months out at least if not more), then she became negligent in caring for herself (4 months), increased inability to carry out care functions, then could not walk nor feed herself, and finally she mostly "slept." Various infections plagued her-- e.g. urinary tract and Mersa, but the big problem was the shrinking brain.
5
Self interest before the common good is never a good thing Unfortunately most of the world operates as if self interest is a God given right.
10
Fascinating article on how not to behave in Science. In spite of Corkin's malfeasance described here, I do have some sympathy for her as not many women were able to rise to the very top of academia at the time she was at MIT. Imagine what that environment might do to a person. Here she sounds defensive and paranoid. She must have had PhD.'s and post-docs working for her. It would be interesting to hear from them.
14
see page 17 from Health & Human Services on proper handling of Human Subjects data from the Office of Research Integrity at this link:
https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/clinicaltools/data.pdf
https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/clinicaltools/data.pdf
2
What did the article actually tell us about what she did wrong? There is suggestion that records were destroyed, but no confirmation of that, and she definitely would have thought about the consequences. And given that the article has made her sound defensive and paranoid, maybe we should consider whether the article intentionally created that image and for what purpose
3
The best person in this entire sorry, yet hypnotic narrative, is Henry Molaiso.
8
Poor, poor Henry.
15
I wonder if the sacrifice of the patient HM and his brain actually ended up helping other real patients or just advanced the careers of scientists. It would be heartbreaking to learn his life did not translate into tangible medical treatment.
21
I am deeply saddened by this entire endeavor. While I certainly agree there was much to be gleaned scientifically by the study of this man... He was a MAN not a specimen to be poked, prodded, dissected then discarded... I can't help but feel his death was probably the best part of his life. Was there any warmth, companionship... Any ability to experience the world???
7
@Bob D.
The level of cynicism in such a comment is mind-boggling. As opposed to an orthopedic surgeon being able to diagnose and then repair a torn knee ligament--we are unable to “repair” abnormal brain dysfunction.
Except for our current work with MRIs, CT scans, PET Scans, EMGs, EEGs or NC studies, we are only able to examine our nervous systems through injury or disease. I can’t open your skull (the idea IS tempting)to observe brain function. No I must see what doesn’t work with your senses, muscular strength or control, or evaluating memory, or lack of it.
The recently passed Dr. Oliver Sacks was one of our best neurologists and one of the best writers to explain the different consequences of damage to our brain via how ABNORMAL our functions have become. It hurt him deeply not to be able to “fix” things.
Sacks (portrayed by a dramatic Robin Williams as the caring, hard-working doctor in the movie “Awakenings”) did remarkable work in showing us patients with such debilitating disease as H.M--NOT TO ADVANCE HIS CAREER but to advance our KNOWLEDGE so that we can look to find out the cause and then hopefully the treatment for such maladies.
For those of us in medicine these are ALL heart-wrenching stories (cases if you will). We do NOT see ANY such loss of function and its study as “advancing our careers!”
We can fix bad heart valves, set broken bones and they heal. We usually CANNOT repair brain dysfunction...yet!
So we study the abnormal brain to LEARN.
The level of cynicism in such a comment is mind-boggling. As opposed to an orthopedic surgeon being able to diagnose and then repair a torn knee ligament--we are unable to “repair” abnormal brain dysfunction.
Except for our current work with MRIs, CT scans, PET Scans, EMGs, EEGs or NC studies, we are only able to examine our nervous systems through injury or disease. I can’t open your skull (the idea IS tempting)to observe brain function. No I must see what doesn’t work with your senses, muscular strength or control, or evaluating memory, or lack of it.
The recently passed Dr. Oliver Sacks was one of our best neurologists and one of the best writers to explain the different consequences of damage to our brain via how ABNORMAL our functions have become. It hurt him deeply not to be able to “fix” things.
Sacks (portrayed by a dramatic Robin Williams as the caring, hard-working doctor in the movie “Awakenings”) did remarkable work in showing us patients with such debilitating disease as H.M--NOT TO ADVANCE HIS CAREER but to advance our KNOWLEDGE so that we can look to find out the cause and then hopefully the treatment for such maladies.
For those of us in medicine these are ALL heart-wrenching stories (cases if you will). We do NOT see ANY such loss of function and its study as “advancing our careers!”
We can fix bad heart valves, set broken bones and they heal. We usually CANNOT repair brain dysfunction...yet!
So we study the abnormal brain to LEARN.
9
We must take into consideration when this happened. H.M.'s surgery was supposed to rid him of epileptic seizures that had profoundly progressed in severity. At the time, that is in 1940s and 50s, high hopes were placed on ablative surgery in the absence of effective alternate treatment. As an example of an extremely mistaken path, Walter Freeman used lobotomies to 'cure' veterans suffering from PTST and ruined the life of President Kennedy's sister.
Lobotomies were halted all together. H.M.'s surgeon became an outspoken advocate against the drastic bilateral surgery he had undertaken. The surgical methods to treat epilepsy were refined. In the renowned 'split brain' surgeries of the 1960s only the corpus callosum, that is the structure that connects the cerebral hemispheres, was transected in adults. Nobel Prize-laureate Roger Sperry and colleagues would gain important insights into hemispheric interactions from the patients who showed only subtle mental changes. In the 1980s, Dr. Ben Carson removed only parts of one hemisphere to save young children from life-threatening epilepsy without negative effects on their intellectual abilities.
As controlling epilepsy with drugs has been gaining more efficiency, surgeries are less considered as an option.
Lobotomies were halted all together. H.M.'s surgeon became an outspoken advocate against the drastic bilateral surgery he had undertaken. The surgical methods to treat epilepsy were refined. In the renowned 'split brain' surgeries of the 1960s only the corpus callosum, that is the structure that connects the cerebral hemispheres, was transected in adults. Nobel Prize-laureate Roger Sperry and colleagues would gain important insights into hemispheric interactions from the patients who showed only subtle mental changes. In the 1980s, Dr. Ben Carson removed only parts of one hemisphere to save young children from life-threatening epilepsy without negative effects on their intellectual abilities.
As controlling epilepsy with drugs has been gaining more efficiency, surgeries are less considered as an option.
8
Excellent article. Yet another sad commentary on the state of the scientific community.
7
Kudos to the author! This is a fascinating story which touches on many problematic aspects of contemporary brain science. I have watched the sectioning of H.M.'s brain as long as I could stay awake that night. Trained in brain anatomy, I also noticed lesions outside the temporal lobe. As the article points out there can be no final word on H.M.'s brain and mind. As new methods of examination become available, H.M.'s life will be understood in ever evolving novel perspectives. Some of Prof. Corkin's conclusions may prove ill-conceived. Other observations she deemed ancillary may gain importance. Unfortunately, her observations that did not seem to fit the hypothesis of the day may have been lost forever. One problem of today's science is that our system of publishing and funding rewards findings that support current hypotheses. Prof. Corkin seems to have succumbed to that pressure, ignoring seeming misfits in her data.
It is a shame that posturing and haggling over 'rights' among eminent scientists and academic institutions have torn apart the precious wholeness of H.M.'s life story. What is left of it ought to be considered a national treasure. A federal institution should be appointed as the brain's custodian, providing access to any scientist who wishes to study it.
It is a shame that posturing and haggling over 'rights' among eminent scientists and academic institutions have torn apart the precious wholeness of H.M.'s life story. What is left of it ought to be considered a national treasure. A federal institution should be appointed as the brain's custodian, providing access to any scientist who wishes to study it.
19
The brain is not a storeroom or hard drive of memory files just as a tv or radio receiver does not store programs like a DVR. The brain is a transmitter/receiver link between the physical body and the mental body, Mind, which exists independently from the body in imagination, dreams, out of body experiences, and in the afterlife. Aa a young child watching old western movies on tv I was concerned who took care of the horses in there until I realized they were not in there but were coming into the tv somehow from somewhere else. Intelligence, imagination, and creativity are proportional to focus and fine tuning into the infinite mind rather than the normal mental static and confusion we normally experience of unfocused and random memories, thoughts, feelings, and desires
like a child playing with a tv or radio spinning through the channels and frequencies.
like a child playing with a tv or radio spinning through the channels and frequencies.
2
No Jim, the brain IS a "storeroom or hard drive of memory files". It's also, of course, the interface between our "selves" and the physical world in which our bodies exist. Mind does NOT exist "independently" from body anymore than software exists independently from its material supports. Imagination and dreams are the product of the brain's functioning. Destroy key parts of the brain and the dreams and imagination are gone too. "Out of body experiences" (as has been clearly shown -- even in these pages) also happen in the mind -- again, a product of the brain's functioning.
As for the "afterlife", the term is meaningless nonsense.
As for the "afterlife", the term is meaningless nonsense.
1
Excellent article! Freud would have a heyday disecting Sue and Henry's relationship. The 1950's were years of fantastic advancements in neuroscience and in medication development but we forget that these were also the days of lobotomies and other extreme procedures that led to the introduction of research ethics. Where were these MIT ethicists when a university researcher, for all intents and purposes took over Henry's life for her own professional interests? She knew he could not remember so she had a duty to ensure his real family knew where he was and acknowledged his best interests. Now all of Sue Corkin's research is in question, many other researchers and students may have been significantly misled, and her life work has clouded our understanding of memory rather than shedding light.
11
The ethicists were definitely there, and likely concluded that the experiments were acceptable. Might be the description here is incomplete and it's time to go look for other sources that describe the nature of their relationship.
3
It is unbelievable that such great institutions didn't intervene when the data were shredded.
Excellent piece of writing, revealing too.
Excellent piece of writing, revealing too.
10
Powerful story. Thank you for sharing this.
I almost wish Corkin were still alive when this was published. I'm curious as to how she would have responded. It's disturbing, as another reader pointed out below, that she spent so much time with this human being and did not express grief at the time of his death, but instead chose to use the word "ecstatic". It seems terribly cold. It pains me that Henry was victimized this way for research. However important the findings have been. Seeing his pictures you can tell he had the sweetest soul. He deserved to remember his life as it evolved.
I almost wish Corkin were still alive when this was published. I'm curious as to how she would have responded. It's disturbing, as another reader pointed out below, that she spent so much time with this human being and did not express grief at the time of his death, but instead chose to use the word "ecstatic". It seems terribly cold. It pains me that Henry was victimized this way for research. However important the findings have been. Seeing his pictures you can tell he had the sweetest soul. He deserved to remember his life as it evolved.
20
It's almost as if the ecstatic moment was placed there to create a specific emotional response from readers. Likely Corkin has a completely different take on the nature of their relationship than what is shown here, and thinking that she wouldn't be grieved by his death reduces her to less than human.
2
This is such a sad, sad story. I could feel my stomach clutching as I read it. As a psychologist of course I was familiar with the "case" of HM, or at least as it was presented in my university courses. I recently read "The Man Without a Shadow" by Joyce Carol Oates, which I took to explore (among other themes) a fictionalized account of the relationship between HM and his principal female researcher. That character's sense of ownership of her "subject" was disturbing as were her inappropriate and unethical machinations. How appalling now to realize that the reality is in some ways even more disturbing. I wonder if it was that ownership (as well as ego) more than any "coverup" that drove Suzanne Corkin to destroy all those records and data.
15
Maybe it's time to go look for other sources and see if that portrait of this relationship is remotely true.
2
Patient HM is correctly described as the historically most significant subject in memory research. Countless numbers of biology students and MDs in training know of the work done with this patent.
Learning that all the raw data on HM was shredded by Corkin caused the same, shocked, quick intake of breath I experienced when reading that all of Gregor Mendel's original data - the foundation of modern genetics - was burned after his death by the subsequent abbot of his monastery.
Mendel's experiments were all repeated and verified, but there will never be another HM. The destruction of such data strikes me as being no less a crime against human knowledge than the destruction of ancient world heritage archaeological sites by the likes of the Taliban.
It seems Corkin was intent on sealing her own scientific legacy in destroying this data, but instead she irreparably shredded her own credibility. Thank you Luke Dittrich for bringing this entire travesty to light.
Learning that all the raw data on HM was shredded by Corkin caused the same, shocked, quick intake of breath I experienced when reading that all of Gregor Mendel's original data - the foundation of modern genetics - was burned after his death by the subsequent abbot of his monastery.
Mendel's experiments were all repeated and verified, but there will never be another HM. The destruction of such data strikes me as being no less a crime against human knowledge than the destruction of ancient world heritage archaeological sites by the likes of the Taliban.
It seems Corkin was intent on sealing her own scientific legacy in destroying this data, but instead she irreparably shredded her own credibility. Thank you Luke Dittrich for bringing this entire travesty to light.
39
One wonders about Mr. Dittrich's evident conflicts of interest in writing this expose and the book from which it is excerpted. As he acknowledges, Mr. Dittrich is the grandson of the neurosurgeon who performed the neurosurgical resection on HM, but his grandfather's role in this controversial procedure is glossed over with the following terse but provocative statement: "The questionable ethics that were the backdrop to Henry’s operation — a catastrophic blurring of the lines between medical research and medical practice — became clear early on..." While he impugns Dr. Corkin, he writes in highly laudatory terms of her mentor Dr. Milner, who initiated the neuropsychological studies conducted with HM and who was far closer to the "catastrophic blurring of the lines between medical research and medical practice", as he puts it. One hopes that this expose is not motivated by any personal settling of scores or attempted deflection of blame that he sees fit to ascribe in a narrative in which his family was intimately involved.
25
Dr. Annese represents what is right with science, and Dr. Corkin what is wrong with it. Dr. Annese's vision and goal of freely sharing the raw data and images is precisely what is needed to advance both the study of the brain and public engagement in science and medicine. His website, live streaming, and other methods may be outside of the norm in science, but It brings the brain outside of the lab and makes it accessible to other scientists and anyone with an internet connection. My opinion is admittedly biased, as I know Dr. Annese both personally and professionally, but I have a very high regard for him and his ideas and vision.
As a scientist studying brain imaging, I was drawn to his website several years ago and was fascinated with the enormous detail in the brain. The most advanced MRI techniques are incapable of visualizing the brain at such a microscopic level, and his work has helped us as a field develop a deeper understanding of the brain and what we are looking at with MRI. I used the data from his website and it resulted in a publication with him as a collaborator: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23378830 The current push from the NIH to promote reliability and repeatability in science starts with sharing resources and data. It's unfathomable Dr. Corkin would ever even consider destroying data if she truly believed in the process of science.
Looking forward to the full book.
As a scientist studying brain imaging, I was drawn to his website several years ago and was fascinated with the enormous detail in the brain. The most advanced MRI techniques are incapable of visualizing the brain at such a microscopic level, and his work has helped us as a field develop a deeper understanding of the brain and what we are looking at with MRI. I used the data from his website and it resulted in a publication with him as a collaborator: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23378830 The current push from the NIH to promote reliability and repeatability in science starts with sharing resources and data. It's unfathomable Dr. Corkin would ever even consider destroying data if she truly believed in the process of science.
Looking forward to the full book.
11
Phineas Gage did not become a "hellion" as the urban legend version of his story goes. In fact the documentation of his behavior is so sparse it is impossible to conclude how much his personality might have changed. He also spent years after the accident working as a stagecoach driver, a job which requires significant dexterity and skill. This article from Slate does a good job describing the story:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/05/phineas...
It is disappointing to see this oversight in an otherwise brilliantly researched article.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/05/phineas...
It is disappointing to see this oversight in an otherwise brilliantly researched article.
4
We must learn and judge from the experiences of others. This must be done with humility. We must always remember "We are human and nothing human is alien to me." We can identify with Mr. Molaison AND Dr. Corkin. They both teach us about ourselves in ways neither would ever had intended.
When we demonize we lose something of our own intelligence. We must all find some tenderness in our understanding. We all often do not know what we do. We can forgive but not forget. And thank you Luke Dittrich for making me think. -Rudy
When we demonize we lose something of our own intelligence. We must all find some tenderness in our understanding. We all often do not know what we do. We can forgive but not forget. And thank you Luke Dittrich for making me think. -Rudy
6
As a scientist myself, I am going to tell you what that woman did in no uncertain terms: getting rid of evidence of her malpractice, both scientific and ethical. Nothing less.
26
How did you come to that conclusion? Certainly not from this article which gives no detail and no confirmation...
2
This is one of the most fascinating articles I have ever read. Thank you.
5
Readers of this article should keep in mind that it is not an unbiased record of events. The author has a perspective through which all of the information is filtered. To decide that Dr. Corkin is somehow suspicious, based on this article, is to ignore her decades of work with and care for Henry. Keep in mind that this author wanted to (and eventually did) publish a book about Henry which caused him to be in professional competition with Dr. Corkin. This likely affects his perspective. Consider also that he assumes a right to Henry's story by virtue of being the grandson of the surgeon who caused Henry's deficit. It is more disturbing to me to see a descendant of Scoville profiting from his grandfather's malpractice.
29
Anyone has a right to write a story about anyone. It's called freedom of speech.
The question however here is why were the slides of Henry's brain destroyed?
The question however here is why were the slides of Henry's brain destroyed?
Who did more to honor H.M.'s legacy? Dr Corkin in destroying data, which may have brought her own research into question (i.e. Frontal lobe injury was not factored it)? Or the descendant of Scoville, in writing this article and book?
1
All data and observations on Mr. Moliason should be placed in a public trust, accessible by all. His legacy is too import to be selectively picked over and filtered. There are still discoveries to be made.
10
As a neuroscience researcher I can't imagine any justification for destroying records or primary observations of Mr. Moliason. Any documentation of HM is of scientific and historical importance. If grant funds were used to collect the data, they belong to the public. The excuses offered by Suzanne Corkin ring hollow. All data from The HM studies should be placed in a digital repository, accessible by all.
10
The notion that Phineas Gage underwent a dramatic personality change after a rod was driven through his brain is a notion that the neuro community has cited in support of its claims of how the mind works, for at least a hundred years. And it is almost certainly a false notion. For anybody who wants to confirm this, Wikipedia has a reasonably detailed summary of the actual best evidence about Phineas Gage, and there are many other factual references to the history of the Gage case if you don't like Wikipedia. The actual evidence leads one to the opposite conclusion of what is claimed - there was *no* significant personality change in Phineas Gage, in spite of a horrendous brain injury.
So, if anything, the best historical evidence about Phineas Gage refutes modern notions of who we are and how we operate. And there are numerous cases of people who have little brain material remaining, due to disease or things such as surgical removal of a brain hemisphere, and such people seem to retain their personality and their memories.
Isn't science supposed to help us explain *all* of the evidence? I think so. When is the neuro community going to take off its blinders, stop regurgitating false stories such as the one about Phineas Gage, and start taking an unbiased look at all of the available evidence?
So, if anything, the best historical evidence about Phineas Gage refutes modern notions of who we are and how we operate. And there are numerous cases of people who have little brain material remaining, due to disease or things such as surgical removal of a brain hemisphere, and such people seem to retain their personality and their memories.
Isn't science supposed to help us explain *all* of the evidence? I think so. When is the neuro community going to take off its blinders, stop regurgitating false stories such as the one about Phineas Gage, and start taking an unbiased look at all of the available evidence?
3
"his memory was already severely impaired." Yes that's a rather critical finding worth mentioning!
As to the part at the very end. Plato's cave came to mind and i remember college days of us going over same ground as to what's art or creativity vs just mindless repetition. In a weird way Henry was caught in a latter unproductive loop. Rather tragic but guess could be said of a lot of people who can remember but can't/won't/don't get to fresh ground.
As to the part at the very end. Plato's cave came to mind and i remember college days of us going over same ground as to what's art or creativity vs just mindless repetition. In a weird way Henry was caught in a latter unproductive loop. Rather tragic but guess could be said of a lot of people who can remember but can't/won't/don't get to fresh ground.
I worked in a hippocampal research lab for a few years. As a grad student, I was raised on tales of "H.M.". I'm not sure but I think I may have chatted with Suzanne at the Society for Neuroscience in '82. So when I finally heard recordings of Mr. Molaison talking, a few years ago on CBC radio, it was like...a voice from beyond, like getting a phone call from Thomas Edison or Leonardo Da Vinci.
Even though the lab my (now) wife and I worked in closed down in 1978, after the prof died from stomach cancer, I hung onto the raw data until 2005 or so. I still have most of the (rat) brain slides, and take them out once in a while, wishing that I had kept the paper documentation of the behavioural quirks that went with each one.
Mr. Molaison's contribution to science can never be overestimated, even if he was unaware of it. As the decades flash by, and another generation of hotshot grad students and faculty comes and goes, I hope his contribution is remembered and cherished. And although things seemed to take a weird and ugly twist towards the end, I hope Dr. Corkin's contribution is valued as well.
An uncomfortable read, but a worthy one.
Even though the lab my (now) wife and I worked in closed down in 1978, after the prof died from stomach cancer, I hung onto the raw data until 2005 or so. I still have most of the (rat) brain slides, and take them out once in a while, wishing that I had kept the paper documentation of the behavioural quirks that went with each one.
Mr. Molaison's contribution to science can never be overestimated, even if he was unaware of it. As the decades flash by, and another generation of hotshot grad students and faculty comes and goes, I hope his contribution is remembered and cherished. And although things seemed to take a weird and ugly twist towards the end, I hope Dr. Corkin's contribution is valued as well.
An uncomfortable read, but a worthy one.
3
Well -written and interesting article by Dittrich, but he fails to say WHY finding that different types of learning occur in different parts of the brain is important. Although this in itself does not explain much, it allows the next much more important step: studying HOW the different circuitry in these differing brain structures underlies the differences in learning - differences so marked that only one type underlies what we usually mean by "memories". I would go a bit further: Henry Molaison was much more than his lost memory: his entire personality, style and even distinctive understanding the world was largely intact, despite the loss of brain structures underlying memory. He seems to have been a nicer person than some of the scientists who used him. One is no more the sum of one's memories than one is the sum of one's possessions.
7
Nicely said. I woke up this morning after last night's read, seemingly more in tune about the "Big Picture." What is going on with all our minds, our values, what we learn, how we react, indicates to me that life may be one big planned mystery.
2
As a budding researcher with a brother who also has undergone multiple brain surgeries to control epilepsy, and whose capacity to consent is severely compromised (he once signed up for and underwent an experimental brain surgery without realizing what he had done), I shudder at the thought of HM spending any time in the hands of someone as callous, self-interested and obviously devoid of compassion as Corkin. Also, as the funding institution, didn't MIT own Corkin's work in some measure or at least have a say in its disposition? I don't know whether research is considered "work for hire" or not but the events reported in this article should serve as a warning shot. Did the author reach out to MIT to try to intervene in Corkin's planned annihilation of her records?
2
Why would you assume a picture of Corkin as a storybook villain is remotely accurate? Have you ever actually met a real person that is like that?
Given how many questions you ask about the situation raised here, you might suspect the article is incomplete...
Given how many questions you ask about the situation raised here, you might suspect the article is incomplete...
1
A very well written scientific who done it. I would now like to read his book.
It seems that Ms. Corkin had drawn a conclusion long before she went about looking for evidence.
To me, this is not an uncommon occurrence especially today - just witness current legal proceedings in many situations.
Baltimore police indictments are one case in point.
It's just that Ms,. Corkin was in a position where she could get away with it. And by destroying evidence, she indeed did.
Mr. Luke - thank you. You would have made your grandfather proud.
It seems that Ms. Corkin had drawn a conclusion long before she went about looking for evidence.
To me, this is not an uncommon occurrence especially today - just witness current legal proceedings in many situations.
Baltimore police indictments are one case in point.
It's just that Ms,. Corkin was in a position where she could get away with it. And by destroying evidence, she indeed did.
Mr. Luke - thank you. You would have made your grandfather proud.
1
There is a feeling among non-scientists, who have not published in technical journals, that the anonymous peer review process ensures validity of scientific findings. That is not always true. While a better alternative is yet to be found, the peer review process, just like democracy, is rather imperfect. While editors strive to make the best possible selection of reviewers, the result is not always what it should be. As such, the validity of the published results very much depends on selected few among many of the experts in the field. Given human nature, what gets through the review process and what does not depends on the expertise and the objectivity of the chosen reviewers, who might have themselves published on the topic under review. It is not unusual for reviewers to reject an important finding, simply because it does not agree with prevailing consensus view or their own biases. This is why peer-reviewed research has become consensus-driven and lateral thinking is often discouraged and unfunded. The main goal of peer review is to make sure that the study has been done in a proper manner and the findings do not violate fundamental laws of science as we know it. Ultimately, it is posterity that decides the validity and utility of the findings and not the peers.
This story is educative, since it shows that some (not all) scientists often do things that they should not do, like shredding the basic data underlying important findings! It is an imperfect world we live in!
This story is educative, since it shows that some (not all) scientists often do things that they should not do, like shredding the basic data underlying important findings! It is an imperfect world we live in!
3
As a scientist I am appalled at Corkin's and MIT's behavior. Shame on both of them. I feel very sorry for Henry. Corkin did not seem to have any love for Henry. Obviously Corkin engaged in unethical behavior when she presented Mooney as being Henry's next of kin. Corkin comes across as being pathological. Her work is now very tainted. As is the work of her collaborators. To get access to Henry, or the data, her collaborators must have had to agreed to her conditions. As a result. Everything is tainted. None of it is to be trusted. What a waste. What a sad story. Excellent reporting. It will make a great book.
9
What makes you think this picture of her is accurate? Almost nothing is documented or confirmed from other sources
1
It was quite enjoyable to read about how we learn a lot about the brain when it doesn't work right. As a pilot, I slowly became aware that, no matter how well I thought I understood aircraft systems from studying and classroom teaching, it wasn't until systems broke in real life that I truly understood how they worked and also how they both depended upon and affected other systems in the aircraft. Same goes for the brain and all the "systems" in our bodies.
3
As Dr. Corkin's laboratory manager at the time Dr. Annese first came to MIT, I find this article sickening. It misrepresents the efforts of Dr. Corkin and MIT as well as ignoring the obligation to respect the privacy and agreements made with participants in neuroscience research. Further, this article is obviously written from the point of view of someone who is not a scientists working with human subjects. Dr. Annese was just one of thousands of scientists trying to gain access to H.M.'s data and brains. Dr. Corkin spent decades trying to protect H.M. from the press and the public. For the record, a great deal of scientific data is shredded or destroyed, as per ethical guidelines. While it might be the wishes of young scientists or laypeople to dig through decades data looking to make their next big break by finding some small morsel in it, it is not in Dr. Corkin's power to make public data which were consented only for use within the laboratory. Personally, I find it distasteful to have been published so soon after Dr. Corkin's death. She was an amazing female scientist who truly practiced great, clean science, and this article is nothing short of shameful.
41
My sense is that there is a lot of imagination invested by others here in what the "destroyed data" consist of, and whether something was lost that might have been re-analyzable to great insight.
When I used to run fornix-lesioned rats for a prof, I would keep records of their puzzled meandering in the maze, and mental records of their patterns of mistakes (which were fascinating, I must say). But the "data" used by the researcher was essentially how many correct out of 20 trials for the day, and the slope of the learnng curve. So what is the "data": the formal stuff used for published results, or the informal notes I kept, which nobody but myself would have been able to interpret? In the Molaison/Corkin case, what is the data: informal notes about how Henry arrived at remembering something, or simply whether he got it right or wrong? I have no insight into that case, but I imagine many strenuous objectors here don't have any either. And would Dr. Corkin herself been able to look back at notes taken 30 years ago or more and make sense of them in light of new histological information? Science is full of "if only I'd known then". I don't fault her for making the same mistake countless others have made and will continue to make.
When I used to run fornix-lesioned rats for a prof, I would keep records of their puzzled meandering in the maze, and mental records of their patterns of mistakes (which were fascinating, I must say). But the "data" used by the researcher was essentially how many correct out of 20 trials for the day, and the slope of the learnng curve. So what is the "data": the formal stuff used for published results, or the informal notes I kept, which nobody but myself would have been able to interpret? In the Molaison/Corkin case, what is the data: informal notes about how Henry arrived at remembering something, or simply whether he got it right or wrong? I have no insight into that case, but I imagine many strenuous objectors here don't have any either. And would Dr. Corkin herself been able to look back at notes taken 30 years ago or more and make sense of them in light of new histological information? Science is full of "if only I'd known then". I don't fault her for making the same mistake countless others have made and will continue to make.
3
Emily Connally makes a fair & true point. In human subjects research, the IRB [Institutional Review Board] as well as the HIPAA Privacy Rule require protection of the patient and any identifying information. It would not have been possible for Corkin to strip identifying information from her data. Corkin and Annese are working in different realms of science: hers is the person; his is lab specimen. Yes, it would have been supremely interesting to have all her social science, patient data curated somewhere, but she did indeed act within the legal and moral restraints required in this type of research. Perhaps this indicates a need for petitions for exception to the rule, but then who among us would sign those confidentiality agreements as experimental subjects?
SEE ALSO: The Belmont Report and NIH guidelines
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm
SEE ALSO: The Belmont Report and NIH guidelines
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm
10
Dr. Corkin's responsibility was to protect HM's identity, not the primary data on which the many papers she published were based. It is accepted practice in psychology, neuroscience, and many other disciplines -- and has been for decades -- to make available raw data to those who request it after one publishes a paper. Many journals require that researchers deposit raw data in an archive for anyone to interrogate. I left the article with the uncomfortable feeling that she didn't just horde a scientific resource to advance her own career during his life, but then did what she could to ensure that no one questioned any of her findings after his death.
6
The unacknowledged theme of "The brain that couldn't remember" is that ethical quandaries arise in careers that cannot be imagined at inception. This applies to every individual mentioned in the article as well as the author himself.
As a practical matter, I have never been asked to produce the data for my twenty published peer-reviewed papers, even forty-three years after the publication of the first. These papers are widely cited decade after decade. (For the record, I have preserved my data for each in movement among six universities. Only one insisted on placement of data in its archive.)
As a practical matter, I have never been asked to produce the data for my twenty published peer-reviewed papers, even forty-three years after the publication of the first. These papers are widely cited decade after decade. (For the record, I have preserved my data for each in movement among six universities. Only one insisted on placement of data in its archive.)
3
The notion that Phineas Gage underwent a dramatic personality change after a rod was driven through his brain is a notion that the neuro community has cited in support of its claims of how the mind works, for at least a hundred years. And it is almost certainly a false notion. For anybody who wants to confirm this, Wikipedia has a reasonably detailed summary of the actual best evidence about Phineas Gage, and there are many other factual references to the history and details of the Gage case if you don't like Wikipedia. The actual evidence leads one to the opposite conclusion of what is claimed, because there was *no* significant personality change in Phineas Gage, in spite of a horrendous brain injury.
So, if anything, the best historical evidence about Phineas Gage refutes modern notions of who we are and how we operate. And there are numerous cases of people who have little brain material remaining, due to disease or things such as surgical removal of a brain hemisphere, and such people retain their personality and their memories.
Isn't science supposed to help us explain *all* of the evidence? I think so. When is the neuro community going to take off its blinders, stop regurgitating false stories such as the one about Phineas Gage, and start taking an unbiased look at all of the available evidence?
So, if anything, the best historical evidence about Phineas Gage refutes modern notions of who we are and how we operate. And there are numerous cases of people who have little brain material remaining, due to disease or things such as surgical removal of a brain hemisphere, and such people retain their personality and their memories.
Isn't science supposed to help us explain *all* of the evidence? I think so. When is the neuro community going to take off its blinders, stop regurgitating false stories such as the one about Phineas Gage, and start taking an unbiased look at all of the available evidence?
3
Why would a research scientist destroy data that was collected over a lifetime? Dr. Corkin may have contributed something of value to the study of memory or maybe not. Without the raw data researchers have no basis to confirm or repudiate her findings. It is troubling when a researcher's ego controls their findings.
9
Hmm, why would they? Maybe she actually didn't destroy anything meaningful. She definitely would have known the consequences, and the article doesn't give enough detail to make any real conclusion there
1
This is the exact reason that many journals require to make data publicly available upon publication. Many journals will also serve as the data repository. Corkin's claim "it's peer reviewed" and thus it's entered into the permanent scientific record, and she can discard the original data, is simply not how science is supposed to conducted.
This case appears to be academic and scientific fraud, in addition to the other many ethical questions it raises about consent and "ownership" of a brain, of data, and the integrity of any published results by Corkin.
It seems quite obvious that Corkin was trying to prevent anyone from casting doubt on her findings... To the detriment to society as a whole.
This case appears to be academic and scientific fraud, in addition to the other many ethical questions it raises about consent and "ownership" of a brain, of data, and the integrity of any published results by Corkin.
It seems quite obvious that Corkin was trying to prevent anyone from casting doubt on her findings... To the detriment to society as a whole.
16
An incredibly well-written, informative article, and an extraordinary story. Thank you very much for this.
4
Disagree. Nothing is documented or confirmed by multiple sources.
1
I can see that Henry's case involves a great deal of guilt on all sides, including both Corbin and the writer of this interesting piece. Rest in Peace, Henry.
4
This article is excellent and a fresh reminder of the quality of work the Times has entranced me with in the past. The polar-opposite of the "Modern Love" column. What a beautiful piece. The ethical and methodological considerations are a paradigm of the ever-changing nature of advancing the frontier of human knowledge.
1
Is the scientist doing the research to learn something to contribute to science or to enhance ones standing? The scientific community, among others, evaluates their peers on what they publish.
It appears here that Corkin started out to learn and contribute to science but then her ego took over.
It appears here that Corkin started out to learn and contribute to science but then her ego took over.
1
Fascinating piece. I could have read even more. Corkin's decades-long monopoly on the patient gave her an enormous responsibility. The reporting as presented leads one to the inescapable conclusion that Corkin was at least irresponsible and probably worse. What a small person she seems to be in this piece. Surely scientists need protocols in place to protect both the process and the patients.
3
If you want to read more you should. There's no way that a few-page article is the whole story, given that the research was carried out over decades involving real, three-dimensional people.
Given that you thought about the need for protocols to protect subjects in the space of a sentence, I can assure you the people who do research and oversee it have definitely spend a significant portion of their lives making sure they have respected their subjects
Given that you thought about the need for protocols to protect subjects in the space of a sentence, I can assure you the people who do research and oversee it have definitely spend a significant portion of their lives making sure they have respected their subjects
1
All these people who did research on Mr. Molaison made careers out of this man's suffering. The surgeon should have been sued for malpractice for causing so much injury with the surgery. (Henry did not receive an operation, he was operated on by the surgeon.) All the rest of the scientists were more or less voyeurs to this man's miserable existence. For how long and how many times did they have to ask the same questions over and over. It is clear that all they wanted was to dissect his brain after he died and Corkin was ecstatic at the prospect. This reminds me of the doctor's comments after David, the boy in the plastic bubble died. "Good, now we can do an autopsy." Scientists like this who have no feelings whatsoever for their subjects of study, make me sick.
They asked Mr.Molaison for consent to examine his brain after death. This was consent he couldn't give because he wouldn't have any recollection of the discussion. The second person was a very distant cousin who had no real relationship so why would he care. Suzanne Corkin cared even less that they were taking advantage of a disabled man. How despicable this whole situation is. They should take the brain and all the little slides that everyone has hidden in their files and give Mr. Molaison some dignity by burying his brain with his body. Haven't the scientists and doctors taking advantage of this man long enough? We should dissect the brains of some of these scientists to find out why they have no feelings.
They asked Mr.Molaison for consent to examine his brain after death. This was consent he couldn't give because he wouldn't have any recollection of the discussion. The second person was a very distant cousin who had no real relationship so why would he care. Suzanne Corkin cared even less that they were taking advantage of a disabled man. How despicable this whole situation is. They should take the brain and all the little slides that everyone has hidden in their files and give Mr. Molaison some dignity by burying his brain with his body. Haven't the scientists and doctors taking advantage of this man long enough? We should dissect the brains of some of these scientists to find out why they have no feelings.
8
The raw paper data of the past tends to be coded strings of numbers impossible to interpret out of context. Today we have computers, and unlike thousands of sheets of paper, digitized data is easy to store. As a careful scientist Sue Corkin believed that the gold standard in science was the peer-reviewed article with tabulated data included for future reinterpretation, perhaps in the context of HM’s digitized brain, or for comparison with future amnesiacs. One could wonder why MIT did not employ science archivists to sort the HM data, and store it perhaps with his brain, wherever that ends up. Perhaps they decided that the raw data were no longer of any scientific value. Corkin would never destroy useful data, and certainly not to hide the “truth”. For those horrified by the idea of HM being studied for so long, in his case it was the unethical neurosurgery that did the damage. Sue Corkin likely saved him from ending up neglected in a back ward of a psychiatric hospital. Instead he lived out his life in a quality home with people who enjoyed his company and whose company he enjoyed, if only in each moment. HM’s frequent comment “I know one thing; what is learned about me will help other people” may not have been “fully informed,” but it is a healthier attitude than feeling, in the moment, bitter. Given the tragedy of HM’s epilepsy and surgery, I believe that because of Brenda Milner and Sue Corkin, the fifty years that followed, were, for Henry, the best they could be.
12
I get the feeling, as I do almost hourly these days, "what is wrong with people?" Could someone really be that awful? Perhaps he talked with some of her colleagues and includes in book. How sad.
2
Could someone really be that awful? It's almost like we should find out if that image of her is accurate at all before drawing conclusions
1
The mind is the universe's cry for help.
3
In my experience, academics can be as occult and hermetic as the medieval monks they allegedly replaced. This is more common than the "layman" would expect.
Dr. Corkin sounds like a prime example. Her interest is not knowledge but the control of knowledge.
We have not evolved that much, you know. The Name of the Rose is still relevant...
Dr. Corkin sounds like a prime example. Her interest is not knowledge but the control of knowledge.
We have not evolved that much, you know. The Name of the Rose is still relevant...
6
May be construed as saccharin but even the most brilliant among us are in the end humans who respond more to an external perception than internal conviction.
So much for walking upright.
So much for walking upright.
2
I liked this article, though I think it was a bit too detailed --almost like an essay. Could be shortened by the author. A very sad story in a most ways
2
Dittrich's article itself is shortened from his book.
thank you for your article. I am a neurobiologist, of some renown. Last year at a conference in Germany, I was asked to speak to a number of graduate students about how to have a successful scientific career. I told them, "pick a relatively simple story and stick to it". When asked what happens if your data doesn't fit, I said, "NEVER publish that data". When asked what to do if someone else published data that didn't fit - I said "deny it, and do your best to block their future research". One of the somewhat bewildered students then said "that didn't sound like doing science", I said "that wasn't what I was asked to talk about". Some of the NYTs readers might find my position somewhat cynical - however, sadly, in my experience biological science and especially neuroscience is more and more this way. As you may know, the actual complexity of the HM lesion, and especially its extent, has been a subject of debate and concern for some time, making the story much more complicated, perhaps than some would want.
5
Similar to von Monakow's diaschisis, over H.M.'s long life the ablation may have induced degeneration in parts of the brain far distant from the original site of surgery and his performance may have changed in effect. Prof. Corkin and colleagues may have followed your 'advice' all too closely.
4
Like others have commented, all I needed to read to make an assessment of Corkin was her being 'ecstatic' at seeing the lifeless brain pulled out of a man she actively worked with and benefited from for decades; let alone everything the article goes into following that segment.
There is something so deeply perverse about her use of that word that it's stuck with me all day since reading the passage this morning. The dissociation on her part is unreal and strikes me as the behavior of someone who is (was) a borderline sociopath.
There is something so deeply perverse about her use of that word that it's stuck with me all day since reading the passage this morning. The dissociation on her part is unreal and strikes me as the behavior of someone who is (was) a borderline sociopath.
5
So you took a single word, stripped of the expected emotional context (grief at the loss of a longtime companion), and formed your opinion of a person based on that?
Kudos to the author! This is a fascinating story which touches on many problematic aspects of contemporary brain science.
I have watched the sectioning of H.M.'s brain as long as I could stay awake that night. Trained in brain anatomy, I also noticed lesions outside the temporal lobe.
As the article points out there can be no final word on H.M.'s brain and mind. As new methods of examination become available, H.M.'s life will be understood in ever evolving novel perspectives. Some of Prof. Corkin's conclusions may prove ill-conceived. Other observations she deemed ancillary may gain importance. Unfortunately, her observations that did not seem to fit the hypothesis of the day may have been lost forever.
One problem of today's science is that our system of publishing and funding rewards findings that support current hypotheses. Prof. Corkin seems to have fallen victim to that pressure, ignoring seeming misfits.
It is a shame that posturing and haggling over 'rights' amongst eminent scientists and academic institutions have torn apart the precious wholeness of H.M.'s life story. What is left of it ought to be considered a national treasure. A federal institution should be appointed as the brain's custodian, providing access to any scientist who wishes to study it.
I have watched the sectioning of H.M.'s brain as long as I could stay awake that night. Trained in brain anatomy, I also noticed lesions outside the temporal lobe.
As the article points out there can be no final word on H.M.'s brain and mind. As new methods of examination become available, H.M.'s life will be understood in ever evolving novel perspectives. Some of Prof. Corkin's conclusions may prove ill-conceived. Other observations she deemed ancillary may gain importance. Unfortunately, her observations that did not seem to fit the hypothesis of the day may have been lost forever.
One problem of today's science is that our system of publishing and funding rewards findings that support current hypotheses. Prof. Corkin seems to have fallen victim to that pressure, ignoring seeming misfits.
It is a shame that posturing and haggling over 'rights' amongst eminent scientists and academic institutions have torn apart the precious wholeness of H.M.'s life story. What is left of it ought to be considered a national treasure. A federal institution should be appointed as the brain's custodian, providing access to any scientist who wishes to study it.
8
Luke,
Thank you for writing and sharing this story. As always, your writing is eloquent and evocative. As one of the members of the team created those 2401 slices, I am often disappointed with the final outcome of our work. I can only hope that, as you write, future generations of scientists will have access to the research. The acrimony that arose from the war over the tissue and the data was painful and frustrating, but I'm so glad that the story is getting told.
Thank you for writing and sharing this story. As always, your writing is eloquent and evocative. As one of the members of the team created those 2401 slices, I am often disappointed with the final outcome of our work. I can only hope that, as you write, future generations of scientists will have access to the research. The acrimony that arose from the war over the tissue and the data was painful and frustrating, but I'm so glad that the story is getting told.
11
I think unfortunately what garners attention these days are stories about the supposed dark underbelly of human nature - scientists hiding data, politicians deleting e-mails, etc. for some nefarious purpose. The author shows little or no knowledge of the day-to-day difficulties of trying to balance the needs and dignity of individuals who have suffered brain trauma and disability when they altruistically engage in studies to advance science, and what is required on the part of scientists to be able to make generalizations from their specific case that will advance our knowledge and hopefully improve medical treatment for others. Prof. Brenda Milner's work with H.M. definitely showed that the hippocampus is a critical structure for the formation of long-term memories, and that patients with frontal lobe damage do not show such impairments. Hence, even if H.M. did have an undetected frontal lobe lesion, it is unlikely to cause a reinterpretation of either Prof. Milner's or Prof. Corkin's work. Moreover, many other scientists besides Prof. Corkin tested H.M. over the years. While I agree that preserving the data would likely have been ideal, I also know as a scientist who has worked with clinical populations that sometimes the data isn't worth saving. For example, If H.M. kept falling asleep during a testing session, I too might not have archived the data from that day, as it could lead future scientists astray. But, that doesn't make for sensational journalism, does it?
23
The interview excerpts suggest Dr. Corkin feared that her reputation would be damaged, and it might be, but I also expect she did the best she could and accomplished much through what must have been challenging work. It's too bad she couldn't get beyond the fiction she created in her mind to let the world see the whole truth.
2
It is incomprehensible that MIT did not act as the owner of the raw data from Corkin's research. Her data and lab notes were not her personal property. It is unforgiveable for a university to allow a scientist to act as if she owned these data herself. There may be other sides to this story than what we know from this highly interesting article, but both Corkin and MIT are seriously flawed by her treatment of raw data as her own property to discard through her own decision.
Also, there seems to be major ethical concerns about Corkin's and MIT's treatment of their subject while he was alive.
It will be interesting to see how MIT will respond to this article and the book.
Thanks to NYT for a highly interesting story!
Also, there seems to be major ethical concerns about Corkin's and MIT's treatment of their subject while he was alive.
It will be interesting to see how MIT will respond to this article and the book.
Thanks to NYT for a highly interesting story!
10
Given the major ethical concerns that are immediately apparent and that you've raised in the space of a comment, why would you assume that everyone remotely involved in the work hasn't spent countless hours discussing these ethics to make sure HM was given the protection and respect he deserved? It's like the article is only presenting one view of the story...
1
Of all the unfortunate factors described in this article, the one that strikes me as most significant is the seeming absence of any involvement of MIT. I'd like to know how a faculty member can dispose of research on their own initiative. I thought all such research belongs to the institution and not to an individual researcher. What is the current protocol--the rules and regulations?
9
MIT has definitely been involved since before the research began. Leaving out such an important detail is conspicuous, huh? Like the author forgot something?
1
This story is so interesting, and I am even more fascinated because of Joyce Carol Oates.
When I saw this on NYT and then read the first paragraph I thought, 'you have to be kidding me.' Joyce Carol Oates recently published 'The Man Without A Shadow', which is fiction of course, but nevertheless follows a woman who is a psychologist and closely cares for an amnesiac man for decades. The amnesiac in Oates' world has the memory span of 90 seconds.
Either Oates knew of this case or by chance created a similar story. Either way, she's brilliant and captures this story in its essence.
When I saw this on NYT and then read the first paragraph I thought, 'you have to be kidding me.' Joyce Carol Oates recently published 'The Man Without A Shadow', which is fiction of course, but nevertheless follows a woman who is a psychologist and closely cares for an amnesiac man for decades. The amnesiac in Oates' world has the memory span of 90 seconds.
Either Oates knew of this case or by chance created a similar story. Either way, she's brilliant and captures this story in its essence.
3
Joyce Carol Oates is married to a distinguished Princeton neuroscience professor.
there are aspects of this story that are as troubling as the Anna Stubblefield facilitated communication case.
6
A very interesting comparison; thanks for your comment.
So probably we should go look for more sources to see if they're true before we make any kind of conclusion
The artist Kerry Tribe did an artwork based on HM. Here is a link: http://www.kerrytribe.com/project/h-m/#video
4
Extraordinary article. Poorly paraphrasing a classic movie, I would title it "The Cook and The Thief".
Josefina Alvarez
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Josefina Alvarez
Santa Fe, New Mexico
17
I am a research scientist (with a recently acquired brain injury) deeply ashamed and disturbed by Corkin's reckless, suspicious and unprofessional behavior. MIT and its associated IRB condoned these activities? Who next will be fighting for pieces of Henry's brain, should any still exist? Thank you Henry for your important contributions to understanding our brains.
88
I am not surprised. Corkin never claimed that HM had retrograde amnesia but soon after researchers showed that the hippocampus does play a role in retrieving past memories there she was claiming the HM had the same deficit. Went I approached her in a conference to discuss this issue she basically came a cross as arrogant. I felt that she did not have an interest in science. She was more interested in looking good. Given the fact that she destroyed the original data of such an important case I would call for have a full investigation by those who supported her research (i.e., NIH?)
8
To jettison is to throw overboard. That's not what happened to that iron rod. It was driven (by an explosion) through the man's brain.
22
very, very well done article. amazingly researched and written. thank you luke.
27
How does one rectify spending so much time with another human and with feeling "ecstatic" when they see his lifeless brain? Was he not a person?And, wasn't the endless questioning uncomfortable for H.M?
Human subjects are still people. This poor man was exploited.
Human subjects are still people. This poor man was exploited.
100
I do not think criticism based on emotion is appropriate in this circumstance. Mr. Molaison was unable to take care of himself, he was treated well, and the study of his brain could prove beneficial to billions of people. Furthermore, what difference at all does it make how people feel about viewing a lifeless brain? My own reaction, just to the photograph of the brain, was (is) one of awe and wonder at the complexity and magnificence of evolution and creation.
1
"Mooney told me that he and Henry were third cousins, very distant relations."
Third cousins means they had great-grandparents who were siblings. It is not unusual these days for small children to have one or more living great-grandparents. Third and fourth cousins in my family attend an annual reunion nearly every year. Attorney Mooney's relationship to Henry Molaison may have been something of a hoax, but not because it was "distant," certainly not "very distant."
Third cousins means they had great-grandparents who were siblings. It is not unusual these days for small children to have one or more living great-grandparents. Third and fourth cousins in my family attend an annual reunion nearly every year. Attorney Mooney's relationship to Henry Molaison may have been something of a hoax, but not because it was "distant," certainly not "very distant."
8
Or put another way, third cousins mean they had the same great-great-grandparents.
I wouldn't describe it as "very distant", but "distant," I think, is fair.
Most people have no earthly idea who their third cousins are.
A scientist's reaction to finding new data shouldn't be to cover it up. COrkin comes off very badly here. This little bit of history is fascinating and I look forward to the book. I hope it has a nice family tree in it...
I wouldn't describe it as "very distant", but "distant," I think, is fair.
Most people have no earthly idea who their third cousins are.
A scientist's reaction to finding new data shouldn't be to cover it up. COrkin comes off very badly here. This little bit of history is fascinating and I look forward to the book. I hope it has a nice family tree in it...
1
That woman is definitely trying to hide something. All of her responses to perfectly reasonable questions were very defensive, even hostile. Shredding all the primary source documents is definitely not normal, why would she do that unless there's something in them she doesn't want found. Good scientists want to share and collaborate to make new discoveries, bad ones want to control and hide and cover their rear ends.
98
As Luke Dittrich, began writing about Henry Molaison he obviously thought he had a fascinating scientific story. He did, just not the story that he imagined. Instead of a spellbinding narrative about a questionable surgical procedure that ultimately led to breakthroughs in human understanding of the brain, he uncovered a dark story of the incredibly ugly side of science.
How did Molaison, who could not form new memories become trapped in a world in which he was subjected to ongoing tests (whether invasive or not)? Who was involved in ensuring his consent? How did one scientist whose career would benefit immeasurably from testing Molaison become his sole gatekeeper and the person who determined that playing a role in her research was in his best interests? How did research institutions lay claim to ownership of his brain and possessions? What lawyers signed off any of these questions, and what did they tell the court?
The conflicts of interests are immense and the questionable treatment of Molaison during and after his life seems far more egregious than the case of Henrietta Lacks, which is often cited as promoting a changes in the way research is undertaken. Luke Dittrich has a far more important story to tell than the one he set out to write, and one hopes that this case will also bring changes to how research is conducted on vulnerable people.
How did Molaison, who could not form new memories become trapped in a world in which he was subjected to ongoing tests (whether invasive or not)? Who was involved in ensuring his consent? How did one scientist whose career would benefit immeasurably from testing Molaison become his sole gatekeeper and the person who determined that playing a role in her research was in his best interests? How did research institutions lay claim to ownership of his brain and possessions? What lawyers signed off any of these questions, and what did they tell the court?
The conflicts of interests are immense and the questionable treatment of Molaison during and after his life seems far more egregious than the case of Henrietta Lacks, which is often cited as promoting a changes in the way research is undertaken. Luke Dittrich has a far more important story to tell than the one he set out to write, and one hopes that this case will also bring changes to how research is conducted on vulnerable people.
167
As a physician, I am stunned by the destruction of the raw data. Was MIT, or for that matter any supervising body, unable to intervene?! There are rules and regulations that govern human research (look up the syphillis experiments on African-American patients in the south)
I would think all scientific work by Corkin should now be suspect.
I would think all scientific work by Corkin should now be suspect.
159
In the State of Michigan, patient charts are routinely destroyed six years after last contact with the patient.
2
I get the feeling Corkin was not telling the truth about Henry's relative and that she manipulated the consent paper's illicit birth.
I get the feeling she resisted as far as she could the scientific truth of the spatula injury and that she had ample opportunity to know of this injury, prior to the autopsy, from reading the same MRI the UCSD doctor found.
I get the feeling that she hid a lifetime of uncertain scientific performance by shredding her Henry papers.
I get the feeling that MIT was shamefully (and perhaps criminally) negligent in overseeing this entire setup.
I get the feeling she resisted as far as she could the scientific truth of the spatula injury and that she had ample opportunity to know of this injury, prior to the autopsy, from reading the same MRI the UCSD doctor found.
I get the feeling that she hid a lifetime of uncertain scientific performance by shredding her Henry papers.
I get the feeling that MIT was shamefully (and perhaps criminally) negligent in overseeing this entire setup.
113
All I needed to knows out the ethics of this case was revealed but he word "ecstatic" in relaying her feelings about his death.
I feel dirty by association.....
Great article: important, really.
I feel dirty by association.....
Great article: important, really.
71
Where was MIT when this was going on? She was employed by MIT s time. This deservse an investigation.
43
As a recently retired neuroscientist, I am appalled by this story. I am especially disturbed by the effort of Corkin to discard and disregard the evidence of an additional brain lesion. I have seen this sort of thing happen among other scientists--unexpected evidence is simply not described--when it does not fit a standard/desirable framework. It is an unfortunate action and, in my humble view, as unethical as data fabrication.
221
I too was initially outraged, until I recognized that this is a single case study and not possible for her to strip identifying information.
Read up on human subjects protections Mr Scientist. It's easier when you're dealing with images or specimens that can be stripped of identifying information. Her work with him cannot. I understand why the lay reader does not understand this, but scientists who work with human subjects should.
Read up on human subjects protections Mr Scientist. It's easier when you're dealing with images or specimens that can be stripped of identifying information. Her work with him cannot. I understand why the lay reader does not understand this, but scientists who work with human subjects should.
1
for the casual reader, the article is too long to hold one's interest, unless the reader is the scientific field, and knows or cares about the issues here presented. It's not unusual for the Times to publish articles of unusual length whose chief interest would be to individuals who have a particular interest in the area. Surely not a waste of newsprint, and whatever kudos the writer received are undoubtedly well deserved. But for the general reader, after a paragraph or two, the matter at hand is at best tedious, at worst a bore. Editors are supposed to edit, and I can't imagine how much longer, perhaps book length, the piece was before a blue pencil was lightly applied. Nice work but not for the digital age.
6
I find it interesting, and I am a layman who knows nothing about neuroscience. If you don't like it, don't read it.
167
I feel the same way about your comment. Was it really worth the space? But I loved this article. Thank you ny times.
111
"the article is too long to hold one's interest"
So depressing to read this comment.
It isnt the sentiment per se that is galling; it is the supreme confidence exuded by the commenter.
So depressing to read this comment.
It isnt the sentiment per se that is galling; it is the supreme confidence exuded by the commenter.
68
There are portions of this article in which Dr. Corkin's comments are identified via direct quotes (i.e., actual use of quotation marks). In the latter portion of the article in which she is painted in the most unflattering light, the apparent give-and-take between Dr. Corkin and the author are not in direct quotes, but rather just "Me:" and "Corkin". So, did she actually say these things or not? The bad journalism seems to discredit all of what the author is trying to convey.
12
The presumption is that he was recording the conversation. Did his NYT editor confirm the methodology?
3
Nothing to be alarmed about, HB. I concede that this can be confusing to mix the way quotes are presented in one article, but this is a pretty common journalistic practice. Yes, these are direct and accurate quotes, not "bad journalism." They are presented in the classic Q&A format. A lot of publications have done and continue to do this, and quote marks are not used when presented in such a way. Think of the legendary Playboy interviews.
4
It appears to be the transcript of their interview, quotation marks are not needed.
1
This is very sad, and should perhaps have been brought up for public (or scientific) examination while Corkin was still alive.
Anyway, how hard is it to fake a bizarre memory condition? It seems that it can be turned into substantial profit.
Anyway, how hard is it to fake a bizarre memory condition? It seems that it can be turned into substantial profit.
2
If someone asked me who the president was in 1986 I would have suppressed the memory too.
104
Ha! My first husband suffered a head injury in a car accident in 1983. When he regained consciousness, the doc asked him if he knew who the president was. Husband thought a moment and said, "Oh, no. Is it still him?"
We knew he was gonna be ok. (He was.)
We knew he was gonna be ok. (He was.)
7
Henry and his mind seem to have been mistreated most of Henry’s life...dehumanized...by people who supposedly studied and cherished the human mind. He seems to have fallen victim to people who should have had their own heads examined. Yet unlike Henry, some appear to still have that chance in life…to have that examination done humanely and with honesty, and with their own best interests as human beings in mind.
9
But we don't know how he was compensated, assuming he was, for his time?
1
It seems that Science has no soul.
I find this whole story kind of sick. Fascinating, but sick. Corkin doesn't seem like a very pleasant or empathetic person as portrayed here. She's just wrong about people not remembering the first time they met someone. That is ridiculous. One may not remember every single detail, but certainly I and many other people can remember first encounters, particularly with other people who become important in their lives. This poor man lived his entire life as a guinea pig and it's really sad and sick to hear that now that he is dead, people are still trying to use and own him. Was there ever morality or ethics in science??
32
atb,
Why is it some, too many scientists, have such tendency toward absolute statements - as you point out: People do remember when they first met.
I still can remember when I first saw my future wife, the first class I taught...
Perhaps someone should do a study on Corkin's brain.
Why is it some, too many scientists, have such tendency toward absolute statements - as you point out: People do remember when they first met.
I still can remember when I first saw my future wife, the first class I taught...
Perhaps someone should do a study on Corkin's brain.
3
As a registered nurse, I am distressed by how this article portrays the very people and institutions who should have been protecting this man. Who was looking out for the best interests of the patient? Who was giving consent to the experiments he was undergoing? Did money ever cross hands with regard to access to the patient? Was the patient ever harmed during these "experiments"? This strikes me as actually a very upsetting profile of abuse.
86
And what we do to lab animals is even worse.
3
"...placed a pain-inflicting device...he wouldn't complain even as his skin began to turn red and burn..."
Yes, he was abused.
Yes, he was abused.
4
I am surprised by the tone of this article. It simply serves to malign one scientist but does very little to illuminate how science actually proceeds. Furthermore, the author clearly is angry about something - I wish he would tell us what really motivated him to write this fluffy piece? It sounds to me like Dr. Corkin dedicated her life to studying H.M. with not very much glory, actually, publishing incremental findings that may or may not prove illuminating. If one wants to evaluate her contribution to science, they should read her research papers - the peer-reviewed data/results. It is not practical or even ethical anymore to keep raw data hanging around a lab for years after they have been published. So many things missing from this article. Maybe not surprising that the author recently was at the heart of controversy over another article he published in Esquire and was accused of twisting the truth for a story. I expect better from the NY Times! (As a side note, I also find it suspicious that this is published after Dr. Corkin's death when she cannot respond!)
53
Even if she were alive I'm pretty sure shredding case files on something so groundbreaking and important is not only highly questionable it is simply inexcusable. The research was as much Henry's as it was hers - or prosperity's for that matter - and she shreds all of it? How grossly arrogant can one possibly be? That was not her decision to make. Period.
There are things called computers which store information digitally.
You find it suspicious that this article was published after her death when she cannot respond. That's fair but then you'll have to also accept it when I say that I find it suspicious that she shredded the life of a man who wouldn't have been able to mentally comprehend or respond to that action even when he was alive. I find it suspicious that no one can look over her original findings now, how convenient for her. I find it suspicious she filed for and forced through consent paperwork with someone so far distantly related when directly related people were alive and objected to her and the university's conduct after learning about it. I also find it suspicious she somehow forgot her first meeting with the man who made her career. There are several other examples in this article but I think I have sufficiently debunked your comment.
Frankly, it's probably better for her sake that she's dead. There would be a lot of questions and inquiries for her to answer to which I don't find her to have been likely or willing to provide based on this article.
There are things called computers which store information digitally.
You find it suspicious that this article was published after her death when she cannot respond. That's fair but then you'll have to also accept it when I say that I find it suspicious that she shredded the life of a man who wouldn't have been able to mentally comprehend or respond to that action even when he was alive. I find it suspicious that no one can look over her original findings now, how convenient for her. I find it suspicious she filed for and forced through consent paperwork with someone so far distantly related when directly related people were alive and objected to her and the university's conduct after learning about it. I also find it suspicious she somehow forgot her first meeting with the man who made her career. There are several other examples in this article but I think I have sufficiently debunked your comment.
Frankly, it's probably better for her sake that she's dead. There would be a lot of questions and inquiries for her to answer to which I don't find her to have been likely or willing to provide based on this article.
60
I don't disagree with your assessment that this article and its claims should be read with caution, as it is evidently a narrative piece and not strictly a news article. The same is true of your vague insinuation against the author's credibility.
I believe you are incorrect to say that storage of raw data would be impractical or even "not ethical." As mentioned by others, computer storage of data would remove all practicality concerns. Furthermore, it is now a requirement of journals such as Science and Nature that raw data be publicly archived before a research manuscript can be published. So the current practice in academic science is certainly not to discard of raw data.
In addition, I think the timing of the article is unfortunate coincidence. We know the author began his research while Dr. Corkin was well enough to be in her office. These articles take time to research thoroughly and edit fully. Dr. Corkin passed only two months ago, so the author actually came quite close to publishing before her passing. However, even if they had rushed to publish, Dr. Corkin's death was not sudden and it's possible she couldn't have responded anyhow.
I believe you are incorrect to say that storage of raw data would be impractical or even "not ethical." As mentioned by others, computer storage of data would remove all practicality concerns. Furthermore, it is now a requirement of journals such as Science and Nature that raw data be publicly archived before a research manuscript can be published. So the current practice in academic science is certainly not to discard of raw data.
In addition, I think the timing of the article is unfortunate coincidence. We know the author began his research while Dr. Corkin was well enough to be in her office. These articles take time to research thoroughly and edit fully. Dr. Corkin passed only two months ago, so the author actually came quite close to publishing before her passing. However, even if they had rushed to publish, Dr. Corkin's death was not sudden and it's possible she couldn't have responded anyhow.
5
One is generally obliged to hang onto raw data for 5 years or so after publishing findings. In most instances, that's reasonable. These days, when "data" doesn't likely take up limited shelf space in the basement storage area of the department, hanging onto to it even longer is not a major inconvenience.
I understand the misgivings people have about erasing the behavioural record of someone and something we shall likely never see again. On the other hand, what would be the most interesting part to re-examine, in light of potentially different neural damage than first assumed - how H.M. arrived at right and wrong answers to questions or reacted to them - was likely never recorded in any usable way in the first place.
I'm saddened by the apparent defensiveness of an otherwise great and dedicated scientist, but my sense is that the infraction is less grave than some think. Science, and especially clinical neuropsychology, is drenched in instances of "if only I had thought to meaure/record X back then".
I understand the misgivings people have about erasing the behavioural record of someone and something we shall likely never see again. On the other hand, what would be the most interesting part to re-examine, in light of potentially different neural damage than first assumed - how H.M. arrived at right and wrong answers to questions or reacted to them - was likely never recorded in any usable way in the first place.
I'm saddened by the apparent defensiveness of an otherwise great and dedicated scientist, but my sense is that the infraction is less grave than some think. Science, and especially clinical neuropsychology, is drenched in instances of "if only I had thought to meaure/record X back then".
fascinating story. I agree that something was out of kilter with corkin's attitude. as if there was something she was hiding. or it could've been she'd been at it for so long she felt it was her brain and hers alone to do with what she wanted. or she was afraid that despite her many years of possession that somebody else would get credit or discover something she hadn't or had overlooked.
lots of ors.........
lots of ors.........
22
As a traumatic brain injury survivor, when giving thought to "who I was" I've spent most of that time over the last 26-years, esp., in the years just after, trying to fill in the gaps in the few years and months just before my injury.
My interest now is sharing information and articles such as this with Brain Injury Doctors, Neurologists, other medical professionals and other brain injury survivors that I've met over the years, had the privilege being part of their lecture series or included as a regular guest speaker each semester at a medical school in Houston's Texas Medical Center.
While it's VERY unfortunate, because of the everlasting conflicts in the Middle East, Traumatic Brain Injury has come to the fore and is now something most everyone is conscious of and, rightly, concerned about.
Whether you're purchasing the first bicycle helmet for your young child, making sure they buckle up and are home by curfew as you loan them the keys to your car for their first night driving after turning 16, or being scared out of your mind when you learn they are being deployed that they come home safe; not just alive but not emotionally or invisibly scarred because of PTSD or IEDs.
The brain doesn't heal like other organs or body parts; simply wrapping a gauze bandage around it for six-weeks will only keep the dandruff on the scalp.
My interest now is sharing information and articles such as this with Brain Injury Doctors, Neurologists, other medical professionals and other brain injury survivors that I've met over the years, had the privilege being part of their lecture series or included as a regular guest speaker each semester at a medical school in Houston's Texas Medical Center.
While it's VERY unfortunate, because of the everlasting conflicts in the Middle East, Traumatic Brain Injury has come to the fore and is now something most everyone is conscious of and, rightly, concerned about.
Whether you're purchasing the first bicycle helmet for your young child, making sure they buckle up and are home by curfew as you loan them the keys to your car for their first night driving after turning 16, or being scared out of your mind when you learn they are being deployed that they come home safe; not just alive but not emotionally or invisibly scarred because of PTSD or IEDs.
The brain doesn't heal like other organs or body parts; simply wrapping a gauze bandage around it for six-weeks will only keep the dandruff on the scalp.
16
While the comment above may seem completely off topic, no two brain injuries are alike.
Henry's brain injury came as a result of an experimental operation to treat his epilepsy that failed miserably. Mine, a MVA, my fault - 19, speeding ('67 Mustang), ~5:30P, had just left the office, no intoxicants in system, presumed mechanical failure in steering based on skid marks. Reportedly in coma 3+ weeks w/ Glascow Coma b/t 3-4; in '05, another MVA, other driver's fault. Walked away however, b/c of previous injury and brain damage developed an uncontrolled seizure disorder.
Though technology (laser ablation) has advanced tremendously and so much more is known about the brain, even if I learn after more testing that surgery MAY relieve the seizures, it's NOT worth the personal risk.
I'm fully ambulatory, live alone, own my condo - paid it off last year, because of the seizures can no longer work full-time, am on disability and work part-time from home. So I'm on high does of medication for the rest of my life. I turn 46 next month; should I risk my independence on a procedure that has no money back guarantee?
Henry's brain injury came as a result of an experimental operation to treat his epilepsy that failed miserably. Mine, a MVA, my fault - 19, speeding ('67 Mustang), ~5:30P, had just left the office, no intoxicants in system, presumed mechanical failure in steering based on skid marks. Reportedly in coma 3+ weeks w/ Glascow Coma b/t 3-4; in '05, another MVA, other driver's fault. Walked away however, b/c of previous injury and brain damage developed an uncontrolled seizure disorder.
Though technology (laser ablation) has advanced tremendously and so much more is known about the brain, even if I learn after more testing that surgery MAY relieve the seizures, it's NOT worth the personal risk.
I'm fully ambulatory, live alone, own my condo - paid it off last year, because of the seizures can no longer work full-time, am on disability and work part-time from home. So I'm on high does of medication for the rest of my life. I turn 46 next month; should I risk my independence on a procedure that has no money back guarantee?
2
So much for the myth of impersonal rational scientific research. See also "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lax," and the story of the Kennedy daughter.
13
Why anyone would "shred primary data" on such an important patient is beyond me.
Henry was not a "Lab Rat" - that data was part of his life and should have been respected and preserved for other researchers.
Though they may say they just follow the "Scientific Method" and only seek the
Truth there is an prevalence of arrogance in some Scientists that is very
disturbing.
Question:
What is the difference between someone saying:
I have no memory of that event/person ( that they once knew )
and someone saying:
I once had the memory but it is lost now.
Henry was not a "Lab Rat" - that data was part of his life and should have been respected and preserved for other researchers.
Though they may say they just follow the "Scientific Method" and only seek the
Truth there is an prevalence of arrogance in some Scientists that is very
disturbing.
Question:
What is the difference between someone saying:
I have no memory of that event/person ( that they once knew )
and someone saying:
I once had the memory but it is lost now.
14
What struck as most critical in this story is the necessity of a legal advocate for all persons entangled with medical or scientific research, especially when they are psychologically impaired!
25
It seems there was no good reason for shredding data. Corkrin must have done it to protect her own reputation. It could have been reinterpreted in the light of new discoveries in neuroscience. Sad.
14
A compelling narrative, but unfortunately, Corkin cast a cloud over a clear
understanding of her own research....
understanding of her own research....
29
In what sense is "consent" meaningful in someone who most likely forgot what he signed even as he was signing it?
HM should have been treated as a child and protected as such.
It seems to me a lot of institutions, not least UCSD and MIT, who could have exercised greater oversight and control over all the principal actors, and protect the patient, failed profoundly in their duties, not only as stewards of the patient, but as stewards of science.
A dark and shameful episode in science, not unlike the exploitation of ethnic minorities and indigenous groups in the use of their dead and their DNA.
HM should have been treated as a child and protected as such.
It seems to me a lot of institutions, not least UCSD and MIT, who could have exercised greater oversight and control over all the principal actors, and protect the patient, failed profoundly in their duties, not only as stewards of the patient, but as stewards of science.
A dark and shameful episode in science, not unlike the exploitation of ethnic minorities and indigenous groups in the use of their dead and their DNA.
114
Simply a beautiful article with transitions leaving you with the feeling of reading dramatic mystery novel. The story had to be told; The New York Times and Luke Dittrich delivered.
45
I am not a scientist, but know a couple of MD/PhD's very well. They both have done original research and were diligent in retaining original data, notes and source materials of their work. I asked them why a person would destroy their notes on a their research? The answer given without hesitation is that by destroying original notes, etc., they are trying to hide something, and protecting their own reputation is more important.
221
No NSF project today would allow such incredibly cavalier treatment of the raw data. Raw data must be stored in a publicly accessible on-line format. This is a tragedy that mocks the life of HM and robs of it of its meaning. Corkin's legacy will be one of secrecy and willful destruction of scientific knowledge. A tragedy all the way around.
131
From reading this article but not knowing the history of this story, i have 2 conclusions:
1. The only scientists who destroy "normal science" data are the scientists caught in their original paradigm that any contradictory evidence presented is discredited immediately.
2. It is common for new evidence to appear in experimental work and for that evidence to prompt a revaluation of the existing basis of research and the conclusions that result.
Evidence suppression and tampering is not uncommon in modern research, see the yearly scandal(Climate scientists refocusing their locus to discount data not central to their thesis, to outright fraud: Dr. Hwang Woo Suk http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/science/10clone.html, but the imprisonment of a amnesiac and finding a "relative" to rubber-stamp psychological tests and future custody is very unethical.
The crux of my thought is that the destruction of evidence and the appearance of impropriety(suppressing mentions of lesion) should result in an asterisk burned into every paper based on the research of Patient H.M. Especially considering that while the papers are peer reviewed, one cannot go out and replicate a Neuroscientist's work on a particular brain, and as such the metadata of the experiments is crucial to the evaluation of the conclusions contained therein.
1. The only scientists who destroy "normal science" data are the scientists caught in their original paradigm that any contradictory evidence presented is discredited immediately.
2. It is common for new evidence to appear in experimental work and for that evidence to prompt a revaluation of the existing basis of research and the conclusions that result.
Evidence suppression and tampering is not uncommon in modern research, see the yearly scandal(Climate scientists refocusing their locus to discount data not central to their thesis, to outright fraud: Dr. Hwang Woo Suk http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/science/10clone.html, but the imprisonment of a amnesiac and finding a "relative" to rubber-stamp psychological tests and future custody is very unethical.
The crux of my thought is that the destruction of evidence and the appearance of impropriety(suppressing mentions of lesion) should result in an asterisk burned into every paper based on the research of Patient H.M. Especially considering that while the papers are peer reviewed, one cannot go out and replicate a Neuroscientist's work on a particular brain, and as such the metadata of the experiments is crucial to the evaluation of the conclusions contained therein.
54
What about H.M.'s right to a legacy? He was used by scientists for those many decades and the data that was gathered about his brain would've been part of his legacy, the contribution he made to society. By shredding the data it seems like an erasure of a part of his legacy, like if you threw out Grandma's recipes, which seems profoundly disrespectful.
75
It's disappointing and sad when scientists fail to live up to the idealistic image of objective, brilliant minds in white coats working with discipline and altruistic intent. They are merely human, after all, and it seems Suzanne Corkin had her share of human faults. With the destruction of Henry's data and the confusion over the possession of his brain, neuroscience has pushed further into the future the time that we will understand everything that his suffering could have revealed to us.
26
To the layman this article makes the strong suggestion, presumably intended, that there was some significant degree of (misfeasance, malfeasance, fraud, willful ignorance, other non-scientific activity) about the HM case. The implication of the tidbits at the end suggest that the whole basis of the HM project was problematic on account of the extra lesion and HM's pre-operation memory problems. Ah, but Corkin had a fine career.
58
It is just sad when scientist's ego and their fear of new ideas affecting their legacy get in the way of real science. That some of these scientists would be hesitant about reporting new data (new lesions) after H.M.'s brain had been sectioned is troubling. They should have to ask themselves, "Why am I doing this?" Surely its not for personal gain, but for a love of science and discovery, and the pursuit to make the world a better place by increasing our understanding of its beautiful complexity. And if that means a reexamination of past conclusions based on new data, then that is what has to happen. True scientists understand that the discoveries are more than just what the fame brings to them. They are for everyone, and so need to be based on the truth, even if that means accepting past conclusions are not as strong as once thought.
Lastly, the thought of a principle investigator destroying primary data is simply appalling, especially for a patient as significant as H.M. The argument that there is not enough space is ridiculous. Digital copies can be and should have been made, and the files stored indefinitely. Sure some of the data could have been incomplete, but that does not mean it can't be useful in the future provided some new technique or understanding comes about. What this looks like is an attempt to cement one's legacy into stone and avoid any contrary opinions developing. This action is completely unacceptable, and this is coming from a scientist.
Lastly, the thought of a principle investigator destroying primary data is simply appalling, especially for a patient as significant as H.M. The argument that there is not enough space is ridiculous. Digital copies can be and should have been made, and the files stored indefinitely. Sure some of the data could have been incomplete, but that does not mean it can't be useful in the future provided some new technique or understanding comes about. What this looks like is an attempt to cement one's legacy into stone and avoid any contrary opinions developing. This action is completely unacceptable, and this is coming from a scientist.
134
Good human story. Scientists are human too and mysteries to themselves. Something I remember Erich Fromm writing about comes to mind: the differences between rational and irrational authority. One is based on truth and welcomes questioning, the other on power and discourages questioning. Here it appears that even a scientist with a human ego strongly identified with her/his work can become a blend of the rational and irrational authority in a field. Science of course aims to be purely rational. But we remain...purely human. -Rudy
19
Living across the street from HM's surgeon, Suzanne Corkin was quite simply lucky to be in the right place in the right time to gain almost exclusive research access to HM's brain for decades. It would seem she was not completely up to the professional task. Shredding her raw data was her way of averting a tarnished scientific reputation after her death. She may have been right to be worried that raw data would reveal irregularities in collection and analysis -- we will never know the details now.
Annese is another matter: many in neuroscience question his credentials (as the article contends) and the internet video of him slicing HM's brain hurt his reputation, rather than in any way enhance it.
Annese is another matter: many in neuroscience question his credentials (as the article contends) and the internet video of him slicing HM's brain hurt his reputation, rather than in any way enhance it.
80
Indeed, reading about Corkin reminds me of one scientist's advice: when we evaluate a researcher's success and prowess, it is important to not confuse "achievement" with "opportunity".
29
With regard to Annese's credentials, there are plenty of snobs in science. Apparently driving a Porsche is a no-no to them.
3
kwb, have you watched the youtube videos? I dont think anyone cares about what model car he drives -- not really relevant to the matter at hand.
4
- ethics of performing experiments on HM, given his questionable ability to provide consent: the scientists and the many review boards at MIT, MGH and the NIMH definitely considered that in full, and likely re-evaluated their position several times over the decades.
- data destruction: this article give almost no detail on what was actually destroyed, and several over her close colleagues have said she didn't actually destroy anything useful. She definitely would have considered the consequences of those actions, and likely only destroyed notes rather than formal records.
What we get instead of readers' carefully interpreting what is actually in front of them and looking for other sources to confirm what they're reading or seek alternative views is often a quick, emotional reaction that doesn't consider the thousands of hours doing research and considering how it will be received, or how that research might be distorted in compression by a reporter. People seem to think that because some part of it wasn't addressed by a reporter that the scientists didn't think of it and somehow they, with no scientific training, are smarter.