Tag Archives: SfN

How to Engage Institutions to Publicly Support Animal Research. The Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting

During their 2016 annual meeting in San Diego, Society for Neuroscience (SfN) held a two-hour session dedicated to public outreach concerning animals in research. The panelists offered different perspectives on communication about essential animal research for the public.  The session opened with remarks by the chair of the SFN’s Animals in Research Committee, Dr. Mar Sanchez, who stated the importance of the role of scientists in raising awareness about animal research.  Sanchez encouraged the audience to immediately take action by signing up to advocate for biomedical research by reaching out to their elected officials.

The first panelist, Kirk Leech, is the Executive Director for the European Animal Research Association. Leech overviewed the current state of opinion about animal research and shared how the UK and other European countries are helping to be more transparent.

He pointed out that although physical attacks by activists have decreased, their tactics have become more complex and influential.  He said that “it is essential to engage with the public, media and policymakers about animal research.” Aim of the panel was to explain how for example in Spain, Belgium and the UK we have sought to use Institutional Openness, – private and public research agreeing to certain principles about how they will seek to improve public understanding of animal research. If the voices of the research community are not heard, the conversation about animal research will continue to be driven by anti-animal research rhetoric.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


Click to Enlarge

Dr. David Jentsch, professor of psychology at Binghamton University, began by insisting that today’s activists remain extreme and sometimes abusive, even though they are legal.  He noted that although they are not bombing cars and breaking into labs, they still are making a very real impact on the scientists they target through campaigns that involve personal targeting and harassment. After overviewing the players in current activist campaigns, and their tactics, he pointed out the results of their activities. These included researchers ending controversial projects, graduate students pursuing alternative pathways, funding not being applied for or lost, and the endless waste of resources being spent on having to respond to frivolous activist campaigns. Jentsch shared his perspective through the lens of a researcher about engaging with the public about work with animals in research and working with your institutions, scientific societies and advocacy groups to implement a proactive campaign.

He says that, “Researchers can, and should, be proactive and plan for public engagement about their work.”  He recommends that the scientific community proactively navigate this reality by planning, finding their own voices, controlling the message, and demanding specific forms of institutional support. He points to examples like Edythe London’s personal and emotional defense of her own research in a LA Times OpEd as an excellent example of transparent and effective advocacy. Additional advice includes preparing in advance for negative criticisms, participating in public communications through blogs, letters, and websites, and forming a group of like-minded individuals at your institution to encourage public statements and protection for researchers. He closed by sharing a solemn voice of support thanking the research community for its research and advocacy.

john-morrison-slides-sfnThe next panelist, Dr. John Morrison,  Director of the California National Primate Research Center, highlighted the outstanding care that nonhuman primates at the seven National Primate Research Centers (NPRC) in the US receive, as well as the significant contributions non-human primates have made in the advances of such diseases as HIV/AIDS, polio, Ebola, and Parkinson’s disease.  Morrison stressed that, “hiding doesn’t work.”  He encouraged the development of strong proactive messages that emphasize the connection to human health and to get this message out as often possible. Some venues for message distribution include giving tours and presentations, using the website and social media, developing press releases, and engaging with all partners. He says, “engage your press office and publicize science as often as possible.”  Morrison shared a cohesive message being shared by the seven NPRCs which includes, “The National Primate Research Centers are a national network of dedicated teams fighting diseases from Alzheimer’s to Zika and improving human health and lives worldwide.” This cohesiveness gives strength to their communications about essential research with non-human primates.

Morrison then shared tips on engaging with several stakeholders:  the home institution, NIH and the scientific community, the public, policymakers, and employees. Tips included:

1) Home Institution:

  • Engage the highest level of leadership in a social setting to present scientific discoveries and their importance to human health and the financial impact of research for the institution.
  • Engage your Press Office and publicize science as often as possible
  • Establish a crisis and issues management protocol
  • Fully integrate into the academics of the home institution
  • Provide tours to campus scientists, administrators, potential collaborators
  • Participate in outreach and development efforts
  • Develop a unified message around science and health

2)  NIH and the scientific community:

  • Maintain open and strong communication with NIH Program Officers and other officials
  • Provide expertise and participate in NIH Workshops
  • Educate the scientific community on animal research
  • Sponsor conferences
  • Work with Professional Societies and their programs on animal research
  • Provide access to expertise for scientific colleagues

3) The public:

  • Open your doors by giving tours
  • Distribute material for lay audience through website, social media, and local media
  • Go into the community and provide presentations

4) Policymakers:

  • Provide invitations for tours to federal and state government officials, academic leaders, leaders of Pharma and Biotech
  • Visit Capitol Hill
  • Engage with NIH and other federal agencies
  • Provide material on animal research

5) Employees:

  • Implement an internal communications program about animal research at your institution
  • Communicate your vision, purpose, core values, key messages to connect the work with animals with the overall institutional goals
  • Create an advocacy program so employees can be advocates for animal research

Morrison emphasized, “In all of these interactions, emphasize the power of animal research to impact human health.”  His talk ended by showing a powerful video of a man with Parkinson’s disease and the medical advancement that gives him the ability to function normally.  Without the deep brain stimulation developed through the nonhuman primate model, this man could not even hold a pencil.

carrie-wolinetz-sfn-slidesThe final panelist, Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, Associate Director for Science Policy and Director of the Office of Science Policy, National Institutes of Health, began her talk with an overview of NIH and related agencies. She also explained NIH’s relationship with Congress and the fact that since they are a public agency, paid for by all taxpayers, they represent the view of the entire public, including those that may oppose animal research.  This representation of all members of the public is what results in things like the September 7th workshop to review its ethical policies and processes for the nonhuman primate research model. She assured the audience that Dr. Francis Collins supports their work with animals.

The NIH has a public statement on their website in support of animal research and will continue to support the scientific community, as well as their public stakeholders.  NIH also offers support for researchers on their website.  Wolinetz ended her talk by encouraging scientists to engage with the public and tie their work with the human condition.  The session concluded with a Q &A session from the participants.  These included:

“How do I make the case for basic research?”

“What support is there for ordinary scientists in communicating about animal research?”

“Are K-12 teachers being engaged?”

Discussions about hosting another panel next year are underway. Ideas for topics to include can be emailed to the Chair of SfN’s Animal Research Committee, Mar Sanchez, mmsanch@emory.edu.

Society for Neuroscience: Session on engaging institutions about animal research

If you are one of the 30,000 or so neuroscientists attending the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) 2016 meeting in San Diego that starts this weekend, then make sure you watch this session on engaging institutions about animal research.

Animals in Research Panel (SfN; Tues, Nov 15, 10am-Noon, CC Room 10):  

How to Engage Institutions to Publicly Support Animal Research; a Top-Down Approach


Description: Worldwide, researchers are engaging the public to increase the understanding and need for animals in research. However, scientists need research institutions to facilitate greater openness about animal research conducted on campus and to reject the fear of attracting negative attention. This panel will discuss the proven benefits of positive institutional public communication and openness, as well as strategies to engage our institutions to publicly support animal research.

  • Opening Remarks: Committee on Animals in Research Chair, Mar Sanchez, Ph.D. (Associate Professor, Emory University)
  • Kirk Leech, (Associate Director, European Animal Research Association –EARA-)
  • David Jentsch, Ph.D. (Professor of Psychology, Binghamton University)
  • John Morrison, Ph.D. (director of the California National Primate Research Center)
  • Carrie Wolinetz, Ph.D. (Associate Director for Science Policy and Director of the Office of Science Policy, National Institutes of Health –NIH-)
  • Q&A session

Separate to this meeting, you should check out Booth 4216 in Exhibit Hall to talk to the Consortium for Public Outreach on Animal Research (@AR_Consortium) of which Speaking of Research is a member.


Dr. Dettmer Goes to Washington, Part 3

Part 3 of a 4-part series in which a scientific researcher learns how science advocacy groups influence the legislative process. Read Parts 1 and 2 about her Hill Day experience and her interview with a science advocacy group.

On April 27, 2016, as part of my Society for Neuroscience (SfN) Early Career Policy Ambassador outreach activities, I met with Representative John Delaney (D-MD, 6), in his office at the Longworth House Office Building in Washington, DC. This was my first in-person meeting with an actual legislator, as during Hill Day the lawmakers were, unfortunately, too busy to meet with us in person. It was exciting getting ready for a face-to-face meeting with my Congressman! Rep. Delaney represents the 6th Congressional District in Maryland, which encompasses the cities of Gaithersburg, Germantown, Hagerstown, Cumberland, and my home city, Frederick. It also neighbors the 8th District, which encompasses Bethesda, home to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Dr. Dettmer with Rep. John Delaney (D-MD, 6)

Dr. Dettmer with Rep. John Delaney (D-MD, 6)

The first take-away from this meeting was, when Congressional staffers tell you that you have a 15-minute slot with your Representative, they mean it! I drove nearly an hour each way from Frederick to meet with Rep. Delaney, and I sat with him and two of his staffers in his office for exactly 15 minutes. And yet, the 15 minutes felt like a long time given what I knew about the tight schedules of lawmakers. Indeed, Rep. Delaney and I had plenty of time to discuss the legislative process surrounding pro-science policy.

Question 1: Since your election in 2012, what are some of pieces of pro-science legislation you have been actively involved in?
Notably, Delaney has repeatedly voted to increase funding for the NIH and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Regarding specific legislation, Delaney recently authored a clean energy amendment to H.R.702, a House bill to lift the ban on oil exports. This amendment emphasized the need for Congress to invest in clean energy technology and energy efficiency, and was passed in October 2015. Working with his colleague Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), Delaney also introduced “50×30” resolutions in the House and Senate to encourage a national goal of generating “more than 50 percent of our electricity from clean and carbon-free sources by 2030.” In addition to his focus on increasing alternative energy research to reduce the effects of climate change, Delaney also noted that, “funding is lacking at the basic research level,” and that such funding is critical to discovering treatments for debilitating diseases like Alzheimer’s and schizophrenia.

Question 2: How does your office identify science topics to become involved in?
Congressional offices pay attention to topics that are relevant to the representatives’ home districts. In Delaney’s case, he is particularly aware of issues affecting the large number of constituents who work at Fort Detrick (home to the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, sponsored by the National Cancer Institute), NIST, NIH, and NSF. His office also prefers to focus around particular diseases or epidemics rather than general science funding.

Question 3: How does your office work with outside groups to stay informed on science topics?
Delaney’s office has points of contact at universities like Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland, and will defer to the presidents of these institutions, or their affiliated hospitals, to help keep his office up to date with the latest scientific findings.

Question 4: What particular steps of the legislative process are you directly involved in?
Given the convoluted nature of lawmaking in the U.S., Delaney acknowledged that there are countless ways he and other lawmakers are directly involved. Specifically, however, he said he strives to “find a vein of bipartisan support” for his preferred pieces of legislation, and that building bipartisanship constitutes a large part of his action in the legislative process.

Question 5: Which steps do you think scientists can effectively engage in during the legislative process to inform lawmakers?
Delaney encouraged individuals to talk directly to their representatives (with in-person meetings and phone calls, especially – advice I’ve gotten along the way during this journey), to make their arguments in economic terms, and to have a “laserlike focus” when meeting with their representatives about a particular topic.

In all, though the meeting was brief, I found it to be a valuable opportunity to hear directly from my representative and to learn ways to engage most effectively with lawmakers. I was also pleasantly surprised at how accommodating Rep. Delaney’s office was regarding my request to meet: I was able to meet in person with him no more than two weeks after submitting my initial request. Most importantly, Rep. Delaney himself seemed pleased to meet face-to-face with a scientist who clearly took interest in the legislative process.

The take-home: don’t be afraid to call, email, or meet in person with your Representative! Your voice will be heard, and face-to-face meetings are not as intimidating as they may seem. If you don’t live in or near DC, you can schedule meetings with your representative when s/he is visiting their home district.

Dr Amanda Dettmer

Society for Neuroscience encourages scientists to speak up for animal research

A standing room only crowd of over 200 heard a panel of two scientists, a public relations expert and a reporter describe the whys and hows of discussing the use of animals in research (CAR) at the recent Society for Neuroscience meeting.   The panel was sponsored by the Society’s committee on animals in research and led by the committee’s outgoing chair Sharon Juliano.  It was part encouragement for speaking up and part a primer on how to do it effectively.

David Friedman, from the Wake Forest School of Medicine and a member of CAR, has long been engaged in defending the use of animals in research. He led off with an impassioned call for scientists themselves to engage the public.  He pointed out that most scientists who use animals in their work do little or nothing to help the public understand what it is they do and why it’s important.  Noting that animal researchers are doing morally admirable work and in today’s climate are courageous for doing it, he called on researchers to be proud of their good work and defend it vigorously.

Dario Ringach, from UCLA hit similar themes in his presentation on the top five reasons we should talk to the public about animal research. He cited a variety of surveys showing support for animal research, including one that found that more scientists believe in the importance of animal research than believe in evolution.  He went on to argue for greater transparency from the research community to build public confidence and for scientists to weigh in on the ethical challenges posed by animal activists.

Lisa Newbern, chief of public relations at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center laid out the nuts and bolts of how to speak to the public effectively.  Among her points were that practicing what you want to say is important and that interactions with the public should be a dialogue and not just one way communication.

The final speaker was Tom Whipple a British reporter for The Times of London, who has extensive experience in covering animal activism and other forms of anti-science zealotry.  He noted how concerted effort in England had turned the tide against the activists. He cited the case of a protest against genetically engineered wheat that had derailed a research project until the scientists themselves stepped and made their case.

The crowd as largely younger scientists and students, and the lively discussion period that followed the presentations, showed just how engaged they are.  A number of speakers described their own experiences that supported the points the panel had made.

This is the second year in a row that the room was full for the annual “animal panel,” a hopeful sign that more scientists will be engage with the public about their work.

The Voices of Reason Ring Through

In the days since the announcement that I had received a letter containing heinous death threats and razor blades from animal rights extremists opposed to my research, the voices of sanity and reason have started to be heard. From scientific and professional societies to non-scientists across the country, there is a strong support for the notion that biomedical research involving animals contributes irreplaceably to advancements in human and animal health and that because the use of animals in this research is responsible and humane, it is also justifiable and ethical. Many of these messages show particular support for our repudiation of these threats and our unwavering intention to continue the work that we feel morally obliged to conduct despite them.

In particular, scientific and professional societies have stepped up to voice their support for humane and responsible animal use in biomedical research and to condemn, in the clearest manner possible, the threats made by animal rights extremists against researchers.

The American Society of Primatologists, the nation’s leading scientific group dedicated to the study of “nonhuman primates, including their biology, care, and conservation” took the lead in a resolution posted to their website.

The American Society of Primatologists condemns these terrorist actions. Terrorism does not, and will not, contribute to the betterment of animal welfare. Nor does it contribute to civil dialogue and thoughtful consideration of the role of responsible, humanely-conducted and ethical animal-based research in contributing to scientific and medical advances.

The American Society of Primatologists calls upon groups and individuals concerned with animal welfare to join in universal and public condemnation of all terrorist activities directed at members of the scientific community.

The American Medical Veterinary Association is comprised of more than 80,000 member veterinarians who are dedicated to advancing the science and art of animal, human and public health. They reasserted their position in a recent press release, also posted on their website.

Animals play a central and essential role in research, testing and education for continued improvement in the health and welfare of human beings and other animals. … The use of animals used in research, testing and education is a privilege carrying with it unique professional, scientific and moral obligations.

…  America has no room for terrorist activities that threaten not only that discourse but the lives of our scientists and their families. We condemn all acts of violence, vandalism and intimidation directed toward individuals and facilities engaged in the ethical use of animals for research.

This position is paralleled by the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS) who, in a statement on their website, affirms their commitment to preserving laboratory animal welfare in the context of humane research aimed at conquering human disease.

“Acts of terrorism do not result in improvements in animal welfare. Progress comes only from thoughtful discussion and scientific assessment of alternative methods that refine the animal research process–efforts that AALAS itself fosters through educational and scientific programs. Terrorism in the name of “animal rights” jeopardizes the lives of people and animals–in the present by the violence itself, and in the future by hindering the progress of ethical animal-based research designed to find cures and treatments for diseases that affect humans and animals. The AALAS membership extends heartfelt support to our scientific colleagues and their families who have been affected by threats and acts of violence.”

Finally, leading scientific societies have spoken up as well. The Society for Neuroscience, , the world’s leading organization of scientists dedicated to exploration of the brain and its diseases,  released a statement on this matter.

The Society stands united with Dr. Jentsch, the members of his team, and all researchers who use animal models to advance scientific discovery, and SfN is committed to promoting public awareness of the vital role of animals in research and supporting all scientists that come under attack.


The American Physiological Society, which represents more than 10,000 members devoted to fostering education, scientific research, and dissemination of information in the physiological sciences, posted a policy statement to their website supporting, in the broadest manner, researchers under attack and the value of the work that they do.

…[M]any scientists … have been harassed or threatened because they work with animals. Research involving animals plays an essential role in efforts to discover causes, preventions, treatments, and cures for disease. Knowledge obtained through research with animals has saved many lives and improved the quality of life for millions of people and animals. Scientists recognize that they have ethical duties both to relieve suffering through research as well as to provide humane care for research animals. Moreover, the use of animals in research is subject to strict regulatory oversight.

The American Physiological Society condemns extremist actions against researchers in the strongest possible terms: It is thuggery, pure and simple. Harassment, threats, and violence contribute nothing to the betterment of animal welfare, nor do they promote dialogue or thoughtful consideration of serious issues.

Additionally, I have received countless emails and phone calls from individuals around the country who have felt the sting of mental illness in their own lives, or in the lives of those they love. Not surprisingly, I have also been the recipient of emails encouraging me to stop conducting animal research, but those missives are outnumbered more than 10-to-1 by expressions of appreciation and gratitude for biomedical researchers. People from all walks of life have chimed in, expressing their personal and unwavering belief that animal use in medical research is justifiable and ethical.

A science educator from the upper mid-west:

Thank you for sticking up for all those hard working folks who do science each and every day… not to get rich… but because they love people, they love animals, and they are deeply  committed to their mission to make this world a better place.

A university undergraduate student from the Pacific northwest:

I write to express my support for your research and to note that I greatly respect your decision not to be dissuaded by terrorist tactics.  The benefits of your research into chemical dependence and schizophrenia are and will continue to be considerable, and the use of animal subjects in this case is, in my  opinion, amply justified.  You have my continuing support and the support of many other informed individuals.

A Los Angeles local:

Thank you for your research into addiction and cognitive changes in schizophrenia.  And a special thanks for not being bowed by extremist Animal Rights people.  It’s the people like you who are working so hard to help us.

Years ago, I read an article in the LA Times about a lab … that was burned to the ground by these dangerous individuals.  That lab lost over 10 years of research into Osteoarthritis…

Flash forward a decade and I was diagnosed with a chronic illness, rheumatoid arthritis.  Nothing like getting a chronic illness of your own to realize how important research is to the patient.

A bio-technology researcher from the mid-Atlantic:

All of us in science are working to improve the lives of all, and to relieve suffering wherever we can.  The fact that our work is now used as an indictment against us by vigilante thugs is inexcusable.  Thanks for your courage in standing up to their threats, always shrouded in the cowardice of anonymity, while you try to lead your life in public without compromising your ideals and scientific goals.  Good luck to you and to your collaborators.

Many of these sentiments were summarized in a recent editorial written by the incredible undergraduate students who manage UCLA’s campus newspaper, the Daily Bruin:

The idea of such misguided activists destroying the lives of world-class researchers through their tasteless, violent tactics is atrocious.

These attacks should create concern for the community at large, because the implications are far-reaching. Medical breakthroughs occur in large part as a result of the valuable research that scientists perform.

Mailing blades to a researcher and continuing threats on his life endangers future progress and is a threat to every UCLA student, faculty member and researcher.

Intimidation and death threats should never be the solution, no matter how bad an action may seem to somebody. What ever happened to dialogue?

These statements indicate that scientists and non-scientists alike often stand strong in support of biomedical research and understand that there are circumstances where the use of animal models is justifiable. These messages further expose just how much damage to their own credibility animal rights extremists cause when they continue to use fists, razors and hate speech to push their agenda.

My colleagues, trainees and I extend our most heart-felt thanks to all that have reached out to offer support, as well as to those who quietly support research and researchers around the world. The attacks by animal rights activists are insidious and discouraging, but the voices of encouragement, coupled to our knowledge that the work is ethical and responsible, ensure that we will continue pursuing solutions for the problems of human and animal health that biomedical investigation can address. Our experience underscores the notion that vocal support for research and researchers ensures overwhelming support and appreciation, and we call on others to join us in our effort.


David Jentsch

Creating a Unified Voice for Animal Research

Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with the Society for Neuroscience (SfN), indeed they were one of the first scientific societies to back Pro-Test for Science in the run up to the historic rally last April. With over 40,000 members SfN is the world’s largest organization of scientists and physicians devoted to advancing understanding of the brain and nervous system.

The winter issue of the SfN newsletter Neuroscience Quarterly opens with a message from SfN President Professor Michael E. Goldberg entitled “If We Are Not for Science, Who Will Be for Us?” in which he writes:

“As an SfN member, you have potential to help change this scenario although scientists do not control the federal purse. The answer is sustained communication, advocacy, and action.”

He is of course highlighting the need for scientists to engage with the Obama Administration, Congress, and the public in order to protect funding for scientific research and the investment made in last year’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but he could just as easily be discussing the need for scientists to respond to the threat to the future of science posed by animal rights zealots.   It is therefore fitting that pages 6 and 7 of the newsletter are devoted to an interview with Speaking of Research founder Tom Holder.

Tom addresses the crowd at the UCLA Pro-Test for Science rally

In an interview that touches on both the threat posed by animal rights extremism and the success of recent rallies lead by scientists in support of animal research Tom notes that one of the keys to the success of the Pro-Test rallies in Oxford and Los Angeles was the opportunity they gave to scientists to gather in mutual support:

“Groups like Speaking of Research and Pro-Test allow scientists to spread the risk of being targeted – when 1,000 people hold a march the chances of being picked out by the AR community are greatly reduced – and the number of people willing to come to your support is much larger than if you try and speak up on your own”

Rallies are of course a valuable means through which scientists can demonstrate support for colleagues who are threatened by extremists, and a fun way to inform members of the public of the value of animal research to medical progress, but as Tom explains effective advocacy need not involve a megaphone!

“Every scientist who stands up and speaks about their research, every scientist who writes a blog about their research, and every scientist who offers to explain their research at their child’s school or college plays a crucial role in combating the misinformation of animal rights activists. Speaking of Research regularly offers spots on its blog to guest writers to talk about why they use animals, but this shouldn’t stop people being proactive in getting the message out themselves. Next time you see an anti-research letter in a newspaper, take five minutes to e-mail a reply! It’s amazing how many people you can connect with.”

We should remember that the work we do as scientists is also amazing, if you need proof of that just read the discussion of the new science of optogenetics in Neuroscience Quarterly. If we take the time to explain what we do and why we do it the great majority of the public will be impressed and supportive, but if we keep our heads down they may assume that the lies, half-truths and distortions spread by animal rights activists are true.  Tom and Professor Goldberg leave us in no doubt that the choice, indeed the responsibility, of standing up for science is ours.

Paul Browne

Society for Neuroscience 2009

The 39th annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience will take place in Chicago from the 17th- 21st October. During this time some of the greatest minds in medical research will meet at McCormick Place to participate in workshops, lectures and symposia. Neuroscience is one of the fields of science most reliant on animal research, partly because few “alternatives” can begin to mimic the complexities of the brain. Scientists are moving ever closer to newer and more innovative treatments for Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s diseases – with animal models being crucial to our understanding of these pathologies.

Speaking of Research will also be making an appearance. Founder, Tom Holder, will be speaking at the “Animals in Research Workshop: Widening the Tent: Building Support, Creating New Allies for Animal Research“. It is important that anyone wishing to attend this lecture must RSVP beforehand by contacting Laura Martin on lmartin@sfn.org.

Given the growing threats to animal research, the research community must explore ways to develop new allies to promote responsible animal research. This workshop will examine how to “widen the tent” by involving patient groups, health care providers, industry and others who have a vested interest in protecting responsible animal research. Participants also will focus on broadening the base of support by engaging leaders worldwide on the health and scientific breakthroughs made possible through animal research.

Other speakers include:
Jasper Daube, MD – Professor of Neurology, Mayo Clinic
Robin Elliott – Executive Director, Parkinson’s Disease Foundation
Helmut Kettenmann, PhD – President, Federation of European Neuroscience Societies

The talk will be on Monday October, 19th from 9am – 11am, in room S402A.

Holder will be in Chicago from 3pm Saturday to 5pm Monday. If you wish to contact him while he is there please do so through his American mobile – 310-994-8103, or email him on tom@speakingofresarch.com.


Speaking of Research


Tom’s mobile is not working due to some problem with AT&T – this is no longer his phone number. Please do not contact it – instead use his email – tom@speakingofresearch.com