Professor Susan Greenfield - Neuroscientist HARDtalk

Welcome to HARDtalk. I'm Stephen Sackur. The size and capacity of the

human brain distinguishes us from all other forms of life on Earth.

But how well do we really understand the functioning of our brains? My

guest today, Baroness Susan Greenfield, carved out a reputation

as a leader in the study of degenerative brain diseases. Of late

though, she's focused her attention on the impact of 21st`century

digital technologies on brain development. She believes our screen

habits could be doing us damage ` but is her warning based on sound

science? Baroness Greenfield, Susan

Greenfield, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. You have spent most of

your professional life studying the brain. My entire professional life.

You're a neuroscientist. Here is an odd first question. How much to you

think we do not know about our brains? OK. When I was at school and

I did Greek ` I'm sure you have heard about the Hydra, where you cut

off one head and seven appear. It is a little like that. Where the more

you know, the more you know you don't know. So the more you learn

about the brain, the more you realise how exciting and puzzling

and frustrating it is. So if you think about other element of

scientific discovery, and work on the human body, think about the

knowledge we now have of other organs, of the heart for example.

The brain is completely different, isn't it? It is not different in

that it is made of cells and the same stuff, but that is the exact

thing. Because this same stuff somehow gives you a subjectivity. It

gives you an inner world that no`one else can hack into. However much you

love someone, or how articulate you are, you will never see the world as

they see it, or vice`versa. And it is this subjectivity, this seeing of

the world. This is consciousness, the notion of the mind. Indeed ` we

can unpack those two terms, because they are different. Although one

informs and influences the other, they can be differentiated. But

suffice to say it is this subjectivity that makes the brain so

tantalising, so hard. For example, scientists know how Prozac works,

the well`known antidepressant. We know it increases the availability

of a certain chemical messenger. But if you say to me, then why is it

that increasing the availability of this chemical messenger translates

into a feeling of well`being? So while the heart of the lungs are

mechanical, and remain mechanical, and very complex and intricate

though they may be, they are just objective, physically tangible

things, and you just work out all the machinations of them. The reason

I like it is that you can look under your fingernail, but you still don't

quite understand how to frame that complete gap between the objective

and subjective. And because you have spent a lot of your scientific life

looking at the degenerative effects that can harm the brain, would you

say that you now see the brain as a fundamentally very fragile, very

vulnerable organ? It is certainly vulnerable, but at the same time it

has huge potential. So it is both at once. Its strength is its weakness,

if you like, in that because it is adaptable to the environment,

because it is changing all the time, it means on the one hand, it can

really flourish and develop unique connections between brain cells.

That makes you the person you are ` even if you are a clone or an

identical twin, your genes are the same but your brain is not. And that

is what makes it so exciting. But before we go further we should

differentiate the loss of mind, and dementia, from consciousness.

Because people often confuse the two, and say they are going to lose

their mind, or blow their mind. You will not lose your consciousness.

And when you do lose your consciousness and go to bed, you

don't say I'm going to lose my mind. So try as you can, as simply as

possible, to explain to me, given that so much of your work has been

connected to dementia and Alzheimer's, explain to me what is

going on in the brain when somebody gets Alzheimer's? OK, so this is the

fastest ever neuroscience course in the world. It will need to be very

quick, as we have a lot to talk about. OK, so when you were born,

you were born with a full condiment of brain cells. But what

distinguishes the human from, for example, a goldfish, who don't have

great personalities, is that as you are born, or when you are born, it

is the connections between brain cells that distinguish and

characterise the growth of the brain after birth. Why is that interesting

or important? It is interesting or important because as you are having

experiences, what will happen is different connections will

strengthen or weaken or flourish or atrophy according to your particular

experience. So an example I like to give is your mother, who initially

when you are born, in the words of the great William James, into a

booming, buzzing confusion, you evaluate the world in sensory terms

` how sweet, how bright, how loud. As these connections form around the

pattern of your mother's face, it is slowly becomes a face, and gradually

will be differentiated from other faces. So this face, mum's face,

will mean something that other faces, other ladies, don't mean. So

you start to personalise your brain through these connections, and go

from a purely sensory take on the world to what we call cognitive,

from the Latin cogito, where you have a unique perspective. So if you

saw my mother's face, you would have a different take on it than when I

see it. Another example is a wedding ring. The gold, shiny, regular thing

` but as you grow you learn it mean something other rings don't. Then

you might have your own, bringing either happiness or bitterness. And

over time, these connections expand, and the brain becomes ever more

sophisticated, more personalised. So my question was and remains, what

happens to a brain when Alzheimer's kicks in? You have now answered it

yourself. If we say it is the connections in the brain that

personalise it and give it meaning, that liberate you from your senses,

so that you now have a highly individual view of the world, and

take on the world, where things mean something beyond their physical

properties, imagine if those connections are slowly dismantled.

You're recapitulating childhood, you will go back to infancy. You will go

back to a world of booming, buzzing, confusion. You will be conscious and

enjoy ice cream and enjoy people smiling at you, like small children

do. And that is where Alzheimer's takes those who suffer from it.

Sadly, yes. That is why are you then take the world literally at face

value, in the way an infant will do. You now have far fewer connections

that give you the checks and balances. If I came in now dressed

up as, for example, a ghost, you would probably work out it is just

some stupid brain scientist dressed up as a ghost. But a small child

would be very frightened by that, as would a dementia patient. They don't

have the conceptual framework, the connections, anymore, that liberate

you from the present moment. And I am very interested in how we live

our lives dominated by senses our lives dominated by senses

sometimes, when we choose to lose our mind, or blow our minds, and

other times when we can put the senses on hold and actually have a

very strongly cognitive take on the world. Now a lot of people watching

this around the world will be aware that the numbers of people suffering

from dementia, from Alzheimer's, and related diseases of the brain, is

expanding massively ` partly because of the ageing demographic. And it is

the cruellest. Because with heart disease or cancer you are still the

person you were. So what people will want to know, including the two

million in the UK who are believed to be expected to suffer from this

by 2050 ` huge numbers ` where is the hope of a cure? It is worse than

that, because for everyone who is sick, how many people love you? How

many people care about you? Complicated question. So for those

two million people, it means 20 million people who are giving up

their lives, their jobs, their lives are devastated, they're having

personal tragedies. It is not just the patients, it is the carers. A

very important point. So what we want to know is, after all the work,

and the time and effort you have invested in this study of the brain,

how close are we to a cure, to an effective treatment, and then a

cure? What I have to say it first is ` I'm sure you are aware of this,

that any drug, even when there has been proof of concept, it takes

about ten to 15 years before it comes on. We have heard about this

in regard to the Ebola vaccine. So leaving that to one side, the

mandatory ten years before, however brilliant a concept or effective

drug in a monkey, it will still take ten years. So leave that to one

side. My own view is it is within a reasonable time, but not tomorrow.

And the reason I say that is because for the last 15 years there has not

been a new drug for Alzheimer's. Given all the muscle of the

pharmaceutical industry, you would expect with a clearly defined

target, and an agreed mechanism, then people would have sold

something by now. Is that because they are actually not targeting

Alzheimer's with the money, and resources, and expertise they are

applying to things like cancer? Obviously because people are still

embarrassed by mental disorders, embarrassed by dementia, it may be

that until very recently, given the wonderful work of people like Terry

Pratchett who actually comes out and talks about it. He made the point, I

think figures for 2010, the latest I could find, showed that money in the

UK put into Alzheimer's research, dementia, etc ` ?50 million. And

into cancer and related subjects, ?590 million. Yes, and another

figure I was reading recently about ongoing projects and clinical

trials, is very small compared to what is going on with cancer. It is

not just money, and people often not just money, and people often

hear politicians say they are going to pump more money in. Of course we

need money. But just throwing money at something, as the pharmaceutical

industry has done for ten or 15 years, patently isn't... My own

view, and this is where I am quite radical, I am left of field and I do

a different approach to other people, is that the scientific

community is a very conservative community actually, with a lowercase

c. Most public`sector grants are done by reviews and committees, and

the tendency of the committee is sometimes to be risk`averse. You

want to show how sound you are to your colleagues, and screen out the

frankly loony or crazy things that might waste taxpayers' money. The

price you pay for that is there might be some new idea, something

novel or exciting, that also is getting that treatment. Yes, but we

are going to make a turn in a minute in your career, and talk about other

environmental impact you see today on the brain, which you are very

worried about. But you have raised a very important point, which is that

you have suggested to me that the very foundation of scientific

research, that is peer review, the notion that you go out, do research,

gather evidence, draw some conclusions, and then present that

your peers, who can criticise it, and dig away at it as much they want

` are you suggesting that is not the best way of looking at the brain?

No, because immediately you will say what is the alternative? And clearly

you need some kind of expert appraisal for what you are doing. I

think the issue of money does constrain things, and people's

careers, and certainly in the public sector it is a problem that people

can be overly cautious. What I would like to see is more diversity, so

let 1,000 flowers bloom. I'm not saying I have the right approach,

but let's say I did, or someone else has, it will be very sad that was

throttled at birth simply because it didn't adhere to the current dogma.

Are you familiar with Thomas Kuhn? The Structure of Science

Revolutions? He introduced the notion of paradigm`shift. He said in

science, what happens is people have a certain paradigm or fashion, and

then some anomalies or things that don't quite make sense, and it is

only after a while when you have too many anomalies to shove under the

carpet that there is a revolution. Paradigms shift, and I think that is

what we need for neural degeneration. I want to turn to

something which has preoccupied you of late, which isn't so much about

the degeneration that we think of in Alzheimer's, but a different form of

damage done to the brain. You say the damage potentially done to the

brain by, if I can put it this way, digital lifestyles ` by the fact

that more and more of us, particularly young people, live so

much of their lives through 2`dimensional screens, either using

social networks on their computers of mobile phones, or gaming, using

video games. You say that there is evidence, you say, that this is

having a damaging effect on the brain.

Can we unpack that slightly? The word damaging is a strong one and

it's a value judgement. Although there is evidence of damage to the

brain, I don't want to give the impression this is like smoking or

cancer. In one of the most high profile articles you've doone on

this, and it's notable you've done a lot of this through the press, you

used the word "threat" in The Daily Mail in 2008. You called it screen

`based internet, computer`based lifestyle a threat. There is a

difference between a threat and damage. I try to be cautious, though

people take me to task for using the subjunctive rather than the

indicative, so I can't really win. In terms of evidence, anyone can

look at my website, it has been up there for a year, there is 500

peer`reviewed papers in support of the possible problematic effects.

How much of the research has been done by you and teams commissioned

by you? That is irrelevant. If it is in a peer`reviewed journal it is

irrelevant who's done it, it doesn't make it any less valid if I haven't

done it. Why were you not motivated to do some research yourself? I

have. The whole range, because this is such a big subject. It spans from

molecular biology to psychiatry. I am a neuroscientist so I do what I

do. It has been said to me before so I am used to it as a comeback. Lots

of scientists have said to you, where is your evidence? Who are

they? That's different. You are confusing things between people

saying where is your evidence... Evidence that you yourself have

discovered. I don't think scientists would say that. I would like to know

who they are. Simply because... We'll go through a few. Ben Goldacre

for example... He isn't a scientist, he's a journalist. He is a

scientist. He is a trained scientist, but he's also a

journalist and he blogs on science. Doesn't mean he isn't a scientist.

Depends how you define scientist. How many peer`reviewed journals...

He is a trained scientist. He said, "why can't she publish her claims in

a peer`reviewed academic paper with the accompanying evidence that can

then be properly assessed?" Let's unpack that. On the whole, a

scientist would go by the paper, they wouldn't give a stuff, frankly,

who actually did it. It doesn't make it more or less valid. If I have

cited it and it's been through... Our audience won't know much about

these names, but there's Dean Burnett at Cardiff University, Peter

Etchells at Bath Spa. They both work in neuroscience. Etchells is a

biological psychologist. What do they say? "She has the influence and

ability to set up a study into her theories on the impact of gaming and

social media and then publish her findings, so why doesn't she do it?"

In my area of expertise I have published the effects of

environmental enrichment on the brain. And extensively on dopamine,

something that features a lot. I have published on neuroscience and

education. Within my expertise, given I can't go from molecular

biology to psychiatry through the etymology, within my expertise I

have published. I would challenge him and I am flattered he thinks I

have the expert, money and resources and influence to set up a

centralised study. You are pretty influential, you are a director of

the Royal Institution and one of Britain's leading scientists. It is

so important to so many people. You've taken it in so many different

directions. It appears to many people, as you have pointed out for

example, that there is a rise in rate of diagnosis of autism

alongside, it seems, the widespread use of the internet and social

media. You appear to many people to have drawn a correlation and causal

link between them. That upsets many scientists. They say there's no

causation. We are conflating things. Conflating things about how much I

have done and the validity of the claim, irrespective of whether I

have done it. Let me clear it up. I cannot do molecular biology through

to psychiatry and I don't have infinite resources. Someone watching

wants to give me money, fine. You are honest about your expertise but

you are also making big claims. The Daily Mail, scientists said she

communicates her ideas through the press rather than through journals

and peer reviews. You say things like... I have published 200

peer`reviewed papers. I understand that, but much on the degenerative

effect of Alzheimer's. Also on dopamine and environmental

enrichment. The claims are so sweeping. Back to The Daily Mail.

You say, "A growing number of adults inhabit a world producing changes in

behaviour, attention spans shortening, communication skills

reduced, reduction in abstract thinking, digital technology is

rewiring our brain". These are huge claims. Look at my website or buy

the book and you will see it is based on five or 600 papers. Nothing

in science is definitive. I stand by those claims. If they are sweeping,

shouldn't we be thinking about that rather than chopping me off at the

knees and saying it isn't right. Shouldn't we be looking at those

things? Don't you owe it to the next generation? Do we not have to be

careful to be absolutely responsible in the ideas that we spread. Not so

long ago we saw a scientist not long ago who was convinced, publishing

papers suggesting the link between autism and vaccinations. It has been

debunked. The national autism Society and others accuse you of

scaremongering in your linkage between autism and this use of

digital technology. Have to be careful, because what I say is

Autistic Spectrum Disorder, which isn't the same as autism. I don't

have all of the references at my fingertips but there are authorities

that said... One paper I remember, someone with autistic spectrum

disorder, if they are shown a table and a face, their EG will be similar

to both presentations. Someone without autistic spectrum Disorder,

if you show them a table and a face, the response would be much more

exaggerated. The face being more important than tables. People who

are heavy internet users have the same response to someone with

autistic Spectrum disorder. That's one example. Are you saying that any

of us, whether diagnosed autistic or not, any of us with human brains, if

we spend a lot of time on screens, from video games to social

networking, we run the risk of displaying autistic like behaviours?

Some people say that. Do you think that? Yes, and I will tell you why.

When you talk to someone like we are talking now, looking at each other

in the eye, if you are averting your eyes and folding your arms, I

wouldn't feel a report. are being too sweeping, generalising

way too much. Let me finish. using interpersonal communication

skills, processing what we say and judging from voice tone and body

language what the person is feeling. Those cues are unavailable on

screen. People with Autistic Spectrum Disorders have a problem

anyway understanding how other people are feeling and thinking.

you are constantly rehearsing a form of communication where you don't

practice eye contact, body language, voice tone interpretation it seems

not unreasonable to say you won't be so good at those things. That is not

a sweeping generalisation. How is it sweeping? It seems a reasonable

suggestion. You have turned this into a sweeping idea, it you call it

mind change. You say all of this digital technology introduces mind

change, which you say is important and as far`reaching as climate

change, but happening inside of all our individual heads. The thing

about climate change is, once it happens, there are negative

feedbacks which many believe makes it irreversible. The difference is

that this isn't irreversible because your theory is that the brain is

incredibly plastic. Absolutely. Like all analogies, they only go so far.

There are four analogies. It is global, firstly. Second, it is

unprecedented. Third, as you are displaying admirably, it is

controversial. Fourth, multifaceted. No such thing as whether or not

climate change is good or bad, the same as mind change, are computers

good or bad? You have to break it down into social interaction and

empathy and social networking, video gaming and attention. Search engines

and information versus knowledge. It is a multifaceted issue. Another

reason why you can't do the single smoking gun experiment. Because of

those four parallels, I would strongly suggest mind change is

comparable with climate change. The difference, something I say at the

end of my book, I am demonised as a luddite pessimist, I say that no,

surely because the brain is adaptable, this is fantastic,

because it gives us the chance, unlike climate change, which is

putting the brakes on and doing damage limitation, this doesn't have

to be... Surely we can harness the technology to deliver the most

marvellous environment. Briefly, what do we have to do to change our

relationship with the computer and digital age to make sure that we

don't damage our brains? Very briefly, we have to ask the most

difficult question, what do we want out of life? What do you want your

kids to be? What society do you want to live in? This is the first

time... Elsewhere, people can't do that. You're hungry, cold, in pain.

In this country, we can ask that question. What we should say is,

what do we want from our lives and how do we harness this technology to

deliver that? We have the end it there unfortunately. Baroness

Greenfield, thank you for being on HARDtalk. Pleasure.

The past few weeks have been relatively dry but there is some

rain in