Postcards from the Brain Museum: The Improbable Search for Meaning in the Matter of Famous Minds [Hardcover]

Nothing so intrigues the intellect as the contemplation of itself. Yet unlike the functional relationship between other organs and their products, that between mind and brain defies satisfactory definition. As Burrell's historical survey proves, that has not deterred countless investigators from attempting to explain mental ability in terms of physical structures.
Phrenology,which remained in vogue throughout the nineteenth century, was widely exploited by charlatans but, as the author points out, it established the basic tenet of modern neuroscience: the concept of cortical localization. Although the elaborate maps of the skull, "read" by touch, only hinted at the complexity of the sensorimotor cortex, they helped to refute the concept of the mind as a unified whole. With the development of techniques for the removal and preservation of whole brains, the scientists' attention began describing the gross anatomy of that structure. Laboring under the assumption that there was some correlation between quantitatively determined properties, such as weight, and intellectual capabilities, they published numerous studies of virtually no worth.
Of particular interest were their efforts to establish the physical basis of genius. Many distinguished intellectuals would donate their own brains for postmortem analysis. Only in those instances where the investigators were persuaded of their subjects' capabilities did the results sometimes confirm a correlation between the physical and the mental. Completely objective inquiries invariably showed no correlation.With the development of sophisticated cytological techniques, the focus shifted from gross structures the the cellular level but with no change in the results.
In the course of these investigations, numerous collections of preserved brains were established, some of which still languish in various states of repair. Burrell describes several of these at length. The American Anthopometric Society's collection in Philadelphia briefly held Walt Whitman's brain, only to have it disappear unexamined. (It appears to have been shattered when dropped by a laboratory assistant.) A much different fate was in store for Vladimir Lenin's brain for which a special institute was established by the Soviet government. Sliced into a huge number of sections and initially subjected to examination by a leading specialist of the l920's, it failed to yield any characteristics to prove its possessor superior. Nor have renewed efforts by post-Soviet investigators been any more successful.
As well as the political, there have been racial and gender biases behind some of the analyses but they have met with the same failure. As Burrell concludes: "No one can look at a brain and tell what sort of person inhabited it (sic). Nor has anyone discovered a scientific basis for judging the superiority of one mind over another..." (306) Although he occasionally meanders into excessive biographical detail, the author has provided a well documented record of an exercise in futility.

I generally appreciate a good general-interest book about science and the history of science. But while this book definitely has some interesting points to make, it does get bogged down quite a bit in the very specific minutiae of the hitory of brain study. This story would make an excellent magazine article, but I think it suffers in full-length book form, and ends up being a bit too long and even (in parts) dull for the general reader.

Perhaps it is simply my tastes to want all the knowledge I can lay my hands on regarding the field of neurology and related disciplines. One reviewer was disappointed that this book went into too much detail about neurology's history. Frankly, this was WHY I loved the book: a convenient collection of the random odds and ends of its history, from Descartes onwards.

I don't think it was poorly written, but for someone who doesn't revel in the minutest of details, who perhaps isn't as interested in the nitty gritty background of the field, then, yes, I can see how this book wouldn't earn its five stars. For me, there are few other books I've enjoyed-- or referenced in conversation-- moreso than this book.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 4 reviews  4.0 out of 5 stars