In Brief The Problem

Leaders know that low employee engagement is a sign of lost valueits clearly something they want to fix. But most of them dont know how, so they provide random perks, hoping those will move the needle.

Its much more effective to create a culture of trust. Neuroscience research shows that you can do this through eight key management behaviors that stimulate the production of oxytocin, a brain chemical that facilitates teamwork.

By fostering organizational trust, you can increase employees productivity and energy levels, improve collaboration, and cultivate a happier, more loyal workforce.

Companies are twisting themselves into knots to empower and challenge their employees. Theyre anxious about the sad state of engagement, and rightly so, given the value theyre losing. Consider Gallups meta-analysis of decades worth of data: It shows that high engagementdefined largely as having a strong connection with ones work and colleagues, feeling like a real contributor, and enjoying ample chances to learnconsistently leads to positive outcomes for both individuals and organizations. The rewards include higher productivity, better-quality products, and increased profitability.

So its clear that creating an employee-centric culture can be good for business. But how do you do that effectively? Culture is typically designed in an ad hoc way around random perks like gourmet meals or karaoke Fridays, often in thrall to some psychological fad. And despite the evidence that you cant buy higher job satisfaction, organizations still use golden handcuffs to keep good employees in place. While such efforts might boost workplace happiness in the short term, they fail to have any lasting effect on talent retention or performance.

In my research Ive found that building a culture of trust is what makes a meaningful difference. Employees in high-trust organizations are more productive, have more energy at work, collaborate better with their colleagues, and stay with their employers longer than people working at low-trust companies. They also suffer less chronic stress and are happier with their lives, and these factors fuel stronger performance.

Leaders understand the stakesat least in principle. In its 2016 global CEO survey, PwC reported that 55% of CEOs think that a lack of trust is a threat to their organizations growth. But most have done little to increase trust, mainly because they arent sure where to start. In this article I provide a science-based framework that will help them.

About a decade ago, in an effort to understand how company culture affects performance, I began measuring the brain activity of people while they worked. The neuroscience experiments I have run reveal eight ways that leaders can effectively create and manage a culture of trust. Ill describe those strategies and explain how some organizations are using them to good effect. But first, lets look at the science behind the framework.

Back in 2001 I derived a mathematical relationship between trust and economic performance. Though my paper on this research described the social, legal, and economic environments that cause differences in trust, I couldnt answer the most basic question: Why do two people trust each other in the first place? Experiments around the world have shown that humans are naturally inclined to trust othersbut dont always. I hypothesized that there must be a neurologic signal that indicates when we should trust someone. So I started a long-term research program to see if that was true.

I knew that in rodents a brain chemical called oxytocin had been shown to signal that another animal was safe to approach. I wondered if that was the case in humans, too. No one had looked into it, so I decided to investigate. To measure trust and its reciprocation (trustworthiness) objectively, my team used a strategic decision task developed by researchers in the lab of Vernon Smith, a Nobel laureate in economics. In our experiment, a participant chooses an amount of money to send to a stranger via computer, knowing that the money will triple in amount and understanding that the recipient may or may not share the spoils. Therein lies the conflict: The recipient can either keep all the cash or be trustworthy and share it with the sender.

To measure oxytocin levels during the exchange, my colleagues and I developed a protocol to draw blood from peoples arms before and immediately after they made decisions to trust others (if they were senders) or to be trustworthy (if they were receivers). Because we didnt want to influence their behavior, we didnt tell participants what the study was about, even though there was no way they could consciously control how much oxytocin they produced. We found that the more money people received (denoting greater trust on the part of senders), the more oxytocin their brains produced. And the amount of oxytocin recipients produced predicted how trustworthythat is, how likely to share the moneythey would be.

Since the brain generates messaging chemicals all the time, it was possible we had simply observed random changes in oxytocin. To prove that it causes trust, we safely administered doses of synthetic oxytocin into living human brains (through a nasal spray). Comparing participants who received a real dose with those who received a placebo, we found that giving people 24 IU of synthetic oxytocin more than doubled the amount of money they sent to a stranger. Using a variety of psychological tests, we showed that those receiving oxytocin remained cognitively intact. We also found that they did not take excessive risks in a gambling task, so the increase in trust was not due to neural disinhibition. Oxytocin appeared to do just one thingreduce the fear of trusting a stranger.

My group then spent the next 10 years running additional experiments to identify the promoters and inhibitors of oxytocin. This research told us why trust varies across individuals and situations. For example, high stress is a potent oxytocin inhibitor. (Most people intuitively know this: When they are stressed out, they do not interact with others effectively.) We also discovered that oxytocin increases a persons empathy, a useful trait for social creatures trying to work together. We were starting to develop insights that could be used to design high-trust cultures, but to confirm them, we had to get out of the lab.

So we obtained permission to run experiments at numerous field sites where we measured oxytocin and stress hormones and then assessed employees productivity and ability to innovate. This research even took me to the rain forest of Papua New Guinea, where I measured oxytocin in indigenous people to see if the relationship between oxytocin and trust is universal. (It is.) Drawing on all these findings, I created a survey instrument that quantifies trust within organizations by measuring its constituent factors (described in the next section). That survey has allowed me to study several thousand companies and develop a framework for managers.

Through the experiments and the surveys, I identified eight management behaviors that foster trust. These behaviors are measurable and can be managed to improve performance.

The neuroscience shows that recognition has the largest effect on trust when it occurs immediately after a goal has been met, when it comes from peers, and when its tangible, unexpected, personal, and public. Public recognition not only uses the power of the crowd to celebrate successes, but also inspires others to aim for excellence. And it gives top performers a forum for sharing best practices, so others can learn from them.

Barry-Wehmiller Companies, a supplier of manufacturing and technology services, is a high-trust organization that effectively recognizes top performers in the 80 production-automation manufacturers it owns. CEO Bob Chapman and his team started a program in which employees at each plant nominate an outstanding peer annually. The winner is kept secret until announced to everyone, and the facility is closed on the day of the celebration. The chosen employees family and close friends are invited to attend (without tipping off the winner), and the entire staff joins them. Plant leaders kick off the ceremony by reading the nominating letters about the winners contributions and bring it to a close with a favorite perkthe keys to a sports car the winner gets to drive for a week. Though the recognition isnt immediate, it is tangible, unexpected, and both personal and public. And by having employees help pick the winners, Barry-Wehmiller gives everyone, not just the people at the top, a say in what constitutes excellence. All this seems to be working well for the company: It has grown from a single plant in 1987 to a conglomerate that brings in $2.4 billion in annual revenue today.

When a manager assigns a team a difficult but achievable job, the moderate stress of the task releases neurochemicals, including oxytocin and adrenocorticotropin, that intensify peoples focus and strengthen social connections. When team members need to work together to reach a goal, brain activity coordinates their behaviors efficiently. But this works only if challenges are attainable and have a concrete end point; vague or impossible goals cause people to give up before they even start. Leaders should check in frequently to assess progress and adjust goals that are too easy or out of reach.

The need for achievability is reinforced by Harvard Business School professor Teresa Amabiles findings on the power of progress: When Amabile analyzed 12,000 diary entries of employees from a variety of industries, she found that 76% of people reported that their best days involved making progress toward goals.

Once employees have been trained, allow them, whenever possible, to manage people and execute projects in their own way. Being trusted to figure things out is a big motivator: A 2014 Citigroup and LinkedIn survey found that nearly half of employees would give up a 20% raise for greater control over how they work.

Autonomy also promotes innovation, because different people try different approaches. Oversight and risk management procedures can help minimize negative deviations while people experiment. And postproject debriefs allow teams to share how positive deviations came about so that others can build on their success.

Often, younger or less experienced employees will be your chief innovators, because theyre less constrained by what usually works. Thats how progress was made in self-driving cars. After five years and a significant investment by the U.S. government in the big three auto manufacturers, no autonomous military vehicles had been produced. Changing tack, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency offered all comers a large financial prize for a self-driving car that could complete a course in the Mojave Desert in less than 10 hours. Two years later a group of engineering students from Stanford University won the challengeand $2 million.

When companies trust employees to choose which projects theyll work on, people focus their energies on what they care about most. As a result, organizations like the Morning Star Companythe largest producer of tomato products in the worldhave highly productive colleagues who stay with the company year after year. At Morning Star (a company Ive worked with), people dont even have job titles; they self-organize into work groups. Gaming software company Valve gives employees desks on wheels and encourages them to join projects that seem interesting and rewarding. But theyre still held accountable. Clear expectations are set when employees join a new group, and 360-degree evaluations are done when projects wrap up, so that individual contributions can be measured.

Only 40% of employees report that they are well informed about their companys goals, strategies, and tactics. This uncertainty about the companys direction leads to chronic stress, which inhibits the release of oxytocin and undermines teamwork. Openness is the antidote. Organizations that share their flight plans with employees reduce uncertainty about where they are headed and why. Ongoing communication is key: A 2015 study of 2.5 million manager-led teams in 195 countries found that workforce engagement improved when supervisors had some form of daily communication with direct reports.

Social media optimization company Buffer goes further than most by posting its salary formula online for everyone to see. Want to know what CEO Joel Gascoigne makes? Just look it up. Thats openness.

The brain network that oxytocin activates is evolutionarily old. This means that the trust and sociality that oxytocin enables are deeply embedded in our nature. Yet at work we often get the message that we should focus on completing tasks, not on making friends. Neuroscience experiments by my lab show that when people intentionally build social ties at work, their performance improves. A Google study similarly found that managers who express interest in and concern for team members success and personal well-being outperform others in the quality and quantity of their work.

Yes, even engineers need to socialize. A study of software engineers in Silicon Valley found that those who connected with others and helped them with their projects not only earned the respect and trust of their peers but were also more productive themselves. You can help people build social connections by sponsoring lunches, after-work parties, and team-building activities. It may sound like forced fun, but when people care about one another, they perform better because they dont want to let their teammates down. Adding a moderate challenge to the mix (white-water rafting counts) will speed up the social-bonding process.

High-trust workplaces help people develop personally as well as professionally. Numerous studies show that acquiring new work skills isnt enough; if youre not growing as a human being, your performance will suffer. High-trust companies adopt a growth mindset when developing talent. Some even find that when managers set clear goals, give employees the autonomy to reach them, and provide consistent feedback, the backward-looking annual performance review is no longer necessary. Instead, managers and direct reports can meet more frequently to focus on professional and personal growth. This is the approach taken by Accenture and Adobe Systems. Managers can ask questions like, Am I helping you get your next job? to probe professional goals. Assessing personal growth includes discussions about work-life integration, family, and time for recreation and reflection. Investing in the whole person has a powerful effect on engagement and retention.

Leaders in high-trust workplaces ask for help from colleagues instead of just telling them to do things. My research team has found that this stimulates oxytocin production in others, increasing their trust and cooperation. Asking for help is a sign of a secure leaderone who engages everyone to reach goals. Jim Whitehurst, CEO of open-source software maker Red Hat, has said, I found that being very open about the things I did not know actually had the opposite effect than I would have thought. It helped me build credibility. Asking for help is effective because it taps into the natural human impulse to cooperate with others.

After identifying and measuring the managerial behaviors that sustain trust in organizations, my team and I tested the impact of trust on business performance. We did this in several ways. First, we gathered evidence from a dozen companies that have launched policy changes to raise trust (most were motivated by a slump in their profits or market share). Second, we conducted the field experiments mentioned earlier: In two businesses where trust varies by department, my team gave groups of employees specific tasks, gauged their productivity and innovation in those tasks, and gathered very detailed dataincluding direct measures of brain activityshowing that trust improves performance. And third, with the help of an independent survey firm, we collected data in February 2016 from a nationally representative sample of 1,095 working adults in the U.S. The findings from all three sources were similar, but I will focus on what we learned from the national data since its generalizable.

By surveying the employees about the extent to which firms practiced the eight behaviors, we were able to calculate the level of trust for each organization. (To avoid priming respondents, we never used the word trust in surveys.) The U.S. average for organizational trust was 70% (out of a possible 100%). Fully 47% of respondents worked in organizations where trust was below the average, with one firm scoring an abysmally low 15%. Overall, companies scored lowest on recognizing excellence and sharing information (67% and 68%, respectively). So the data suggests that the average U.S. company could enhance trust by improving in these two areaseven if it didnt improve in the other six.

The effect of trust on self-reported work performance was powerful. Respondents whose companies were in the top quartile indicated they had 106% more energy and were 76% more engaged at work than respondents whose firms were in the bottom quartile. They also reported being 50% more productivewhich is consistent with our objective measures of productivity from studies we have done with employees at work. Trust had a major impact on employee loyalty as well: Compared with employees at low-trust companies, 50% more of those working at high-trust organizations planned to stay with their employer over the next year, and 88% more said they would recommend their company to family and friends as a place to work.

My team also found that those working in high-trust companies enjoyed their jobs 60% more, were 70% more aligned with their companies purpose, and felt 66% closer to their colleagues. And a high-trust culture improves how people treat one another and themselves. Compared with employees at low-trust organizations, the high-trust folks had 11% more empathy for their workmates, depersonalized them 41% less often, and experienced 40% less burnout from their work. They felt a greater sense of accomplishment, as well41% more.

Again, this analysis supports the findings from our qualitative and scientific studies. But one newand surprisingthing we learned is that high-trust companies pay more. Employees earn an additional $6,450 a year, or 17% more, at companies in the highest quartile of trust, compared with those in the lowest quartile. The only way this can occur in a competitive labor market is if employees in high-trust companies are more productive and innovative.

Former Herman Miller CEO Max De Pree once said, The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you. In between the two, the leader must become a servant.

The experiments I have run strongly support this view. Ultimately, you cultivate trust by setting a clear direction, giving people what they need to see it through, and getting out of their way.

Its not about being easy on your employees or expecting less from them. High-trust companies hold people accountable but without micromanaging them. They treat people like responsible adults.

Read more from the original source:
The Neuroscience of Trust

The Scientific study of the brain requires the skills of many different disciplines. Thus, this major is interdisciplinary and interdepartmental. The faculty are biologists, psychologists, biochemists, mathematicians, and engineers, all of whom share a fascination with the function of the brain. The brain is studied at many different levels, including the molecular and cellular levels, the level of systems of neurons, and the behavioral level.

On April 7, 2009 The Undergraduate Council of the Academic Senate, Curriculum Committee certified the Neuroscience, B.S. as acapstone major. The Neuroscience capstone is a project-based culmination to the Neuroscience curriculum. In the Neuroscience major, the capstone requirement is satisfied by participating in research, either under the guidance of an individual faculty member or through enrolling in a research methods class, NS 101L.Completion of either of these two paths provides students with an in-depth exposure to neuroscience research and provides a culminating capstone experience for Neuroscience majors.

PREPARATION FOR THE MAJOR

Mathematics 3A, 3B, 3C OR 31A, 31B, 32A OR Life Science 30A and 30B

Chemistry and Biochemistry 14A, 14B, 14BL, 14C, 14CL, 14D OR 20A, 20B, 20L, 30A, 30AL, 30B, 30BL

Life Sciences 1, 2, 3, 23L, 4 OR Life Sciences 7A,7B,7C, 23L **Please Note: The LS 1-4 series is scheduled to phase out after Spring 2018. See important message regarding LS series at bottom of this page.

Physics 6A, 6B, 6C OR 5A, 5B, 5C OR 1A, 1B, 1C, 4AL, 4BL **Please Note: The Physics 6 series is scheduled to phase out after Winter 2018. See important message regarding Physics series at bottom of this page.

Statistics 10 or 13** **Life Science 30A and 30B students must take Stats 13. Note: For students who take Math 3ABC or Math 31AB, 32A, you may substitute Stats 10 or 13 with Psychology 100A and Biostats 100A/110A. These classes will be automatically approved substitutions. Students must notify the NS undergraduate counselor to have this substitution applied.

IMPORTANT NOTES Any honors section of a course listed above is also acceptable. All core curriculum courses must be taken for a letter grade. Each course must be passed with a grade of C- or above. The preparation coursework must be completed with an overall 2.0 grade point average or higher. Students receiving grades below C- in two core curriculum classes, either in separate courses or repetitions of the same course, are subject to dismissalfrom the major. You are encouraged to fulfill the preparation requirements prior to enrollment in upper division courses for the major.

The courses underlined above mustbe completed before beginning the Neuroscience core series or declaring the major.

REQUIRED COURSEWORK

The following eleven (11) courses are required for the neuroscience major, for a total of 47 upper division units.

REQUIRED CORE (6 courses)

Neuroscience m101A: Fall Quarter Only Prerequisites: LS 2/7C, Chem 14C/30A, Physics 6B/5C/1B

Neuroscience m101B: Winter Quarter Only Prerequisites: NS m101A, LS 3, LS 4 (LS 4 and LS 23L may be taken concurrently with m101B)

Neuroscience m101C: Spring Quarter Only Prerequisites: NS m101A

Neuroscience 102: Fall Quarter Co-requisite: must be taken concurrently with Neuroscience m101A

Chemistry and Biochemistry 153A Prerequisites: Chem 14D/30B

Chemistry and Biochemistry 153L*****(ONLY required for Neuroscience majors completing their degree in Spring 2017, Summer 2017, Fall 2017, and Winter 2018. See important message below.) Prerequisites: Chem 14BL/30AL, 153A MAJOR ELECTIVES (3 courses, 1 from each elective category)

Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Disability Studies M139 Music Industry 103 Neuroscience M119L, M130*, C172, 178, 179, M187*, 191A Physiological Science C144*, 175, M181* Psychology 110, 112A, 112B*, 112C*, M117J*, 118, 119A*, 119B*, 119C-F, 119I*, 119J*, M119L, 119M*, M119O, 119R, 119S*, M119X*, 120A, 120B*, 124A, 124B, 124C*, 124D (Consciousness: Current Debates), 124I, 127B, M139, 161, M166*, 188A (Class Title: Legal, Ethical, and Societal Implications of Cognitive Neuroscience), 188B (Class Title: Neuroscience of Social Perception) Psychiatry 182

Systems and Integrative Neuroscience Neuroscience M119N, M130*, M145*, M187*, 191B Physics C186* Physiological Science C126*, C127*, 138, C144*, M145*, 146*, 147*, 173, 177, M181* Psychology 112B*, 112C*, M117J*, 119A*, 119B*, 119I*, 119J*, 119M*, M119N, 119Q, 119S*, M119X*, 120B*, 124C*, 162*, M166* Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Neuroscience MCD Bio 162 Neuroscience M130*, M145*, C177, 180, 181, 182, 186, M187*, 191C Physics C186* Physiological Science 121, C126*, C127*, M145*, 146*, 147*, 174, M181* Psychology M117J*, 162*, M166*

IMPORTANT NOTES Neurobio M169 or PhySci 135 can be taken as an elective provided that students will still complete one elective for each of the 3 elective options above. These two classes are good options for students taking NS 101L + 1 Additional Elective. PLEASE READ:If any of the electives listed below are not populating in your DARS/DPR, please email Megan Lebre (mlebre@mednet.ucla.edu) and the class will be manually subsituted in your DARS. A * next to an elective course number means the elective is cross-listed in another category, but only count for one category. CAPSTONE RESEARCH OPTIONS (2 courses)

The capstone requirement can be fulfilled by choosing one of the following three options:

Option 1: Laboratory Methods (1) Neuroscience 101L Winter Quarter Only Pre-requisites: NS m101A, m101B (NS m101B can be taken concurrently) Psych 116 is an approved substitution for NS 101L. Neuroscience majors should keep in mind that students in the Psych department receive priority for enrollment in Psych 116.

(2) Additional Neuroscience elective Students who choose the NS 101L option must take a total of 4 upper division electives with at least one from each elective option. Neurobio M169 or Phy Sci 135 can be taken provided that student has already completed one elective for each of the 3 elective categories.

Option 2: Independent Research (1) Neuroscience 198A or 199A and (2) Neuroscience 198B or 199B** Fall, Winter, and Spring Quarters Pre-requisites: NS m101A & SRP 99 under same faculty mentor

Students who choose the NS 198A/B or NS 199A/B option must take 3 upper division electives, one from each elective option. Neurobio M169 and Phy Sci 135 do not apply. Poster required at the annual Neuroscience undergraduate poster session in Spring Quarter Please see here for detailed guidelines on enrolling in Neuroscience research courses. **Students pursuing Departmental Honors must sign up for NS 198AB instead.

PLEASE NOTE: You may ONLY do Neuroscience 199AB OR Neuroscience 198AB ONCE. If you'd like to continue with your Neuroscience research, please visit the Research page and review the requirements for Neuroscience 199C which may also only be taken once.

Option 3: Project Brainstorm Capstone NOTE: LIMITED CAPACITY (~6 students per Winter - Spring Quarter)

Project Brainstorm (usually offered as NS 192B) is an outreach class offered to Juniors and Seniors in which you have an opportunity to develop teaching lessons on Neuroscience that you present to local K-12 students.

To use Project Brainstorm to fulfill your capstone requirement, you must do the following: 1) Contact the organizer for Project Brainstorm and the undergraduate Neuroscience counselor to declare your intent to use Project Brainstorm for your capstone. 2) Commit to two consecutive quarters (Winter and Spring) of Project Brainstorm 3) Register for Project Brainstorm as a capstone by completing 199A/B contracts and have them approved by the faculty instructor. Opt for letter grading. 4) Participate in all activities of Project Brainstorm, including additional activities designated especially for capstone participants. 5) Prepare and present a poster on your Project Brainstorm experiences at Neuroscience Poster Day in the Spring Quarter of your participation in the capstone. The Project Brainstorm Capstone has been filled for Winter and Spring 2017. PLEASE NOTE Psychology 115 cannot be substituted for Neuroscience M101A; however, Physiological Science 111A can be substituted. A student will receive 0 credit units if Psych 115 is taken AFTER completing Neuroscience M101A. A maximum of eight units of Neuroscience 198 or 199 may be applied toward the major. All required and elective courses must be taken for a letter grade, and a 2.0 average must be maintained in all upper division courses taken for the major. Students will still need 13 additional upper division units in order to reach the 60 minimum required.

**MESSAGE REGARDING CHEM 153L (UPDATED 5/19/2017) Chemistry 153L is being removed from the upper division Neuroscience major core requirements. Here is how the change will affect you: If you are graduating in 2017 Spring, 2017 Summer, 2017 Fall, and 2018 Winter the change does NOT affect you.You still need to complete Chemistry 153L. If you are a junior and have completed Chemistry 153L, please contact Undergraduate Counselor, Megan Lebre, at mlebre@mednet.ucla.edu. All incoming students in Fall 17 (transfer and freshmen) as well as current freshmen, sophomores, and juniors that have not taken Chem 153L no longer need to complete Chem 153L for the major.

**MESSAGE REGARDING LIFE SCIENCES SERIES (UPDATED 6/16/2017) Below please find important information regarding enrollment in the LS 1-4 and LS 7 series. Please read through this information thoroughly; if you have any questions, please direct them to the Life Science Core office atlscore@lifesci.ucla.edu. Thank you. STUDENTS CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN LS 1, 2, 3 AND/OR 4 Complete the sequence. The timeline for offering these courses is scheduled as follows: LS 1 will be offered in Fall Quarter 2017. If you need this course, we strongly encourage that you take the course this term. LS 2 will be offered in the Fall Quarter 2017 and Winter Quarter 2018. We strongly encourage that you take this course by Winter 2018. LS 3/ LS 4 Both courses will be offered Fall Quarter 2017, Winter Quarter 2018, and Spring Quarter 2018. We strongly encourage that you take these courses by Spring 2018. LS 23L is not being eliminated. Students are, however, encouraged to complete LS 23L no later than Winter Quarter 2018. During this transition we expect a large number of students to take LS 23L starting in Spring 2018, therefore if you have the opportunity you should take it before then (ex: Summer 2017, Fall 2017 orWinter 2018). Any student who has conflicts with enrolling in these courses according to the timelines above should contact the Life Science Core office; every effort will be made to insure that students complete the series at the end of the 2017-2018 academic year. STUDENTSNOTCURRENTLY ENROLLED IN LS 1-4 If you have not enrolled in LS 1, 2, 3 or 4yet, you may begin this LS series during our Summer Session A and C. If you cannot take Summer courses, then you mayenroll in the LS 7 series. A small number of seats will be offered in Fall Quarter 2017 during June enrollment; if you want to try to enroll in this course, make sure to attempt to do so during your first pass. During the summer, some seats in LS 7A will be held for incoming students; any remaining seats will be made available to continuing students beginning on September 19, 2017. If you do not get an opportunity to enroll in LS 7A in Fall Quarter 2017, the course will be offered again in Winter Quarter 2018 and Spring Quarter 2018.

**MESSAGE REGARDING PHYSICS SERIES (UPDATED 6/9/2017) The Physics & Astronomy Department is transitioning to a new Physics series for Life Science majors. Students who have begun the Physics 6 series will have until Winter 2018 to complete the old Physics 6 series. After Winter 2018, the Physics 6 series will be completely phased out and replaced with the new Physics 5 series. Please take note of this to plan accordingly. Some additional notes about the Physics series that may be helpful:

More:
Neuroscience Major - UCLA UNDERGRADUATE INTERDEPARTMENTAL ...

The neuroscience major provides students with rigorous, laboratory-based exposure to the fascinating multidisciplinary study of the brain. The program is ideal for students planning graduate or professional study in neuroscience, biology, chemistry, psychology, medicine and other related fields.

Neuroscience sits at the intersection of biology, chemistry and psychology. The term "neuroscience" was coined in the 1960s to name an interdisciplinary field that focused on both the normal and abnormal structure and function of the nervous system. Dickinson now offers students a major in neuroscience, in which Dickinson students will engage in an integrated curriculum in this very popular interdisciplinary field. The neuroscience major provides students with rigorous training in neuroscience and allied science disciplines, advanced opportunities for research, and integrated mentoring and advising of students.

The integrative nature of the two introductory neuroscience courses (Psychology 125 and Biology 124), placed both within psychology and biology, and also at the intersection of these two fields, demonstrates to the student the interconnectedness of these two sciences. Upper division courses allow the student to bring research skills to bear in the laboratory and to integrate skill and knowledge gained in the introductory courses. The elective requirements in the major allow the student to explore the many facets of neuroscience, and the student can then choose to focus on molecular or molar approaches to neuroscience; can choose to emphasize biology, chemistry or psychology within their neurosciences major; and can explore the ways other fieldssuch as anthropology, philosophy or sociologyintersect with neuroscience. Finally, a research experience allows the major to engage the world by bringing to bear learned knowledge and skills.

Read the original post:
Neuroscience | Dickinson College

In the last few decades, there has been a revolution in the field of neuroscience that is changing the way we live, love, and work. For many, it's been difficult to keep up.

We created this summit to bring you up to date with the latest discoveries that have immediate application in your lifein a straightforward and practical way that does not require a background in neuroscience or previous study of the brain.

The Neuroscience Training Summit is your chance to learn directly from the world's leading experts about their groundbreaking discoveries and, most importantly, how you can start to apply this wisdom to your life right away.

These experts will share with you the details of their research AND provide you with practical, experiential exercises and tools that you can use in your personal and professional lives.

To go even deeper with your exploration of this incredible wealth of information, we're offering a special upgrade package that gives you lifetime access to the teaching sessions of each of our 20 presenters, plus much more.

Thanks for signing up. We look forward to being with you on The NeuroscienceTraining Summit.

Tami Simon Founder of Sounds True

Excerpt from:
The Neuroscience Training Summit

The Jewish assumption of free will is ancient and enduring. But what does modern neuroscience have to say?

The history of neuroscientists efforts to explore the free will phenomenon was reviewed in 2016 by philosopher and neuroethicist Andrea Lavazza in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. The setting for our current understanding was drawn a half century ago with the discovery by Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deecke of the Readiness Potential (RP), a measurement of increased bio-electric activity in the brain. The RP was measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG), a procedure in which electrodes were placed on a subjects scalp to allow for the recording of bio-electric activity. This activity was seen as an indication of preparation for a volitional act.

One question raised by the discovery of RP was whether an individual was conscious of an intention to act before RP appeared. In the early 1980s, Benjamin Libet, a son of Jewish immigrants from Ukraine who became a neuroscientist at the University of California-Davis, sought to answer that question. Libet and his team designed a relatively simple test. First, subjects were wired for an EEG. To record muscle contraction, electrodes were also placed on subjects fingers. Then the subjects were asked to do two things, spontaneously move their right finger or wrist, and, with the aid of a clock in front of them, report to researchers the time they thought they decided to do so.

What Libet found (Libet et al. 1983) was that conscious awareness of the decision to move a finger preceded the actual movement of the finger by 200 milliseconds (ms), but also that RP was evident 350 ms before such consciousness. While Libet recognized that his observations had profound implications for the nature of free will, for individual responsibility and guilt, his report appropriately contained several caveats. First, it noted (at 640) that the present evidence for the unconscious initiation of a voluntary act of course applies to one very limited form of such acts. Second (at 641), it allowed for the possibility that there could be a conscious veto that aborts the performance . . . (of) the self-initiated act under study here. Finally (at 641), it acknowledged that the possibilities for conscious initiation and control in situations that were not spontaneous or quickly performed.

Not surprisingly, and despite the caveats, some interpreted Libets experimental results as proof that ones actions are not freely made, but, rather, predetermined by unconscious neural activity. In the years following the publication of Libets report, other experimenters have not only replicated his work, with more sophisticated measuring devices, they have extended it.

For instance, experiments reported in 1999 by Patrick Haggard and Martin Eimer involved index fingers on both hands, and they calculated both RP and lateralized RP. Subsequently, scientists at the Max Plank Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences also utilized right and left index fingers, this time to press a button, and his subjects reported awareness of action not by observing a clock, but by identifying one of many letters streaming by. Brain activity was detected by using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) signals. In a 2008 publication in Nature authored by Chun Siong Soon and others, Soon et al. claimed that brain activity encoding a decision could be detected in the prefrontal and parietal cortex for up to ten seconds before the subject became aware.

Also not surprisingly, the assumptions in and the interpretations of results from these experiments drew criticism, beyond the obvious concern about mistaking correlation (of recorded brain activity) with causation (of a decision to act). And they continue to do so. After all, the average human brain contains billions and billions of nerve cells called neurons. We have recently learned the number of neurons is approximately 86 billion. Each neuron is connected to other neurons by perhaps thousands of synapses, junctions through which neuroactive molecules or electrical impulses travel. The total number of these synaptic connections exceeds 100 trillion. Moreover, while we once believed the brain to be fixed, now we know that is more plastic, and changes constantly.

Even if we were thoroughly familiar with all of these connections, and all of the electrical and chemical processes which operate (or not), and when and why they do (or do not), and also had a complete grasp of neuroplasticity, which understandings we do not currently possess, we clearly do not understand what has been called the Hard Problem, the nature of consciousness. If we do not understand that, then obviously we also do not understand the nature of sub-consciousness. So, what exactly, if anything, Libet and Soon were observing other than some sort of recordable activity is not apparent.

More narrow objections could be and were raised, as well, to the early tests. Florida State philosophy professor Alfred Mele suggested that because subjects might have different understandings of the awareness of the intention to move they were to report, the term was too ambiguous to measure to any degree of scientific value. Moreover, even if some readiness potential could be measured, isnt it possible that RP itself is indicative of nothing more than the result of various stimuli, including being placed in a control room, hearing instructions, and focusing on a specific task? In this view, it would be akin to heightened anxiety that a patient might feel prior or during a conventional physical examination.

In addition, the tests performed were narrow in scope and duration. They generally involved very simple motor functions to be undertaken, or not, within seconds of some signal. But Princeton psychologist and Nobel Prize winning economist Daniel Kahneman teaches that we think fast and slow. His core observation is that humans operate with two different thought modes. In the first, known as System 1, the brain operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control. In the other, known as System 2, the brain allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations. Kahneman associates the operation of System 2 with what we feel as agency and choice.

Is it possible that a persons brain activity, as recorded by an EEG, an fMRI or some other mode of neuroimaging, would display different results in circumstances where more complex actions are involved, especially over an extended period? Is it conceivable that brain activity would be different if the subjects were in a kitchen and asked to choose how many, if any, eggs they wanted for breakfast, and how they preferred them cooked, and with what bread, what spread and what fruit and drink? And might that kind of brain activity be different still than the kind involved in deciding over the course of a presidential campaign which candidate to support or during courtship deciding whether to select a certain someone for a life partner?

We have no EEGs or other scans that address breakfast or political or marital choices, but some recent experiments suggest that the death of free will, as announced by Jerry Coyne and Sam Harris, may have been not just premature, but unwarranted. In 2012, French neuroscientists published a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concerning a study about RP which included a variation on Libets experiments, specifically an audible cue to the participants to make a movement in response to an unpredictable noise. Rather than reflecting the final causal stages of planning and preparation for movement, Aaron Schurger et al. found that neural activity in the brain fluctuated normally and that decisions about self-initiated movement were at least partially determined by spontaneous fluctuations in such activity. In other words, movement might not be determined subconsciously, but may simply occur when the brain is in a sufficient state of arousal.

Similarly, a study undertaken by graduate student Prescott Alexander and his team attempted to isolate motor and non-motor contributions to RP. As reported in 2016 in Consciousness and Cognition, they found that robust RPs occurred in the absence of movement and that motor-related processes did not significantly modulate the RP. This suggested to Alexander et al. that the RP measured was unlikely to reflect preconscious motor planning or preparation of an ensuing movement, and instead may reflect decision-related or anticipatory processes that are non-motoric in nature. They concluded, in part that RP does not primarily reflect processes unique to motor execution or preparation, and may not even be primarily generated by the neural activity involved in making a free choice.

What does this mean? At a minimum, Schurger and Alexander, and their teams, have interrupted what seemed to be developing scientific support for hard determinism and against free will. They have provided scientific grounding for an alternative understanding of previously accumulative data. In the words of cognitive neuroscientist Anil Seth (speaking of Schuger et al.), they have opened the door towards a richer understanding of the neural basis of the conscious experience of volition.

Consequently, when Alfred Mele argues that science has not disproved free will, he is correct. Science has not falsified the free will hypothesis even once, let alone in the kind of replicable experiment that is the hallmark of the scientific method. At the same time, science has not confirmed the free will hypothesis either. The unsettled state of affairs is not necessarily bad, though, for at least two reasons.

First, the reality is that we are at the early stages of our understanding of both the human brain and levels of consciousness, and we undoubtedly do not even know what we dont know. For instance, in 2015, neuroscientists were acknowledging that no one knew how the human brain was wired and bemoaning the fact that they could not even map a mouses brain, let alone a human one. About a year later, scientists were able to produce a map of the brains cerebral cortex with a new mapping paradigm, but even so, a participating researcher conceded the limitations of the new map. (See map below.)

Similarly, in early March, 2017, researchers led by neurobiologist and physicist Mayank Mehta at UCLA published a report in the journal Science in which they claim that the brain is much more active than previously believed and that neurons are not purely digital devices, as scientists have held for 60 years, but also show large analog fluctuations . . . . If so, according to Mehta, this changes the way we understand how the brain computes information.

The idea of a more powerful, dynamic brain may trigger yet more revisionism concerning free will, as well. Indeed, it is at least conceivable that the reductionists are looking at the picture in the wrong way, zooming in to try to locate and record each signal the brain emits, rather than stepping back for a broader perspective. That is, for all its amazing discoveries and insights, perhaps neuroscience, as commonly practiced today, is too narrow a science. Perhaps there must be some consideration for the possibility that the vast number of neurons and synapses, and their intricate interconnectedness, in conjunction with neural plasticity, yields something greater than the individual cells themselves, even as water is more than its component molecules made of hydrogen and oxygen. Perhaps consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. (See Nelson, The Emergence of God (University Press 2015) at 32-35.) In this view, at a certain level of collective complexity, consciousness emerges. And with it, free will.

From the history of science and technology, we can assume that the pace of our progress will be uneven and the results surprising. Perhaps we will move faster than did our ancestors on the centuries long path from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Hubble (both the man and the telescope). But how much time we will need is not clear. Consider the journey from Wilbur Wrights first step onto a biplane at Kitty Hawk to Neil Armstrongs first step off the lunar module Eagle on the Moon, and whether neuroscience is arguably more complex than rocket science.

Second, another reality is that the stakes in the multi-disciplinary debate between free will advocates and determinists go far beyond the musings of philosophers and the reputations of neuroscientists seeking grants and fame. Should science somehow disprove free will, should it show that we are not just influenced by our genes and our physical and social environment, but that our response to each option available to us is truly compelled rather than chosen, it is not too hard to imagine at least two dystopian results.

In the first case, should it be generally known that humans have no free will, and that conduct is in fact predetermined, significant numbers of individuals might well feel released from whatever tenuous social bonds now attach to them and engage in disruptive behavior. We already have some experimental evidence from psychologists Kathleen Vos and Roy Baumeister that supports the idea that weakening a belief in free will leads to cheating, stealing, aggression, and reduced helping.

A second worrisome situation that might arise concerns potential screening of individuals for genetic or environmental or other predispositions to anti-social behavior. Might individuals found to possess an anti-social gene be incarcerated or subjected to gene therapy to alter or remove the problematic genetic material? If so, it is not too difficult a leap to rounding up groups of people who, by virtue of their color, ethnicity, geographic origin, socio-economic status or other trait likely share having the offending gene. The infamous Nazi medical experiments on Jews, Roma and others provide a chilling example of the depraved capacity of some humans to mistreat the Other, and to do so ostensibly in the interest of science or some asserted greater good. Social historian Yuval Harari has warned recently about the merger of Big Data with Big Brother. It is a warning worth heeding.

In many ways, then, the free will hypothesis is more important than the understanding laid out in Genesis with respect to creation and evolution. We have learned a great deal about how our universe came into existence and how life forms have evolved. And we have learned that we can survive quite well with such knowledge. But if the free will hypothesis is incorrect, if we are only products of our genes and our environment and of the purely mechanical interplay of chemistry and physics, if we do not have any meaningful capacity to make choices, then we could still proceed as if we were free and our decisions mattered (a path advocated by some determinists like Israeli philosopher Saul Smilansky), but there would be a cloud hanging over us, and, worse, we could not dissipate it. We could not overcome.

Yet, even in the most dire circumstances, some do overcome. Recounting the horrors of the concentration camps, psychiatrist and neurologist Viktor Frankl noted that despite the conditions, the actions of some showed that everything can be taken away from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms to choose ones attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose ones own way.

Why some react one way under pressure (or without it) and others do not remains a mystery, as even Sam Harris has acknowledged. Maybe science will solve that mystery some day, but maybe not. So, perhaps Descartes (1596-1650) was not quite right when he declared Cogito, ergo sum, that is, I think, therefore I am. Perhaps thinking is a necessary but not sufficient element of being. Perhaps we need to be able to choose to be fully alive and vital. Consequently, until, if ever, the scientists prove otherwise: Eligo, ergo sum I choose, therefore I am. Or at least I think I do. And at least once every year I am grateful to the Deuteronomist for reminding me of the extensive menu of blessings and curses that is set out before me, and for his emphatic call to choose life.

Go here to see the original:
Judaism, neuroscience and the free will hypothesis (Part 2) - Jewish Journal (blog)