The Montreal Neurological Institute and the Origins of Modern Neuroscience, 1928-1965
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Wired Together: The Montreal Neurological Institute and the Origins of Modern Neuroscience, 1928-1965 The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Prkachin, Yvan. 2018. Wired Together: The Montreal Neurological Institute and the Origins of Modern Neuroscience, 1928-1965. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:41129148 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Wired Together: The Montreal Neurological Institute and the Origins of Modern Neuroscience, 1928-1965 A dissertation presented by Yvan Prkachin to The Department of History of Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of History of Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts May 2018 © 2018 Yvan Prkachin All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: Professor Anne Harrington Yvan Prkachin Wired Together: The Montreal Neurological Institute and the Origins of Modern Neuroscience, 1928-1965 Abstract This dissertation presents a reinterpretation of the historical development of modern neuroscience during the middle decades of the twentieth century. Contrary to the existing historiography, I argue that an interdisciplinary approach to unravelling the mind/brain relationship did not develop first at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) under the aegis of F.O. Schmitt and the Neurosciences Research Program in the 1950s. Rather, modern neuroscience was the product of a relatively small group of historical actors operating at the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) between 1928 and 1965. Under the leadership of its founder, the neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield, the MNI became a unique site for medical research into the human brain, and achieved an unprecedented level of disciplinary integration. Chapter One examines the origins of Penfield’s vision for an interdisciplinary neurological institute; the structure of the MNI was rooted not only in the broader agenda of his Rockefeller Foundation patrons for interdisciplinary medicine, but also in Penfield’s scientific biography, which included considerable experience in laboratories and clinics in Europe as well as the United States. Penfield sought to create a new kind of neurological clinic that could employ the insights of the emerging science of histology and cytology – the microscopic study of tissues and cells – to advance the professional standing of neurosurgery. Penfield ultimately established a clinic in Montreal, a city that he felt would allow him access to the scientific and medical cultures of Europe and North America. Surgery for epilepsy became the signature operation of the new clinic. Chapter Two traces the development of neuropsychology at the MNI. Penfield recruited a series of young psychologists to address post-operative intelligence and memory deficits. The nearly two-decade collaboration between the MNI’s surgeons and the psychologists D.O. ! """! Hebb, Molly Harrower and Brenda Milner led to the emergence of cognitive neuroscience as a new field of inquiry. Chapter Three details the contributions of Penfield’s closest collaborator, Herbert Jasper, whose pioneering work with the electroencephalograph (EEG) not only reinvigorated the study of the functional anatomy of the human brain, but also acted as a crystallization point for global efforts to create an Interdisciplinary Brain Research Organization (IBRO). The IBRO became the acknowledge origin of neuroscience outside of the United States. Jasper’s brand of neuroscience displayed a notably different style from that emerging at MIT. An examination of how the MNI and MIT groups addressed the issue of memory illustrates these different styles; while the MIT group searched fruitlessly for a ‘memory molecule’ akin to DNA, the MNI group engaged in more profitable studies of the functional anatomy of memory. Chapter Four examines the troubled relationship between the MNI and the field of psychiatry as a case study in failed interdisciplinarity. Penfield was initially optimistic about incorporating psychiatry into the interdisciplinary community at Montreal; however, the psychiatrist selected to run Montreal’s new training facility for psychiatrists, the Allan Memorial Institute (AMI), was uninterested in collaborating, except on the issue of psychosurgery. The issue of psychosurgery led to a breakdown of communication between MNI and AMI, leading Cameron to disassociate himself from the Montreal neuroscience community. This disassociation afforded him the opportunity to engage in ethically questionable experiments in ‘psychic driving’ that were later revealed to be funded by the American CIA. In the Conclusion, I reflect upon the reasons for the decline of the MNI, and the ascendance of MIT’s molecular approach to neuroscience. Drawing on the insights of Mark Granovetter, I argue that the MNI’s brand of neuroscience was a product of its strong assemblies of historical actors, which were enriched by its ‘weak ties’ to other scientific cultures. ! "#! Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….....iii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………...…....v Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………………vi Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………….....x Archival Sources………………………………………....………………………………...……xi List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………..…........xii Introduction - Montreal and the Origins of Neuroscience………………...……………………...1 Chapter 1 – A Neurological Surgeon: Wilder Penfield’s Interdisciplinary and International Project in Neurosurgery………………………………………………………………….……..24 Chapter 2 – The Montreal Method: Epilepsy Surgery, Neuropsychology and the Birth of Cognitive Neuroscience…………………………………………………………….…………..74 Chapter 3 – From Mind to Brain: Herbert Jasper, the EEG and the International Brain Research Organization………………………….……………………………………………..144 Chapter 4 – Two Solitudes: Psychosurgery and the Troubled Relationship between Wilder Penfield and Ewen Cameron………………………………………………………...………...207 Conclusion – Wired Together: Reassembling Montreal Neuroscience…………...………….....257 Appendix 1 – Wilder Penfield’s 1928 Report to the Rockefeller Foundation “Impression of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Neurohistology in Central Europe.”…………………..……273 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………...295 ! #! Acknowledgments Wilder Penfield was an ever-present figure in my childhood, as he was for many Canadians of a certain generation, even if only through the medium of television. As a child growing up in Canada during the 1990s, I can vividly remember being introduced to this fascinating character through the ubiquitous Canadian Broadcasting Corporation “Heritage Minute” short films, which aired on television between commercials, and which aimed to inculcate a sense of national pride. The Heritage Minute that focused on Penfield was always my favorite. I was captivated by the figure of Penfield, as he gently probed the exposed brain of a French-Canadian woman in order to locate the origin of her epileptic seizures. I never dreamt that I would have the opportunity to investigate the figure of Penfield and his Montreal Neurological Institute on the scale that I have, or to do so at a place as remarkable as Harvard University. My research into Penfield revealed a much deeper, richer historical character than was portrayed in those ubiquitous Heritage Minute films, but also helped me to appreciate the remarkable community of individuals who helped make the Montreal Neurological Institute what it was. I initially dismissed the title of Penfield’s autobiography, No Man Alone, as an exercise in false modesty. It is only through years of my own research that I came to realize how honest the title was, and how meaningful. In many ways, this dissertation is about the history of collaboration itself, and it has made me acutely aware of how important the contributions of others are to any intellectual product – scholarly or scientific. In that spirit, I will ask the reader’s indulgence for a fairly extensive list of ‘thank yous.’ This dissertation, and indeed my scholarly career, would have been inconceivable without the wisdom, knowledge and phenomenal support of my advisor, Anne Harrington. Anne nurtured this project from almost impossibly vague beginnings, and I have benefited from her insight and encouragement in ways too numerous to count. When I first became aware of her scholarship, it ! #"! was as though I had a found an intellectual ‘kindred spirit,’ and I have had that initial intuition confirmed again and again over the course of our six-year relationship. She is an unparalleled scholar and mentor, and I simply cannot thank her enough. Discovering one intellectual kindred spirit would have made coming to Harvard exciting enough. To discover two more, both of whom agreed to serve on my committee, was an embarrassment of riches. Rebecca Lemov and David Jones proved to be perfect compliments to Anne, and this dissertation was immeasurably improved by their guidance. Rebecca’s infectious sense of curiosity proved to be the perfect supplement to my own, and her enthusiasm for even my most nebulous ideas provided the encouragement I often needed. David’s insightful questions and enthusiasm