Relatos desde los dos lados del cerebro

by Michael S. Gazzaniga, Joan Soler Chic (Translator), Carme Castells Auleda (Translator)

Divertido y emocionante a la vez, Relatos desde los dos lados del cerebro nos descubre la naturaleza de nuestro cerebro para contarnos la fascinante historia de cómo se hace la ciencia y cómo se vive en ella.

Genres: Science, Neuroscience, Nonfiction, Psychology, Brain, Health, Memoir

416 pages, Paperback

First published February 1, 2015

About the author

Michael S. Gazzaniga, one of the premiere doctors of neuroscience, was born on December 12, 1939 in Los Angeles. Educated at Dartmouth College and California Institute of Technology, he is a professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he heads the new SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind.

His early research examined the subject of epileptics who had undergone surgery to control seizures. He has also studied Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients and reveals important findings in books such as Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind.

While many of his writings are technical, he also educates and stimulates readers with discussions about the fascinating and mysterious workings of the brain. Books such as The Social Brain and The Mind's Past bring forth new information and theories regarding how the brain functions, interacts, and responds with the body and the environment.

Reviews

[Always Pouting · Rating 2 out of 5]

Though it's well written it was hard to force myself to finish reading it. I wanted more information about his research and I wouldn't have minded the personal accounts if they some how worked into it. Rather than using personal experiences to explain how his thinking was effected and how it changed the way he did research, the author just seems to name drop. Like I don't care that you were talking to Richard Feynman while at cal tech or that the research participants was a good guy when it didn't really tie into the whole thing about you being a neuroscientist. Kind of disappointed honestly because the only thing I got from the book was that when split the two hemispheres continue to function independently and because information can't cross it can cause contradictions. Also that some people learn to adjust to this through physical queuing and the two hemispheres handle different ways of processing information. Neither of these ideas are surprising anymore and I didn't get any real insight to how research is done or the effect of personal life on scientific work either.

[Faith · Rating 3 out of 5]

I attended some lectures by this author when I was in college. His ability to convey information in a coherent and entertaining way was impressive. This book brought me back to my study of psychobiology in college and graduate school. I remembered reading about a lot of the research described, but I'm not sure how useful the brief descriptions (or the constant scientist name dropping) would be to people unfamiliar with the subject matter. The book also reminded me of how unbelievably cruel the animal experimentation was. Let's just make a lesion on the left hemisphere of a monkey and see what happens. The ethical issues apparently never occurred to Gazzaniga.

There was a lot of biographical information, primarily career related. That was fine with me because I didn't really care about his friendship with William F. Buckley. I learned that the author excelled at getting grant money and never stayed at any institution for very long. This is a case of the description of the book being very accurate, but I guess I was hoping for more science and less Michael.

[Holly · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gazzaniga is a wealthy man. Not just a comparatively fortunate academic and cognitive scientist - a rich man. And so what? He's apparently great at fundraising and gaining endowments and never burning bridges and ... it's not important. But I learned far more about his real estate investments, financial interests, and his friendship with William F. Buckley than I could ever care about or want to know. His depictions of split-brain research were interesting, but this was too much of an artless autobiography. I thought I'd want to read Gazzaniga's book on free will (topic du jour), but I've gleaned that it's a repeat of the experiments chronicled in this book plus what I fear could be a drift into libertarian politics. Iconoclastic reading experience.

[Nazbanou · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is certainly much more about Michael Gazzaniga than science, and can be considered sort of a celebrity book in the science world. While there is some science in there, it is not very detailed and not always necessarily very accurate. However, the book is not without merit. In fact, it is an intriguing portrayal of the profiles of success in academia, and the different ways they can arise. This is apparent throughout the book in the parallel story of the author and his mentor, the brilliant Roger Sperry. Sperry is a genius and a recluse, Gazzaniga an inquisitor and a socialite. Both reached the height of fame in their empire of science but through different routes and for different reasons. And while Gazzaniga's star-struck narrative can be overbearing at times, it is mitigated by his honest and unpretentious admittance to the lucky combination of ingredients that can make for a stellar academic career without a one-of-a-kind mind.

[Stetson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a revelatory read for several reasons: interesting neuroscience, science history, and personal memoir. The last aspect was really the most compelling aspect of Gazzaniga's book. I was completely unaware that Bill Buckley was a close personal friend to an eminent neuroscientist. Gazzaniga's reflections on their relationship reveal a lively and close-knit community of intellectuals in the latter half of 20th century America, including relationships that spanned political, philosophical, and professional differences. In some ways this provoked a twinge of melancholy as it feels like a lost world. We'd be so much better off with luminaries like Gazzaniga shaping the elite social sphere than say the NYT op-ed page and various corners of Twitter.

The actual scientific insights in the work are well described in terms of providing a lot of context and rationale for the experiments, including details of the lives of the actual subjects of the experiment. However, there is some repetitions, especially of the observation that consciousness is not a unitary phenomenon individually as in both hemispheres can or do have separate conscientiousness. It would have been great if this book contained more of Gazzaniga's thoughts on the deeper implications of his findings and other findings in neuroscience on the nature of consciousness and on the question of human agency.

Overall, I heartily recommend this work.

Extended Review at Holodoxa

[Krystina · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked this up because I thought it would be an interesting read that I could potentially assign to students--I'm not well-versed in hemispheric lateralization beyond the most well-known experiments, and I thought it would be a nice window into the process of science. It is not. At first I attributed the what seemed like sensationalized stories of cavorting with all these big names in science and politics and Hollywood as a generational difference, but over time I realized that this is a story of privilege. It's how you become successful in science when you already have everything going for you. It is NOT at all representative of how science is done today and for the vast majority of neuroscientists struggling to get funding or even a job.

The science discussed throughout the book is fascinating, and written extremely well (although the bias is evident, but that's to be expected when someone is discussing their own work, and Gazzaniga is far less guilty of it than others). But over time it became more and more about this amazing house he bought, and that amazing house he bought... Or let's talk about this famous guy I just happened to be best friends with or somehow related to... More and more evidence of science as an old boys' club. Which is a real shame for today's scientists.

[Jana Light · Rating 3 out of 5]

More research autobiography than neuroscience. Gazzaniga certainly had a fascinating and successful career and I did learn some about how the two hemispheres of the human brain work and do/do not communicate. Another reviewer said he was a little too "starstruck" when describing his colleagues, and I am torn on this point. On one hand, it was a little grating to hear that yet ANOTHER person he worked with was "brilliant, passionate about science, and kind." On the other, it was so nice to read an autobiography that recognized the work of all the people who helped make the author's life and success possible. Gazzaniga fully and humbly admits the luck involved in scientific success (finding the right interest at the right time and being discovered and supported by the right people with the right funding), and I found that approach refreshing.

He did move around a lot... it made me think a lot about how happiness is usually found in change, and that happiness wears off to return us to baseline when we settle into a routine. Some of us end up chasing that happiness in various ways throughout our life, making change for the sake of that happiness jolt rather than because the change itself was valuable. But Gazzaniga had the career, intelligence, and success to shut me up, so I'll allow him his many institutional moves. ;-)

[Jenni V. · Rating 2 out of 5]

I spent so much time reading this and am relieved it's over so I don't want to spend a lot of time reviewing it.

I didn't one-star it because there were moments of high interest but overall, it was very very dry. And it's not a lack of intelligence or interest on my part; it's more of a "what's the purpose of this book?" kind of thing. If the only ones to enjoy/understand it are the ones who lived it, why write it?

This book isn't the first time I've heard about how these discoveries couldn't happen today because of all the red tape. It's understandable - nobody wants experimentation without standards - but it's frustrating as well to think that someone's "light bulb" moment today just might lead to something years in the future. And they were able to get to know their patients by studying them in their homes (getting a trailer of their own when researchers in their homes became too intrusive) and taking them on outings, another thing that would never happen today due to time and funding constraints.

The brain is a fascinating thing. For me, although there were little nuggets of interesting things, most of this book was not.

A Few Quotes from the Book
"More generally, those of us who have spent a life in science running large labs wonder how it all keeps going...there can be dry periods, dull periods, nonfunded periods. Occasionally, however, something - sometimes it's serendipity, sometimes it's an actual hypothesized experiment - comes along and works out. Instantly, all the mundane days dissolve into glee and excitement."

"The tug-of-war between taking risks to do something new and staying with the tried-and-true seemed ever present. While I think all of us usually prime ourselves for new possibilities, it is others who bring them to us."

"I believe that things just happen in life, and pretty much after the fact, we make up a story to make it all seem rational. We all like simple stories that suggest a causal chain to life's events. Yet randomness is ever present."

"In ideal science, replication is key and a virtue, and everyone warmly collaborates. But science conducted by mere mortals often falls short of this ideal."

"Techniques are important in science. What's more important, however, is using them on important questions."

"I have discovered in life that I can be wrong, then dead wrong, and then so wrong it's hilarious."

Find all my reviews at: http://readingatrandom.blogspot.com/

[Ana · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm finally done with this book. I thought it would never end. I honestly thought it would be a whole lot more scientific and less biographical.

[Steven Felicelli · Rating 1 out of 5]

got as far as his bewailing the lack of conservative voices in the science community - note to pop science authors: we don't give a flying fuck about your personal life, ideology, writing style, anecdotal flare, etc., just break down the phenomena for us, thanks

[Alina Yasnaya · Rating 1 out of 5]

When I picked up this book, I was so excited. What an idiot i was. I thought it would present a gripping picture of what the brain does when the corpus callosum is cut. What I got instead were stories about the author's past, personal anecdotes, narratives about his interactions with various people over the years, peppered sparingly with the information about the actual tales from the sides of the brain. I am profoundly disappointed with this book.

[Charlene · Rating 4 out of 5]

The elitism in this book is palpable. If that is a deal breaker for you, then this book won't be your cup of tea, as it only gets worse in the later chapters. For my own reading pleasure, I chose to simply take it in an see it as a gift. In the end Gazzaniga did little to hide the power of being well connected. He didn't even hide how blatant the exclusion was in his field. As a result, I felt this book conveyed what it's really like in academic institutions. If he had glossed over the elitism, he would not have provided the reader with an accurate understanding of what goes on behind the scenes.

I have such mixed feelings about this book. Gazzaniga is on of my heroes and is larger than life to me. It was his work that motivated me to study cognitive neuroscience. I will never forget taking an intro to psych course and reading a bit about his split brain procedure. From that day onward, I was absolutely hooked. If I had to pick a topic (for any class that would allow independent picks), I chose Gazzaniga's work. When I finally declared and took a cognitive neuroscience heavy course load, I learned not only about the strange and wonderful ways in which the brain works, I also found out that it was a very young field, founded by none other than Gazzaniga. His pride in his accomplishments is certainly commiserate with his education, experience, and success. It is just that I have seen equally successful people pull off at least attempting to signal a modicum of humility.

In many ways, this book was magical. Gazzaniga's work paved the way for so many wonderful studies that continue, to this day, shedding light on human behavior -- for example, the wonderful work by Josh Greene, which shows how opposing forces in 2 areas of the prefrontal cortex helped humans come to a single moral decision; Martha Farah's work on the FFA, which helped society understand how we recognize faces; work with magnets that shut down the specific parts of the brain, which helps us understand where behaviors originate so researchers can develop treatments. Gazzaniga explains one of his earliest experiments in which he isolated an artery that only fed blood to one side of the brain (so freaking amazing!!!). That was his foray into split brain research.

After spending years studying everything Gazzaniga has published, I wasn't sure there would be anything new for me in this book. For so many years I have devoured Gazzaniga's articles. Some of our cognitive neuroscience courses used Gazzaniga's textbooks, and we discussed just about every concept included. But he brought new information to every topic. Even if I was very familiar with a certain concept, his way of explaining his thinking, the funding, the hurdles to conducting studies, and his interactions with the patients provided me with novel information. It made the book extremely exciting for me because I was able to listen to familiar topics but learn about them in a new way. Hugely satisfying. I felt like I was there with him as cognitive neuroscience was born.

Gazzaniga not only explained all of his research throughout his career from naive student to professor and from professor to distinguished chair, and so on, he also shared what he was thinking personally, who his friends were, what politics were involved in getting funding or remaining at a particular institution. Thanks to his style choice of part science, part biography, I got to know things about Gazzaniga and his work I never learned in the classroom! This is the man who put cognitive neuroscience on the map! And I got to hear about every detail of how that happened from his own lips. For this reason, this book was fantastic.

Also worth noting is that, when speaking about events that unfolded decades ago (even 40 years or more), Gazzaniga seem to remember everything in great detail. It really painted a very clear picture for the reader. If the bragging had been toned down even a little, this would have been one of my favorite books of all time. It was so thrilling.

Update: Also to Gazzaniga's credit, he was raised catholic and was educated in the "good genes" era when Dawkins gene-centric view reigned supreme. Despite that, he was able to study the data on stem cells and go against his own religious convictions (he wisely said any scientist worth their salt should always be ready to update views based on evidence and not beliefs- a very Charles Darwin thing to say), and he could appreciate the Dawkins et al. view of life while also allowing his mind to synthesize the new information about emergence and environmental control. He never remained stuck in one mindset.

[Monika Rukść · Rating 1 out of 5]

Książka okazała się w moim przypadku podwójnym rozczarowaniem. Pierwsze dotyczyło treści. Jeżeli interesuje Was neuronauka, ale niekoniecznie jesteście zaprzątnięci kwestiami takimi jak domy, w których mieszkał autor, okoliczności, w jakich postanawiał przeprowadzić się kolejny raz, budynki i uczelnie, w których pracował, gdzie jadał, czym się zajmują jego dzieci etc., to połowa tej książki będzie niezbyt zajmująca. Oczywiście, jest tu wiele relacji z badań i naukowych dywagacji, ale pływają one w dość niestrawnym dla mnie sosie złożonym z czołobitnych i niezbyt ciekawych opisów kolejnych współpracowników, studentów, przyjaciół i znajomych autora. Wszyscy są wyjątkowo energiczni, wyjątkowo utalentowani, bystrzy, pełni pasji i tak dalej w tym stylu właściwie za każdym razem. Może dlatego żadna z tych osób nie wydała mi się naprawdę żywa, bo wszyscy byli podobnie genialni, inteligentni, znakomici etc. Rozumiem, że autor chciał powiedzieć coś miłego o każdym, ale dla mnie było to nieciekawe, powtarzalne jak refren i sztuczne. Być może jestem po prostu typem złośliwego czytelnika, który nie lubi czytać, jak inni dobrze piszą o ludziach? Być może. Gazzaniga natomiast najwyraźniej przepada za "rzyganiem tęczą".
Druga sprawa to język. Trudno mi osądzić, na ile jest to kwestia umiejętności pisarskich autora, a na ile nieporadność przekładu. Przypuszczam, że wiele zdań mogło w miarę zgrabnie lub przynajmniej dopuszczalnie brzmieć po angielsku. W każdym razie wersja polska może przyprawić o ból głowy. Nie mogę się powstrzymać, żeby nie podać kilku przykładów.
"Gdy brałem ślub z Charlotte, Jeff również był".
"Jeff nadał ton żartobliwości, ale również zaprezentował to, że był zawsze gotowy na pytania na temat umysłu i serca".
"Rena nie wprowadziłaby nas w ten wymiar, gdyby Jeff, ktoś obcy w tym pokoju, nie był jednocześnie w stanie zakomunikować głębokiego poczucia godności poprzez swoje poczucie humoru".
Czy to jest język polski? Według mnie nie. Poza kwestiami stylu etc., co powyższe 2 zdania właściwie znaczą? Bo ja naprawdę nie wiem.
"Postępy J.W. były wolniejsze i przypominało, co działo się u pierwszej serii pacjentów z Caltech".
Ta składnia się nie składa. Niestety nie są to jakieś pojedyncze strzały, ale regularne serie co parę stron. Na redakcję pewnie zabrakło funduszy, ale szczerze - na miejscu Copernicus Center Press wstydziłabym się wydać coś takiego.

[Kayleigh · Rating 1 out of 5]

This may be for people that already have a knowledge base regarding neuroscientists. Not neuroscience, but neuroscientists. Like, if you had grad school science program trading cards of some sort this is probably for you. The relationship between the hemispheres of the brain is something I was hoping to learn about, but this doesn’t really seem to be the book for that. (Suggestions welcome) I couldn’t get past the name dropping and anecdotes unrelated to the content the title and description seem to imply might lie within.

[Troy Blackford · Rating 5 out of 5]

A science autobiography, the work on split brain patients that has typified Gazzaniga's career is told in context of the man's professional and personal life. I always like these science autobiographies, and you should be able to tell what you're getting into from the subtitle. An accomplished and interesting man, with a unique life. Worth a read.

[K.A. Ashcomb · Rating 1 out of 5]

Finally, a new book review. I have been swamped with publishing, writing, and marketing. To the book. I was so excited to get this book, having an opportunity to see/read about the life of a neuroscientist. But this is the first time I have to say I hate a book. It is a sad moment in my life, and I'm not proud of my reaction. Maybe while I write my review, I have a more positive view.

This book is snobbish, elitist, and constantly name dropping and describing the perks of being and coming from a top University and being there at the right time. The writer is like my father-in-law who in a way knows a lot about the world and humans and still knows nothing about them. If I'm sure, they are from the same era. The golden age. Life has been so good that neither of them has been forced to stop to think and understand how the rest of the world lives and what are their struggles. That others are not as blessed. The words coming from my father-in-law's mouths are more than often enough demeaning, unhelpful, and downright stupid, and still, I know he thinks he is helping and does it out of the goodness of his heart. This book reminded me a lot of him. Even when the writer described his cancer, he shrugged it off as it never happened. Somehow he turned it into a merit. Something others can beat as easily.

This book... this book irritates me. The only time the book interested me was when he was writing about his involvement in cloning laws. Then his name dropping and bragging didn't make me want to tear my hair off. Then he rightfully made it clear how their decision making affected nationally and worldwide.

Not that this book is grammatically incorrect or that the structure is all over the place. It is just the arrogance.

I understand the man has a right and a good reason to be proud of his life, what he has seen and done, and been part of. He has done important things to our world and understanding of the human mind. But for the sake of reason his own religion teaches to be humble, and still, he goes on about the fine dining he has done, how chefs made them food especially, martinis, and so much more.

All this irritation might be about my jealousy. I was supposed to succeed in the University, and be part of making science, but life didn't work that way. (I'm not sad about that any longer.) And I apologize if that is the reason for my dislike for the book. If not, I apologize for nothing.

In conclusion, skip this book if you want to learn something about neuroscience other than about the culture in a top University(s). Read this if you want to understand what is it like to live a good elitist life. I guess there is nothing bad about that.

[David Brangoccio · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.8/5
Took a break from GWTW (for those of you following along at home)

This guy seems pretty cool and down to earth and quite smart. But he also definitely likes to make money and live a luxurious life. Not that it’s bad to do that. Or maybe it is. Not sure yet.

But his work is definitely quite groundbreaking, since a psychology/neuroscience noob like myself has heard about it before.

So if you feel like learning a little about the brain, and a lot about what popular scientists enjoy doing, this is for you.

[Kimbot the Destroyer · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you want a more concise overview of the brain stuff, read "Who's in Charge?" by this author. This is primarily a memoir, with cool science stuff thrown in. The author's academic life is interesting, but not terrifically exciting. Which is great for him, but not a ton of fun to read.

[Bruce · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not a summary of Gazzaniga's research. It's a sketchy autobiography of his life as a researcher. I'd give it a solid 3.5 stars, but had to round up to a 4 star rating.

[Lil · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredibly insightful book that delightfully spotlights scientists desire to pursue knowledge and the spirit of experimenting. The many characters are beautifully portrayed.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although I have sometimes been critical about the author's approach in terms of neuroscience and his lack of awareness about the disconnect that exists between his appreciation of design elements to the human mind and brains in general and his formal adoption of a misguided evolutionary framework to science, this book manages to avoid most of what I find problematic about his unwillingness to follow the evidence where it leads.  Instead, this book is a very enjoyable memoir of the author's life as a neurologist, which shows a great deal of humanity and graciousness in the author's own efforts to deal with competition in his field.  This is precisely the sort of book I would like to see more of, memoirs from illustrious scientists that discuss the way they went about their careers and the places they lived and the jobs they had and the people they worked with and interacted with.  This book shows the human side of scientists in a way that is winning and charming, and certainly does more to advance the cause of scientific research than the pettiness that often exists by those who present science as something divorced from humanity and human frailty as is often the case.

This particular book is a bit more than 350 pages and is divided into four parts and nine large chapters.  The book begins with a foreword from Steven Pinker and a preface.  After that the author discusses discovering the brain (I) with chapters on how the author dived into science (1), including some information about his parents and how they got together, as well as the way that the author discovered split-brain research (2) and sought to understand the code by which the brain sends signals within itself (3).  AFter that the author discusses his own research with split and whole brains (II), with chapters on the modularity of the brain that the author discovered (4), as well as the results of split-brain surgery on the brains of various people (5) and the way that this research spread from the West coast to the East coast with the author moving there for work (6).  After that the author discusses further aspects of his research (III), including what the right brain has to say (7) and his own lifestyle and call to serve (8).  Finally, the book concludes with a discussion about brain layers (IV, 9), an epilogue, acknowledgements, two appendices that deal graciously with other neuroscientists, notes, figure credits, video figures, and an index.

The author's research is something that is of genuine and larger cultural interest.  We tend to think of people and tasks as being dominated by the left and right brain, but unless both sides of the brain are acting well, and unless there is some legitimacy for the insights the right side of the brain has, we will be harmed by the way that we think of the mind.  Of particular interest here is the author's almost-gossipy discussion of the student and academic life of CalTech and other institutions and the way that he was able to parlay his personal friendships into a thoughtful discussion of neuroscience and political debates between different people and William F. Buckley Jr.  Overall, this book provides a look at the scientist as a human being involved in institutional and societal politics, seeking to do research that requires working with people and dealing with competition over others seeking credit in the same realms of science.  Obviously, if science is to have a secure place within culture the humanity of the people involved in it needs to be recognized, which will do much at shrinking the gap between scientists and the larger audience that is required to legitimate it.

[Lis Carey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Michael S. Gazzaniga is a leading scientist in the field of cognitive neuroscience, having in fact helped to create the field as the study of the brain advanced. In this book, he discusses his life and his research. He did important, even critical, research on split brains (brains where the corpus callosum, the nerve bundle connecting the left and right sides of the brain) was severed--sometimes in accidents, but often intentionally, in cases where epileptic seizures were unmanageably severe and frequent. It was effective enough to be considered justified in very severe cases--especially as it seemed to have no obvious impact on normal functioning.

In fact it did have significant effects, but most early testing wasn't effective at identifying those effects. Gazzaniga was one of the leaders in developing those techniques, identifying the effects, and ultimately, developing a far more sophisticated understanding of how the human brain really works, both when it's intact, and when the corpus callosum is split.

His description of his research is informative, interesting, and often downright joyful. It's really fascinating.

His accounts of his moves back and forth across the country, moving between east and west coast universities and research centers (he created several of those research centers) I have to say I found positively dizzying. In at least one case, he created a new research center, and left for the other coast after just three years. I might be completely wrong, but I do have the impression that this is not typical in academia.

We also learn something of his personal life, his two marriages and several children, his social life, his friendships with comedian Steve Allen, conservative pundit and founder of the National Review William F. Buckley, Jr., and others. Gazzaniga seems proud of having been a member of the "Animal House" fraternity at Dartmouth College, which at minimum tells me he's so much more social and uninhibited than I am that even now that he's 82, I'd probably run screaming in the other direction if I met him--but a lot more people would probably really enjoy meeting him.

All in all, a very interesting book, and the things I find off-putting are likely the very things that other people will find engaging.

I bought this audiobook.

[Linda · Rating 3 out of 5]

Something I learned:

People with a split brain (where the corpus callosum - the "bridge" between the two lobes of the brain - is cut) can "cue" one side or the other to accomplish a task. For instance, a command to make a hitchhiker hand sign, made first by the right hand (controlled by the left, or verbal, side of the brain) can be copied afterwards by the left hand. The left side (which has heard the command) does it correctly and the right side, which is visual and not verbal, sees it and copies it. However, when the command is given and the LEFT hand is supposed to make the sign first, it can't do it. It has no "cue."

Something I laughed at:

Gazzaniga and an Italian scientist decided that if they inserted a small microphone into the intact corpus callosum of a cat, they could hear the electrical signals being sent from one side to the other and might eventually be able to decipher them. They put their speakers on loud, lowered the mike and Yellow Submarine came booming out of the speakers. They had somehow picked up the local radio station. I laughed so hard I couldn't breath!

Something I didn't like:

Name dropping: Francis Crick, Bill Buckley, Stephen Pinker, Richard Feynman. You have to read it to see how he uses it.

Every grad/post-doc student is the "best ever."

Something I found wrong:

Gazzaniga says that there are very few mutations in our DNA. No, there are thousands but only a few can make a difference, positively or negatively.

Interesting stuff but you have to dig it out and get past Gazzaniga's ego to find it.

[John Gurney · Rating 4 out of 5]

This autobiography from the discoverer of the hemispheric brain"split mind" is very readable. I lack technical knowledge, yet, was able to follow along to the audio book. Gazzaniga must have been exciting and interesting in person, based on his writing. He was intellectually curious and enjoyed thinking about completely different areas. A Republican, he lived for intellectual discussion, not only among scientists but with his other friends. He writes of his close, 50-year friendship with the conservative intellectual William F. Buckley, yet, was close friends with Hollywood liberal activist Steve Allen. Early in his academic life, Gazzaniga organized a friendly, packed house political debate between Buckley and Allen. The scientist would continue to organize scientific conferences, start academic journals, write, teach, and research. He served on President George W. Bush's expert panel on human cloning and tackled the topic in a serious, thoughtful way, ultimately deciding to green light cloning with regulation.

Gazzaniga also writes charitably of his mentors- such as Nobel Laureate Sperry- and other colleagues and research assistants. If he has axes to grind, he keeps them hidden in this work. His life was rich and varied, making this an intriguing audio book.

[Leo Walsh · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent, if overly self-laudatory autobiography written by the notable cognitive scientist Michael Gazzaniga. Most of the book is a tale of his research, focusing on work with split-brain patients, from the 8,000 foot level. But the most interesting parts for me was his personal asides.

For instance, in 2016, I am accustomed to all notable academics and intellectuals being, in the main, progressives. For me, the term "Conservative" means "I distrust global warming, evolution and I hate gays." And yet when Gazzaniga was young, in the late 60's, he latched onto conservative causes. Because, it turns out, those were different times.

Then again, when William F. Buckley was around -- and Gazzaniga was good friends with Buckley -- things were different. The conservative movement was led by thoughtful people then. And they had learned of the dangers of narrow-focused natavism after Goldwater.

Now, unfortunately, instead of Buckley, the Goldwater wing has surged, and won. And instead of the reasoned Buckley, the great "thinkers" on the right have become rabidly dogmatic, refusing to acknowledge evidence.

All things considered, a decent but not earth-shattering book. That gives insight into the cloistered life of an academic research scientist. Three stars.

[Sarah Novak · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a memoir describing an incredibly successful career in academic neuroscience. In general, I like hearing stories of how certain ideas originated and the people behind the work, but I don't particularly recommend this book. Gazzaniga's story can be frustrating in how overloaded it is with small stories of collaborators and famous friends. I tried to remind myself that he wasn't just name-dropping -- giving credit to collaborators is a good thing, and anyone would tell anecdotes about famous friends after living a memoir-worthy life. The gossip in me wanted more detail about the darker side of academic politics (e.g., the nastiness that followed Sperry's Nobel), but Gazzaniga took the high road. Some of the anecdotes are memorable (the George Miller one made me laugh out loud), and I found it interesting to hear about the decisions Gazzaniga made at different points in his career (pretty mundane stuff overall, though). My guess is that this book is too inside baseball for most people to enjoy.

[Sue · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not always an easy read for the non-scientist, but is such an interesting challenge that almost anyone will be compelled along. The reader will learn how the two hemispheres of the brain work together, and how they work when they have been surgically separated in treatment of severe epilepsy.It is a look-in, too, at how a research lab works, how the scientists choose and work up their experiments, and how they work together. Gazzaniga's studies will intrigue the reader into trying , for example, to draw a circle with one hand and a square with the other, at the same time.
Gazzaniga touches on his personal life as it bears on the work he is doing.
Troubling are the mentions of the use of animals in the research, but necessary if the full story is to be told; these mentions are not too graphic.

[Susan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Michael Gazzaniga is one my favorite cognitive scientists. HIs work on split brains is simply awesome.
But this book is a compilation of his life in science and the excitement of his discoveries and his work and how it intertwined with his life - going back and forth between New England and Dartmouth and CA and the University system. Amazing the people and scientists that were working together at the time doing amazing things and finding out more and more how the brain works - and doesn't. His book reads like a Who's Who of brain research in the late 60's and beyond. Any one of my AP psych students would recognize the names of his fellow researchers and their achievements. A truly interesting read.

[Melanie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Have you ever had a professor who loves to talk about the good old days? If so, this book will feel familiar to you. I picked it up because I was hoping to actually learn something about split brain research. Instead, I can tell you now about all the places the author has lived and where his wife is from. I can also tell you about the death of one of his close friends and about how he served the Bush administration on an ethics panel. I cannot, however, tell you anything about split brain research.

I gave the book 3 stars anyway because I finished it...couldn't put it down, in fact. Gazzaniga is a good writer, and I found it downright entertaining. Now, to quit procrastinating and find a book that will actually teach me something...

[Courtney · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't recall listening to this. However I did make this comment near the beginning:

The pacing is like a familiar story told among a group who know all know it and the reader is an outsider. I can follow it, but I feel a little behind; the references feel tangential or random, like comparing someone to Tom Hanks, talk of onion sandwiches—and I’m distracted from the ‘real’ story
I assume it’s the speed the narrator is reading, but if it were in print I’d also be annoyed. I do love the ‘real’ content.