Print
Scientists look to disrupt the brain chemistry of violence
by PhysOrg
Reposted from PhysOrg:
http://www.physorg.com/news96431180.html
Strides in understanding human brain chemistry and genetics are giving scientists hope they may be able to defuse violent behavior to avoid tragedies like last week's university massacre in Virginia, neurologists say.
The shooter, a 23-year-old South Korean who had lived in the United States since he was a child, killed 32 people before committing suicide, in the deadliest school shooting in US history.
"There is no doubt in my mind that if we could have examined his brain (the killer at Virginia Tech) we would have found anomalies, and we would have been able to suggest for him to get therapies," said Dr. Allan Siegel, a neurologist and researcher at the University of Medicine of New Jersey (UMDNJ).
"We might have been able to avoid this ... if he had been treated properly in the hospital setting," Siegel told AFP.
Clinical research as well as animal testing, particularly on cats, over some 40 years has shown that there are specific zones in the brain linked to aggression and violence, he said.
The front region of the brain, or the prefrontal cortex, including the limbic system, appears to play an important role in violent behavior, according to the neurologist.
The killer Charles Whitman, who gunned down 16 people at the University of Texas in the 1960s, was found to have a tumor in the temporal lobe in the region of the limbic system, he said.
The link between the prefrontal cortex and violence was first revealed in 1848 in the case of a railroad worker, Phineas Gage, whose skull was impaled by an iron rod in an explosion -- damaging the front part of his brain.
Gage survived the accident but his behavior radically changed, with his formerly respectful, sensitive manner replaced by an impulsive and aggressive personality. Medical cases since have linked violent tendencies to damage to the front part of the brain, Siegel said.
A recent study shows children who suffer injury to the prefrontal cortex before age seven developed abnormal behavior, characterized by an inability to control their frustration, anger and aggression, according to an article in the journal Neuroscience.
Neurologists believe the frontal region regulates and controls aggression and violent impulses.
A brain imaging study of 41 murderers found evidence that in most cases the prefrontal cortex as well as some deeper brain areas, including the amygdala, functioned abnormally, researchers wrote in the Neuroscience article.
In the case of the Virginia Tech gunman, a medical investigation would also have to examine if he suffered a deficiency in his serotonin system, said Klaus Miczek, a neuroscientist at Tufts University.
Serotonin is a neurotransmitter in the central nervous system and low levels have been associated with several disorders.
"Brain sertonin is a transmitter that has been investigated more than any other transmitter when it comes to violent, aggressive activity," Miczek said.
A number of drugs have proved effective in controlling violent impulses by compensating for serotonin deficiencies, said Siegel, citing prozac and lithium used also to treat schizophrenia.
http://www.physorg.com/news96431180.html
Strides in understanding human brain chemistry and genetics are giving scientists hope they may be able to defuse violent behavior to avoid tragedies like last week's university massacre in Virginia, neurologists say.
The shooter, a 23-year-old South Korean who had lived in the United States since he was a child, killed 32 people before committing suicide, in the deadliest school shooting in US history.
"There is no doubt in my mind that if we could have examined his brain (the killer at Virginia Tech) we would have found anomalies, and we would have been able to suggest for him to get therapies," said Dr. Allan Siegel, a neurologist and researcher at the University of Medicine of New Jersey (UMDNJ).
"We might have been able to avoid this ... if he had been treated properly in the hospital setting," Siegel told AFP.
Clinical research as well as animal testing, particularly on cats, over some 40 years has shown that there are specific zones in the brain linked to aggression and violence, he said.
The front region of the brain, or the prefrontal cortex, including the limbic system, appears to play an important role in violent behavior, according to the neurologist.
The killer Charles Whitman, who gunned down 16 people at the University of Texas in the 1960s, was found to have a tumor in the temporal lobe in the region of the limbic system, he said.
The link between the prefrontal cortex and violence was first revealed in 1848 in the case of a railroad worker, Phineas Gage, whose skull was impaled by an iron rod in an explosion -- damaging the front part of his brain.
Gage survived the accident but his behavior radically changed, with his formerly respectful, sensitive manner replaced by an impulsive and aggressive personality. Medical cases since have linked violent tendencies to damage to the front part of the brain, Siegel said.
A recent study shows children who suffer injury to the prefrontal cortex before age seven developed abnormal behavior, characterized by an inability to control their frustration, anger and aggression, according to an article in the journal Neuroscience.
Neurologists believe the frontal region regulates and controls aggression and violent impulses.
A brain imaging study of 41 murderers found evidence that in most cases the prefrontal cortex as well as some deeper brain areas, including the amygdala, functioned abnormally, researchers wrote in the Neuroscience article.
In the case of the Virginia Tech gunman, a medical investigation would also have to examine if he suffered a deficiency in his serotonin system, said Klaus Miczek, a neuroscientist at Tufts University.
Serotonin is a neurotransmitter in the central nervous system and low levels have been associated with several disorders.
"Brain sertonin is a transmitter that has been investigated more than any other transmitter when it comes to violent, aggressive activity," Miczek said.
A number of drugs have proved effective in controlling violent impulses by compensating for serotonin deficiencies, said Siegel, citing prozac and lithium used also to treat schizophrenia.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 21 of 21 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #35543 by Roll on April 27, 2007 at 2:53 pm
"Clinical research as well as animal testing, particularly on cats, over some 40 years has shown that there are specific zones in the brain linked to aggression and violence, he said."Like whooahh dude, stop putting pins in my head man! No really! If you don't stop that now I'm gonna have to scratch ur head up bad.
Ergo, proof of violence!
Errr.. I'll get me coat.
Other Comments by Roll
3. Comment #35551 by Nails on April 27, 2007 at 3:20 pm
A brain imaging study of 41 murderers found evidence that in most cases the prefrontal cortex as well as some deeper brain areas, including the amygdala, functioned abnormally, researchers wrote in the Neuroscience article.
if there is good evidence of a serious link, why arn't we scanning criminals routinely before releasing them?
Would also be compelling evidence for a trial, perhaps.
Thought for the future - maybe finding a 'paedo' anomaly would enable us to lock up these bastards before they hurt anyone or are hidden by the church, as this sicko was:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6590000/newsid_6594800/6594897.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm
Other Comments by Nails
4. Comment #35554 by Steelman on April 27, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Nails said:" if there is good evidence of a serious link, why arn't we scanning criminals routinely before releasing them?Would also be compelling evidence for a trial, perhaps."
Doctor [stepping out from behind scanning machine]: Well, Mr. Jones this concludes your annual physical.
Jones: Fit, am I?
Doctor: Well, there's just one thing.
Jones: Yes?
Doctor: Your prefrontal is showing just a slight abnormality.
Jones: Oh, my... Is it serious?
Doctor: No, not really. You'll just have to stay in hospital for the remainder.
Jones: The remainder? The remainder of what?
Doctor: Well, your natural life, of course. Just for safety's sake. Can't have you snapping some day and committing mass murder, now can we?
Jones [incredulous]
Doctor: Not to worry; the beds are clean, there are television and Internet privileges - nothing violent, though - and your family will be allowed to visit twice a week as long as you continue to exhibit good behavior.
Other Comments by Steelman
5. Comment #35569 by bladeScythe on April 27, 2007 at 4:04 pm
well put Steelman.In all endevours like this it is important to consider the various outcomes. I'm am not critising the reasearch(which i think is fantastic) just the way various people may attempt to apply it.
Other Comments by bladeScythe
6. Comment #35579 by Roll on April 27, 2007 at 4:21 pm
"Not to worry; the beds are clean, there are television and Internet privileges - nothing violent, though - and your family will be allowed to visit twice a week as long as you continue to exhibit good behavior"I'd really like that, as long as I could cut down on the family visits. Where do I sign up?
Other Comments by Roll
7. Comment #35594 by William on April 27, 2007 at 7:09 pm
I agree that it's important to consider how any new scientific knowledge will be used, but I wonder if we might not be over-wary. I think we've been conditioned by the media, literature, films, etc. to automatically fear that scientific progress, especially if it has to do with our brains, could potentially lead to some repressive, dystopian, technocratic future. We worry that it might limit our sense of free will, and diminish the meaning of the choices we make. It might make the world more boring, more conformist.This is a subject that interests me greatly. As we learn more and more about how are minds work, will we differentiate ourselves from our ancestors to a degree that we evolve into essentially another species? If, for example, we find a way to eradicate violence and aggression, traits which have been so salient in our history, will our interests and concerns diverge to such an extent that we can no longer relate in any meaningful sense to the preoccupations of our ancestors?
If so, I'm all for it. I don't think the human race is so wonderful.
Other Comments by William
8. Comment #35610 by MIND_REBEL on April 27, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Science is our only hope for peace on earth. Other Comments by MIND_REBEL
9. Comment #35616 by Rtambree on April 27, 2007 at 10:15 pm
4. Comment #35554 by SteelmanOr why not screen the fetus?
"Yes, Ms Smith, the tests do confirm you are pregnant with a boy, but I highly recommend aborting in your case, as your baby has a 84.9% chance of developing psychopathy due to a abnormal mutation of a gene on the Y Chromosone"
Other Comments by Rtambree
10. Comment #35625 by Tim Marsh on April 28, 2007 at 1:45 am
Well said, William (Comment #35594).It astonishes me how quickly some people here are reacting in anticipation of some kind of mind-tampering Orwellian nightmare. Are we forgetting that the realistic treatments for prefrontal and amygdala abnormalities (such as corrective surgeries, serotonin, and perhaps even gene therapies for underactive endocrine glands) would not only be useful for quelling future violent incidents, but would also improve the patient's quality of life?
It is generally a safe assumption that people do not elect to do bad things, in the full and unbiased understanding that it is bad. Be it due to misinformation or impulsivity, when a person does 'wrong' they simply don't know any better, or can't help it.
If you were a person who was very easily irritated, lashed out uncontrollably, and had various lifestyle and personal problems associated with this, wouldn't you welcome medical interventions that would not only make you feel calmer and open more social avenues, but also make everyone else around you safer?
I am not suggesting that medical understandings cannot be misused to justify terrible social policies. But it is certainly an excessively conservative approach to resist medical policies, which would be beneficial to everyone involved, because of the remote possibility of the insidious support of blatant human rights violations. In the psychological community at least, people aren't nearly so zealous.
Also, Mind_Rebel, for once you and I agree. :)
Other Comments by Tim Marsh
11. Comment #35626 by Nails on April 28, 2007 at 2:21 am
Doctor [stepping out from behind scanning machine]: Well, Mr. Jones this concludes your annual physical.
Jones: Fit, am I?
Doctor: Well, there's just one thing.
Jones: Yes?
Doctor: Your prefrontal is showing just a slight abnormality.
Jones: Oh, my... Is it serious?
Doctor: No, not really. You'll just have to stay in hospital for the remainder.
Jones: The remainder? The remainder of what?
Doctor: Well, your natural life, of course. Just for safety's sake. Can't have you snapping some day and committing mass murder, now can we?
Jones [incredulous]
Doctor: Not to worry; the beds are clean, there are television and Internet privileges - nothing violent, though - and your family will be allowed to visit twice a week as long as you continue to exhibit good behavior.
How easy it is to misrepresent.
The point I was trying to make is that criminals who are till a threat to society should remain incarserated - especially with repect to violent and sexual offenders. In the UK we seem to have a big problem of such offenders being given minor sentances and parolled after just a couple of years - and a percentage will then re-offend (sorry, I don't have any figures to hand). I was merely discussing a potential benefit of this type of research - I'm not suggesting that people should be locked up for life just because they axhibit a certain brain pattern; more that people who are unfortunate to be in this position and beome a threat to society need to be better monitored.
If there is a root cause of such behaviour that cannot be treated or controlled then the ramifiations should be carefully considered.
In my opinion, the human rights of a victim (even a potential victim in some circumstances) should outway massively those of a criminal.
Other Comments by Nails
12. Comment #35633 by Vinelectric on April 28, 2007 at 3:38 am
Nails:The problem is that doctors will tell you that, unless the structural abnormalities are gross, they tend to correlate poorly with their actual clinical manifestations. We have a lot more to learn before we can even begin to consider what you suggest.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
13. Comment #35660 by the_central_scrutinizer on April 28, 2007 at 6:29 am
violence is evolutionary; can't be the alpha dog with out it.the idea that society needs a drug or treatment that turns people into vacuous, obedient citizens is abhorant to me, and given man's propensity for subjugation and cuelty I'd say it seems like a distincly possible direction for our rulers to consider.
eliminate crime by "eliminating" criminals? who's next the poor? the sick?
Other Comments by the_central_scrutinizer
14. Comment #35683 by John Phillips on April 28, 2007 at 9:22 am
the_central_scrutinizer: There is a great deal of difference between the level of violence that may be evolutionary necessary to be 'top dog' and psychopathic behaviour or violence due to abnormal brain chemistry or structure. Observe in nature how so many different creatures actually take many steps prior to actual violence in an attempt to avoid any actual physical encounter. For the simple reason that in any serious fight even for the victor it can be a Pyhrric one if they get seriously injured in the process. There are many such examples of such behaviour involving often long periods of preening and posturing and similar displays. A classic example is stags, where often the quality of a stags roar is enough to maintain dominance over others, especially if the stag already has a harem. Working on the principle that the one with the greater roar has more power to spare and is more likely to dominate in any actual physical encounter. It then only advancing to actual physical encounters when that and subsequent display behaviour is insufficient to stamp dominance over a rival. There are similar examples throughout nature. Even then, when this method fails and actual fighting happens it is often very ritualised leading to very little physical injury to those taking part. In the case of stags, the actual structure of the stag's rack is such that it is more about a contest of strength than actually physically injuring the opponent. With injuries being more the result of accidents, such as racks snapping, or in the case of one stag in the highlands he had a mutated rack meaning that it was much more likely that he would dangerously gore an opponent in the standard fighting technique. In one case actually killing a rival because his mutated rack pierced the skull of his rival, though this type of incident is rare. In another fight, the rival became aware during the fight, due a couple of near calls with this stag's rack that as soon he could he actually withdrew from the fight, even though he had been successful for weeks. Even among most of the top carnivores, fights to the death type encounters are the exception rather than the rule, for the reasons already mentioned.However, here we are not talking about that type of evolutionary violence but about abnormal levels, such as with those suffering from psychopathic disorders or other brain disorder related problems and there is a great deal of difference between treating 'normal' people to turn them into 'vacuous, obedient citizens' and offering treatment to those with the aforementiones types of brain disorder, genetic or otherwise, which predisposes them to abnormal violent behaviour. As it happens, we already offer drug treatment to those with mental health problems due to brain chemical imbalances to try and enable them to live a better life, imperfect a solution as it may sometimes be.
Similarly, we already try to eliminate the sick, or at least sickness, it is called medicine and some of that treatment will in future be genetic in nature. Possibly even before birth in some cases, as we already perform operations on babies in utero. What is the difference in offering a treatment for a physical disability or illness and offering the same kind of treatment for a mental health problem of some kind.
Why is it whenever a possibility arises due to new knowledge some only see the negative. On that basis we would still be living in caves in fear of the negative anything the new would bring. Of course we shouldn't ignore the possible negatives, but to do nothing in fear of any negatives is a retrograde step in my opinion.
As to the poor, that is largely a political will and educational issue, rather than requiring the direct elimination of the poor themselves.
Other Comments by John Phillips
15. Comment #35688 by Nails on April 28, 2007 at 10:22 am
To reitterate; I am not proposing the locking up of the 'genetically weak' or 'psychologically disadvantaged' on a whim, I'm suggesting whether, in time, such markers could be used help decide if those who have paid their dues to society i.e. have already commited a crime are safe to release into the community. Other Comments by Nails
16. Comment #35696 by jam007 on April 28, 2007 at 11:11 am
I wonder about the serotonin level in parts of Kurdistan: http://www.aina.org/news/20070425181603.htmAnders M
Other Comments by jam007
17. Comment #35743 by Steelman on April 28, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Nails said: "How easy it is to misrepresent."Hmmm...not sure I misrepresented your position. You said this in your original post: "Thought for the future - maybe finding a 'paedo' anomaly would enable us to lock up these bastards before they hurt anyone or are hidden by the church, as this sicko was: [link deleted]"
You're talking there of imprisoning individuals based on a brain scan. This reminds me of the film Minority Report, where technology allowed arrests and convictions to occur prior to the actual crime being committed. How, exactly, is what you stated above different from the scenario I posted about a person being locked away just because they might harm others at a later date? I think we need to be very careful indeed about the methods used to dictate who is or is not a potential danger to society. How would you ever appeal the judgement of a brain scan?
Nails said: "The point I was trying to make is that criminals who are till a threat to society should remain incarserated - especially with repect to violent and sexual offenders. In the UK we seem to have a big problem of such offenders being given minor sentances and parolled after just a couple of years - and a percentage will then re-offend (sorry, I don't have any figures to hand)."
The social and financial problems behind this practice of too early release would have to be solved prior to brain scans, or any other manner of determining extended incarceration, being of much help, I think. Nonetheless, I think a brain scan could possibly be employed (once the science is confirmed) as an aid in diagnosis of potential re-offense for purposes of rehabilitation. I don't believe a brain scan can ever be used as the sole determiner of any possible behavior; unless we're going to turn the legal system into one that metes out punishment predicated not on actions, but on thoughts (potential actions).
Other Comments by Steelman
18. Comment #35745 by Steelman on April 28, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Tim Marsh said: "It is generally a safe assumption that people do not elect to do bad things, in the full and unbiased understanding that it is bad. Be it due to misinformation or impulsivity, when a person does 'wrong' they simply don't know any better, or can't help it"Are you talking about mentally ill, or emotionally disturbed, people here? I've known plenty of people who knew quite well that what they were doing was wrong, but did it anyway. They knew their acts were wrong because they wouldn't have wanted anyone to treat them similarly. Yet they committed the acts because they felt they were somehow justified in doing so. Cognizance and intentionality are the basis for determining if someone is legally responsible for their actions, and may therefore be prosecuted. Maybe I'm misreading you here?
Tim Marsh said: "If you were a person who was very easily irritated, lashed out uncontrollably, and had various lifestyle and personal problems associated with this, wouldn't you welcome medical interventions that would not only make you feel calmer and open more social avenues, but also make everyone else around you safer?"
Are you on the "medicate your problems away" bandwagon, then? I hope not. Maybe you, like I, actually prefer mind altering drugs be used as a last resort? I know a number of folks who regularly pop a pill(s) rather than deal with their problems in some other therapeutic manner. There are a ridiculous amount of kids at schools here in the U.S. taking drugs to deal with ADHD and bipolar disorder (the bipolar treatments are not approved for use on children, but are still prescribed!). The parents go to the doctor, get a diagnosis and a prescription, and little Johnny gets some pills to make him a good boy. Meanwhile, the family problems that may have led to his misbehavior continue; but the drugs, and their unfortunate side effects, now keep the young man from being considered the "cause."
Back to brain scans and Orwellian nightmares: It's my understanding that the U.S. congress has recently passed legislation that prevents insurance providers from using DNA information as a basis for charging higher rates to those who might develop expensive ailments in the future. It also prevents the misuse of this information by employers. I'm glad to hear this. Genetic research projects have been stymied because potential volunteers were afraid to submit their DNA due to possible future discrimination in the areas of insurance acceptance and job hiring. Can you imagine getting a brain scan, and then being handed a card telling you all the jobs you can't have, and the insurance carriers (health, auto, etc.) who consider you too great a risk to cover?
Other Comments by Steelman
19. Comment #35864 by Tim Marsh on April 29, 2007 at 6:01 am
Steelman, as I've already said in my first post, "I am not suggesting that medical understandings cannot be misused to justify terrible social policies."I am certainly not interested in promoting a 'Gattaca-esque' world of speculative liabilities and medically-driven paranoias, nor am I a particular defender of gross over-medication and commercially driven pharmaceuticals (as we see all too much of in America today). I will, however, defend the assertion that most maladaptive behaviours are ultimately the result of ignorance or abnormalities.
Now, 'abnormality' is, of course, as difficult a concept to define as 'normality', but I speak specifically in functional and distress-based capacities here.
You said:
"I've known plenty of people who knew quite well that what they were doing was wrong, but did it anyway. They knew their acts were wrong because they wouldn't have wanted anyone to treat them similarly. Yet they committed the acts because they felt they were somehow justified in doing so."
Feeling "they were somehow justified in doing so" is precisely the kind of problem I mean. While the majority of 'wrong-doers' (a nebulous term, to be sure, but I'm unable to think of a better one just now) are almost certainly not cognitively incapable of behaving otherwise, our current understanding of the algorithmic process of neurocomputation suggests that we will always elect to behave in the manner that seems the most beneficial to us. We are, after all, rationally self-interested, and as such only processing irregularities, strong innate or conditioned intuitions, and simple 'incorrect' information is what leads us to do things that are a genuinely bad idea.
In theory, education is negatively correlated with aggression and social dysfunction because it permits one to have a more informed and balanced world view. Higher economic brackets and standards of living are negatively correlated with aggression and social dysfunction (though they're not without them) because people who have lived through fewer damaging and confrontational life experiences will have fewer maladaptive intuitions conditioned into them by abusive situations and cognitive dissonance coping. And people with underactive amygdalas tend to have psychopathic tendencies and more extensive criminal records because they do not intuitively empathise with fear and suffering in others as easily as the rest of us do.
While I realise that, practically, people's misdeeds often need to be handled as if the decisions they made were made without any uncontrollable biases, but from a medical and psychological perspective I think it's important that we keep in mind that in essence 'bad' people are as much a victim of their biology and circumstances as those they may harm. And hence if there is anything that can be done to intervene in this, be it improved welfare, better education, counselling/cognitive therapy, or (dare I say it) dysfunction-balancing medications, it would be downright unethical to reject such interventions on the grounds of some kind of 'sanctity of the natural mind'. The minimisation of human suffering has to come first.
Other Comments by Tim Marsh
20. Comment #35879 by the_central_scrutinizer on April 29, 2007 at 7:21 am
john phillips"Why is it whenever a possibility arises due to new knowledge some only see the negative."
I'm sure that someone said that to those who opposed the development of nuclear technology also.
And that's my point. It isn't that it's negative, it's just that society, or more correctly, some in the far right/corporate/theocratic demograph, would me more that willing to use advances such as this to "move the project forward" in terms of societal control. Or perhaps merely for profit and reelection.
Many of the best ideas have become weapons - nuclear energy, microwaves, expanding foam...the list goes on...
The idea that seeing the potential for abuse of such a technology is being "negative" is a crock. Not seeing the potential downside of an idea is, at best, lacking in any Big Picture thinking. At worst it will sail our ship over the precipice.
The other side of the coin is what to do about people how are, for lack of a better term, broken.
Do we chemo-lobotomise them out of normal existence and, what, warehouse them? That only helps those who profit from such industries. Maybe we should do some corrective genetics as a result of invitro testing? What if the problem is unfixable? Gov't mandated abortions for the "provably" troublesome? Why stop at psycho's? How about the medically uninsurable, like those with late-developing chronic illnesses?
Now, obviously, I'm being a bit facetious here, devil's advocate and all that, but the idea is not without merit and is being discussed routinely in the insurance industry, an industry that drives many of the bad ideas we are use to.
Sorry, but as I see it, we humans have not evolved as fast as our technologies and what starts as a well intended idea will ultimately become a road sign on the way to hell.
Other Comments by the_central_scrutinizer
21. Comment #35942 by Steelman on April 29, 2007 at 11:54 am
ToTim Marsh: Thanks for the reply.You say that "abnormality" and "normality" are difficult to define, and that "wrong doers" is a nebulous concept. I agree. It's exactly the difficulty in defining these terms, especially "normality" and its opposite, that makes the introduction of brain scans into the ethical minefield of any country's criminal justice system such a can of worms. It's the purportedly predictive, and therefore prejudicial, nature of such a technique that makes it so controversial in my mind. I've also seen Gattaca. I think such a society could easily be built around us if we aren't cautious.
I mostly agree with your statements about education and higher standards of living having a positive affect on social behavior. Unfortunately, the cash generated by those nice folks sometimes enables the apparently more sociopathic ones in their government to engage in large scale criminal actions. No reflection on anything you've said. It's just that it seems to me the larger a social group (small town to big city to state to country) the greater its potential for evil due to the diffusion, and therefore dissipation, of direct responsibility. Injustices are committed, tragedies occur, and officials and advocates shake their heads as they tell the public and the victims' families that "the system failed them."
The points in your last paragraph are well taken.
Other Comments by Steelman
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"The habit of religion is oppressive, an easy way out of thought."
Peter Ustinov
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration--courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth."
H.L. Mencken
"Justifying space exploration because we get non-stick frying pans is like justifying music because it is good exercise for the violinists right arm."
Richard Dawkins
"It may be that brain hardware has co-evolved with the internal virtual worlds that it creates. This can be called hardware-software co-evolution."
Richard Dawkins
"There are all sorts of things that would be comforting. I expect an injection of morphine would be comforting... But to say that something is comforting is not to say that it's true."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
On The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
Pale Blue Dot
Carl Sagan
The Quotable Atheist
Jack Huberman
Evolution
Jean-Baptiste de Panafieu
American Theocracy
Kevin Phillips
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #35530 by Mango on April 27, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Other Comments by Mango