<p>Questions for Rakic 2002 and Gould 2007</p><p>1. Rakic and Gould both explore some of the history of this field. Briefly describe some of the previous evidence they review both for and against adult neurogenesis, and areas that have been potentially identified as containing proliferating cells. You can also use Gould’s figure 1 to help catalog the changing ideas over time. Remember that Gould’s article is 5 years after Rakic’s, so take that into account. 2. Explain both Rakic and Gould’s discussion of false positives. This is described on page 482-483 of Gould, and over pp. 66-67 in Rakic (including Fig 4 ). Are they concluding different things from the same pieces of evidence? 3. Both authors discuss how to be sure that BrdU is actually labeling dividing cells (including Fig 5, Rakic). What does each conclude about the efficacy of the method? 4. Gould discusses some of the problems with visualizing BrdU as well (p 483). How might that play into whether BrdU should be used? 5. Rakic claims that the neuronal markers being used are not sufficient (Fig 4) and Gould claims the opposite (Fig 2 and 3). Explain what is shown in the figures, and what you think about the evidence. 6. Gould describes new techniques that may be better than old techniques. Describe each, and why they might be better (or worse). 7. Discuss what you think about these two papers. Does one author provide more convincing summary of the evidence than the other? What is your opinion on the state of neurogenesis in adult primates? Use evidence from the review articles to back up your opinion. 8. What do you think should be done next? Do a Pub Med search on this topic of research, and see if you find an article published since 2007 that addressed this topic. Share a summary of its abstract (and the complete reference).</p>