Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Douglas L. Peterson dies
I learned today on the CSUEB View that one of my CSUH professors, Douglas L. Peterson, has died.
The View article says that Prof. Peterson left CSUH in 1977, but I know I had at least one class from him in the early 1980s. I remember one episode very clearly.
I was a young and nervous underclassman, still trying to decide on a major. I had written my first paper for Prof. Peterson's class, and was surprised when he started reading the paper aloud in class one day. (He didn't say who had written it.) He read my thesis paragraph, then looked up over his half glasses and said to the class, "I don't agree with that." My heart sank a little. He read more, then gave another disapproving remark. The pattern repeated. With each of his comments, I'm sure I slumped deeper into my chair. He eventually read the entire paper, taking it apart bit by bit.
When he finished, he looked up and said (I paraphrase), "I didn't agree with much of what this writer said, but he presented his arguments well and thoughtfully. It's a well-written paper. I gave it an A."
It was there and then that I decided to be an English major. That a teacher could put aside his opinions on my ideas and judge my writing on its merits impresses me to this day. It's a goal I aspire to when I edit others.
The View article says that Prof. Peterson left CSUH in 1977, but I know I had at least one class from him in the early 1980s. I remember one episode very clearly.
I was a young and nervous underclassman, still trying to decide on a major. I had written my first paper for Prof. Peterson's class, and was surprised when he started reading the paper aloud in class one day. (He didn't say who had written it.) He read my thesis paragraph, then looked up over his half glasses and said to the class, "I don't agree with that." My heart sank a little. He read more, then gave another disapproving remark. The pattern repeated. With each of his comments, I'm sure I slumped deeper into my chair. He eventually read the entire paper, taking it apart bit by bit.
When he finished, he looked up and said (I paraphrase), "I didn't agree with much of what this writer said, but he presented his arguments well and thoughtfully. It's a well-written paper. I gave it an A."
It was there and then that I decided to be an English major. That a teacher could put aside his opinions on my ideas and judge my writing on its merits impresses me to this day. It's a goal I aspire to when I edit others.
Labels: CSUH, language, obituary, people, writing
Monday, June 16, 2008
People Like Brain Images
I've looked at my fair share of brain MRIs and even played with OsiriX. Turns out I'm not the only person who finds neuroscience and brain imaging compelling.
A study, blogged about at Cognitive Daily, says that brain images make science articles more compelling to readers.
The article's interesting and compelling. The comments are also worth reading; get ready for the advent of neuromarketing.
A study, blogged about at Cognitive Daily, says that brain images make science articles more compelling to readers.
Not long ago we discussed work led by Deena Skolnick Weisberg showing that most people are more impressed by neuroscience explanations of psychological phenomena than plain-old psychology explanations. Talking about brains, it seems, is more convincing than simply talking about behavior, even when the neuroscience explanation doesn't actually add any substantive details.
The article's interesting and compelling. The comments are also worth reading; get ready for the advent of neuromarketing.
Labels: language, marketing, neuroscience, psychology, science
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Ted Kennedy Brain Tumor Coverage
A friend asked me what I thought of the New York Times coverage of Ted Kennedy's brain tumor. I wrote a long, fast email, which I'm also posting here:
They gave the general tumor type (glioma) but not the specifics. There are several types of gliomas, including astrocytomas, glioblastomas, and oligodendrogliomas. Also four grades, from I to IV (the higher the number, the more aggressive). Malignant gliomas are grades III or IV, though so-called "benign" ones still cause lots of trouble because the cranium is an enclosed space and anything that squeezes the brain in that space can cause trouble. Jane's tumor was a mixed astrocytoma-oligodendroglioma, grade III.
They gave the location of Kennedy's tumor as left parietal, and said that area of the brain was involved in sensation, motor control and language. Would have been more accurate to say USUALLY involved in language. Not always. Whether or not often depends on handedness. Jane was left handed, and had her initial tumor in the left occipital and parietal lobes. (Toward the end it spread to the frontal lobes and into the right hemisphere.) Frequently, left-handed people have their language more distributed between the hemispheres than right-handers, but still centered largely in the left hemisphere. Jane had a Wada test that determined that her language was almost entirely in the right hemisphere. (She never did play by the book!) This allowed for a much more aggressive left-hemisphere surgery back in 1998 and 2000.
I have the videotape of Jane's Wada test, by the way -- I remember it as strange and fascinating to watch, but I haven't viewed it in years. I also have a photograph of her open cranium.
One article quoted Keith Black, a neurosurgeon at Cedars-Sinai in LA. He's a rock star among brain surgeons, more famous but NOT more sought after than Jane's surgeon (Mitchel Berger). Keith Black was written up in TIME magazine a decade or so ago, I think.
One article rightly says that age has a lot to do with prognosis. Getting a malignant glioma at age 76 is not a good thing. Another article rightly says that the disease is "treatable but not curable."
The articles refer to the disease as brain tumor and not brain cancer. The distinction is subtle; generally, cancers can metastasize to other tissues, but brain tumors cannot. (You can't get a brain tumor in your lungs, but you can get lung cancer in your brain.) Doctors will very rarely say "brain cancer" in my experience, probably because to do so is imprecise, but a lot of brain tumor patients and advocates (I'm not among them) prefer to use the term "cancer" because, I think, it sounds more urgent. A tumor sounds like something that can be sliced off, like a wart. Brain tumors, especially gliomas, tend to have lots of tendrils and stray cells throughout the brain; it's rare that they're encapsulated. (One NYT article said this, in a roundabout way.)
They gave the general tumor type (glioma) but not the specifics. There are several types of gliomas, including astrocytomas, glioblastomas, and oligodendrogliomas. Also four grades, from I to IV (the higher the number, the more aggressive). Malignant gliomas are grades III or IV, though so-called "benign" ones still cause lots of trouble because the cranium is an enclosed space and anything that squeezes the brain in that space can cause trouble. Jane's tumor was a mixed astrocytoma-oligodendroglioma, grade III.
They gave the location of Kennedy's tumor as left parietal, and said that area of the brain was involved in sensation, motor control and language. Would have been more accurate to say USUALLY involved in language. Not always. Whether or not often depends on handedness. Jane was left handed, and had her initial tumor in the left occipital and parietal lobes. (Toward the end it spread to the frontal lobes and into the right hemisphere.) Frequently, left-handed people have their language more distributed between the hemispheres than right-handers, but still centered largely in the left hemisphere. Jane had a Wada test that determined that her language was almost entirely in the right hemisphere. (She never did play by the book!) This allowed for a much more aggressive left-hemisphere surgery back in 1998 and 2000.
I have the videotape of Jane's Wada test, by the way -- I remember it as strange and fascinating to watch, but I haven't viewed it in years. I also have a photograph of her open cranium.
One article quoted Keith Black, a neurosurgeon at Cedars-Sinai in LA. He's a rock star among brain surgeons, more famous but NOT more sought after than Jane's surgeon (Mitchel Berger). Keith Black was written up in TIME magazine a decade or so ago, I think.
One article rightly says that age has a lot to do with prognosis. Getting a malignant glioma at age 76 is not a good thing. Another article rightly says that the disease is "treatable but not curable."
The articles refer to the disease as brain tumor and not brain cancer. The distinction is subtle; generally, cancers can metastasize to other tissues, but brain tumors cannot. (You can't get a brain tumor in your lungs, but you can get lung cancer in your brain.) Doctors will very rarely say "brain cancer" in my experience, probably because to do so is imprecise, but a lot of brain tumor patients and advocates (I'm not among them) prefer to use the term "cancer" because, I think, it sounds more urgent. A tumor sounds like something that can be sliced off, like a wart. Brain tumors, especially gliomas, tend to have lots of tendrils and stray cells throughout the brain; it's rare that they're encapsulated. (One NYT article said this, in a roundabout way.)
Labels: brain tumor, health, Jane, language, medicine, people, politics
Friday, February 15, 2008
Called on the Comics Carpet
Ha! Joanna Sandsmark has called me out in the current installment of the hilarious blog Comic Books Revisited.
(I realize I'm not using the expression "call out" quite accurately, but somehow it feels like it fits anyway.)
(I realize I'm not using the expression "call out" quite accurately, but somehow it feels like it fits anyway.)
Labels: blogs, friends, language
