* Different brain regions have different functions: ancient knowledge.
* Different regions contain distinct cell types and molecular programs: also well established.
* Anterior and posterior brain structures may trace back to fundamentally separate progenitor lineages that were independently specified very early in evolution and development: that's the interesting new result.
The headline should have been: "Human forebrain and hindbrain arise from distinct embryonic progenitor lineages" - not that we have "two organs" in the brain.
> "Human forebrain and hindbrain arise from distinct embryonic progenitor lineages"
I'd have never clicked that headline nor understood why this finding is important.
If you think the original headline is not "truthful" enough, at least do something like "Researchers found the reason why hindbrain cells cannot be grown in a lab and found a way to overcome it"
> not that we have "two organs" in the brain.
Depends what the definition of "organ" actually is. What speaks for different organs here is that the cells both have a different pathway from stem cells and have different evolutionary histories. That is different from other brain regions that may have separate functions but still evolved together.
We should not be wary of loud truths either. Unless we push the envelope we cannot trace back to the essence. Like, as an outsider in this discussion, I am now inclined not only to assess the finding, but also the definition of an organ. The title did good work. Its refutation too. Fencing every statement in unquestionable truth does not make the pursuit of truth stronger.
But there’s rarely one correct answer. Conveying the same approximate message to multiple types of readers is extremely difficult in a handful of words. People with subject matter knowledge are annoyed by headlines written for laypeople that don’t know the jargon or have a mental model of the important concepts that jargon represents. They always seem to miss important distinctions, make poor analogies, or the like. Headline-length blurbs that successfully convey those things to the knowledgeable are often utterly opaque to laypeople causing them to ignore articles about topics they’d find interesting. The only option is trying to estimate the subject matter expertise of the audience, and despite many people in the tech world assuming their software knowledge gives them technical expertise in many non-software fields, the layperson headline is absolutely the best approach here.
This is not true. There is a complex relationship between truth and good communication. The relationship is non linear and convoluted and it depends often on the subject of what is being communicated.
There are many many cases where lies are easier to communicate than the truth.
Take tobacco for instance. For the longest time we did not know it was bad for you. It took decades of epidemiological research and statistical techniques to ascertain that it was bad.
The truth was buried in numbers and human knowledge about applied mathematics and statistics. Without centuries of human endeavor to create the concept of science unionized with the rigor of statistics the truth would have remained forever invisible.
The sheer complexity of the truth in this case makes is extremely hard to communicate. We mostly trust that smoking is bad based off of the reputation of the researchers who established that fact. But the truth was never really directly communicated to most of us as it involves diving deep into the data.
> There is a complex relationship between truth and *good* communication. [...] There are many many cases where lies are *easier to communicate* than the truth.
You're literally conflating good communication with easy communication.
The truth about tobacco was known for years but ignored because 1) industry lobbying and 2) the Nazis were the ones who figured it out, and pushed anti-smoking hard, so smoking became something "our side" did, 3) tobacco was still a huge US export.
It was easy to communicate, but we were motivated to not listen.
No the deaths were buried deep in the statistical data. It’s not apparent and we did not know either way.
Yes there were people who said it’s bad but their word was as good as bullshit because until we had the statistics there is literally no way to truly know.
No, the Germans had good statistical data linking smoking (as well as asbestos and other carcinogens) to cancer by the 1930s; this was known and ignored (or actively derided) by the allies. It's one of the classic and well known examples of ad hominem.
I think it's less about what was said (it is truthful) and more what isn't mentioned in the title which leaves ambiguity.
I don't necessarily think it's intentional. For those with knowledge in the field I suspect it resonates the appropriate reaction.
For those outside of the field, I think the perception of what being 2 organs means does a lot of leg work in invoking a response which seems exaggerated, but is probably caused by incorrect assumptions of what the title is trying to convey.
I hope that makes some sense, I feel that was a lot of word vomit but I'm struggling to find the right words, it's somewhat meta
> Armed with this knowledge, the researchers for the first time successfully coaxed human pluripotent stem cells (a kind of cell that can create any cell in the human body) to become functional hindbrain motor neurons in the laboratory.
...
> The research also has implications for investigating treatments for SMA, ALS and other conditions affecting the brain stem. Until now, studying these diseases has been nearly impossible because scientists cannot obtain brain stem tissue from living patients. The ability to grow these neurons in a dish opens new possibilities for understanding what goes wrong.
But no, nothing to see here, not worth our time for this overblown article apparently ...
> The research also has implications for investigating treatments for SMA, ALS and other conditions affecting the brain stem.
Are you working on research for any of these? If no, then this article is just "empty calories" in your information diet. If yes, I'd assume (hope, even) that you wouldn't be hearing from this through some institutional PR piece.
You stated that the current headline informs you why the result is important. Why is that? Surely, given that the information was communicated to you, you can share it with me?
When I studied neuroanatomy in the early 2000s it was already taught that the evolutionary history of the forebrain (from comparative anatomy) seems to have invaded the hindbrain and seems to control it like a puppet. It's nice to see this sort of confirmation but it doesn't strike me as an earth-shaking discovery except that it might give some insights for differential drug targeting.
This is one of the problems with modern academics, every paper has to be framed as some revolutionary idea or insight. We should celebrate “boring” research that serves nothing other than curiosity.
Academics themselves rarely frame their research in sensational terms. This happens in press releases and media coverage, which they have little control over. You can see this by comparing the title of the press release to the quotes by the actual researchers:
"We’ve shown for the first time that the front of the brain arises from a totally different progenitor cell than the back of the brain."
"I was surprised at our findings because the word ‘brain’ implies a contiguous organ that likely has a singular origin," Jokhai said. "But even 500 million years ago, there were these separate neural systems, which now almost operate as one, which is very cool."
I don't hear much overselling or hype in this, I hear an accurate description of the research and a bit of nerding out over it.
It's the same problem as when a journalist or nonfiction author writes a thoughtful, nuanced piece of work, and some editor slaps a catchy title and subtitle on.
When an organ is known to be generated from 2 distinct embryonic preforms, which become merged and integrated at a later stage of development, there is a likelihood that in some distant ancestor the integration into a single organ was much less advanced than now and possibly the two parts remained as relatively separated organs even during adulthood.
There are many groups of animals that include both some species that have retained a more primitive condition, where some nervous ganglia have remained separated, while other species have a derived condition, where those nervous ganglia have fused into a single ganglion.
In this case it is not known for sure what happened, because the early evolution of the nervous system, from a sensory structure embedded in the skin to a complex internal system that mediates the communication between sensors and motor or secretory organs, is still poorly understood.
In any case, this research confirms that the differences between forebrain+midbrain (which includes the cerebrum) and hindbrain (which includes the cerebellum) are very important, because they become established very early during the development of the embryo, at a time when the progenitors of many organs are still interchangeable.
Given the parallel example cited in the article of jellyfish having two spatially separate organs, & the subsequent speculation that our own ancestors could also have had spacially separate anterior & posterior masses, the title doesn't really seem unreasonable in its hyperbole.
While it might not be perfectly accurate it's hardly misleading.
I found the title confusing, at the very least because it can be argued that the two brain hemispheres are two organs already, as they operate independently when severed from each other.
This is not a good analogy, because both kidneys do the same thing and we don't need both of them to live.
Whereas the left and right brain hemispheres do different things that enable our species to be what it now is; which is more similar to what the article calls hind and fore/front brains, which again do different things that we wouldn't be us without. We would still be human if we had only one kidney the way we have only one bladder or one pancreas.
Kidneys are more like say lungs, gonads, breasts, or nostrils in that we have +1 extra; but the benefit created by multiplicity is ~doubling or capacity and resilience to local disease and random injury-- not a profound functionality. (Like is created by the second eye or second leg.) Of these, the second breast is radically more useful than the second kidney, and is probably a special case as it changes how we live so evolved.
I see the point, and understood it when I wrote my comment. However, as far as I know (and I could be wrong), there is no characteristic of either cerebral hemisphere determined at the embryonic stage that differentiates one from the other. As such the two hemispheres become functionally distinct but are not functionally distinct in principle or by virtue of being left or right.
Also, as others point out, hemispherotomies and -ectomies and to a lesser extent corpus callosotomies show that neither hemisphere nor their intercommunicative ability are strictly necessary for brain function. Yes, for ideal function, but that can be said of kidneys too.
The right and left hemispheres do different things… unless you had a hemispherectomy as an infant and then one half is able to mostly perform the duties of both.
I wonder if we would have been capable of endurance hunting without both lungs. I suspect that changing that would have very drastically changed human development.
I think "Human brain evolved from two separate organs" would've been more accurate and sufficiently simple/short for a headline, but I guess it won't fly either due to political reasons.
My objection is with the word "organs", which for everyone except maybe biologists and doctors (depending on the specialist definition of "organ") connote the developed piece of machinery inside a living thing. Not the transient state while it's still gestating.
> I think "Human brain evolved from two separate organs" would've been more accurate and sufficiently simple/short for a headline, but I guess it won't fly either due to political reasons.
I don't agree. For that you need to distort the definition of what an organ is to comply the requirement for two separate organs with distinct origin, genetic, and biochemical traits, and different function and responsibilities to somehow remain classified as the same organ.
Lying is always a bad choice. The paper in Nature says
"Hence, we postulate the brain is a composite organ emanating from two lineage-restricted progenitors; these dual progenitors may be evolutionarily conserved across 550 million years from hemichordates to mammals."
I don't have a problem with the 'two organs making one' framing. The fact that they are 'symbiotic' now doesn't change that. In fact it helps me understand two key facts. One can't grow out of the other, and they work differently. Great
The Portuguese Man o’ War[0] is a symbiotic organism. If you want to get technical, I guess we are, as well. We’re really kind of fascinating meatbags.
We are absolutely symbiotic from our cells upward. A large percentage of your body mass is bacteria, including the symbiotic bacteria you feed in your gut with the food you think you’re eating only for yourself.
Recent research has suggested that viruses supply us with a second immune system. These viruses keep down the numbers of bacteria and other microbes in our gut etc
We are so used to reading negative things about viruses that it makes a change to find out how they can benefit us too.
Yeah, this is a frequent failure of science communication. Misleading clickbait overselling a paper that made real progress in some capacity. I'd be more interested in hearing the truth of the matter and about the researchers passion for their study area. Spinning everything into some high stakes breakthrough that fundamentally changes our understanding of the world just makes me feel like my time was maliciously wasted and that I shouldn't click on news about science.
That's true, and hype to secure future funding is probably related somehow.
The article did change an understanding about worlds though, it's just the inner one.
I thought the article title was ok, and material was accessible. I didn't have to go look up 15 new words. I don't mind learning new words, just not all the time. I have seen the hype based articles you mentioned in the past.
Main issue I have with the title is it immediately reminded me about McGilchrist's "The Divided Brain" and I thought they meant the two halves - but that is not the case.
I'm sorry, it just sounds like you're mad at medical researcher for trying to make their research more accessible?
What do you mean by oversell? And why do you think the general public would be more apt to understand "distinct embryonic progenitor lineages" than "two organs"?
What exactly is the problem here? You think medical researcher are using medial nomenclature wrong?
They also use this result to great hindbrain neurons in the lab for the first time, so it's a strikingly useful discovery.
I think it's also fair to say they are different organs based on the developmental physiology. Many other organs come from distinct embryonic cell lines.
Possibly, but I wouldn't assume any connection. In sociological terms, modern universities are mid-last-millennium noble houses*, locked in an endless competition for power, wealth, prestige, and influence. Adding a few stanzas of hyperbole when bragging about one of their knights vanquishing some infidel of ignorance? That's simply how things are done.
*Yes, there's never really a king or duke or whatever. But consider the history of the word regent.
This is meaningless semantic drama over a meaningful discovery. From a biological and medical perspective, the collective term "organ" is pretty useless, if there is a distinct progenitor lineage. For the sake of a simplified explanation for the public, describing this discovery as finding "two organs" is absolutely fair.
A similar example: The melanocytes in the skin originate from the neural crest, not the epidermis. As a significant consequence, melanocytes share cell attributes with neurons. One of these attributes is the ability to infiltrate other tissues. Because of that, malignant transformation of melanocytes has vastly different consequences, compared to epithelial cells. If you asked your doctor why squamous cell cancer and melanoma have such different prognoses, describing your skin as effectively "two organs" would be illustrative and easy to understand, without getting into developmental biology.
A physical connection and collaborative function aren't enough to define a single organ anymore. It must also share a developmental and evolutionary origin.
can confirm from experience that the headline and press release were likely 100% from Stanford’s comms department and the authors are likely panicking about the hyperbolic spin
I think you're right. And I would even assume that, should the article be from Fox News (just an example), every other commenter that excuses the title would have yelled at journalism slop, clickbait and whatnot.
But that's stanford.edu, so we must tread lightly.
I've found it useful to think in terms of how such structures might have evolved. The beginning state is always something very simple: the first nerve. It must go from A to B. Perhaps from a food sensing area to a muscle. Sense food, stop moving, something like that. Organisms could evolve multiple copies of that structure: N nerves going from A(n) to B(n). At some point the next invention arises: some logic gate type thing that branches and/or combines nerves. So now sensing food can make movement stop and also digestion begin. Or food response can be attenuated during the day time. And so on. There's no reason why you'd have exactly one of these "nerve processor" nodes. There's also no reason why several different kinds of them and different instances might evolve. They're useful. Then at some point the next discovery is made: by combining several nerve processor nodes in close proximity, with their own inter-node connections, you can perform more complex processing. You've now got a proto-brain. But again there's nothing to say you have exactly one of these things, or that they're exact replicas of each other.
> I want to trust science and dislike anti vaxxers but it’s difficult to argue against them when researchers act like the caricature they are mocked as.
Wait, you think the article was written by the researchers?
You know, it's also difficult to trust someone's criticisms when they misassign responsibility. Just like anti-vaxxers do.
>The headline should have been: "Human forebrain and hindbrain arise from distinct embryonic progenitor lineages" - not that we have "two organs" in the brain.
The audience for a news headline is a layperson who may have no knowledge of or context to infer past factoids about brain regions or evolutionary biology.
There’s a balance between being informative to the audience and satisfying for pedants.
Agreed. Anybody who looks at a picture of the brain can see the cerebellum (part of the hindbrain) is obviously a different organ. I only clicked the link to find out if there was any new science buried under the hype of the title.
They always have and will for the foreseeable future, as will Anthropic and other labs which manage to ascend to the frontier, pretty much by definition. It’s exactly the same with hardware vendors - by the time you can buy the product, the lab is working on something you’ll want to buy a few years from then.
Nice in theory in practice you always retain them locally as well, just in case the network connection goes down.
If network egress fails and logs are pushed in real time over a connection with no local backing, you face an ugly tradeoff: either drop log data silently (loss of visibility during the very network partition you need to debug) or apply backpressure to services (potentially hanging applications when logging buffers saturate).
I think the same exact model running on CPU-only and RAM, or a small GPU, would do about the same? It's quite an old model now and small, you could throw a GGUF into llama-server or something for a side by side comparison.
As I remember just about any english language model from mid 2024 and earlier didn't even do well if you asked it to count sequentially from 0 to 100, nevermind calculating stuff.
reply