Theodore H. Bullock: pioneer of integrative and comparative neurobiology

One hundred years of excellence: the top one hundred authors of the Journal of Comparative Physiology A

The Journal of Comparative Physiology A is the premier peer-reviewed scientific journal in comparative physiology, in particular sensory physiology, neurophysiology, and neuroethology. Founded in 1924 by Karl von Frisch and Alfred Kühn, it celebrates its 100th anniversary in 2024. During these 100 years, many of the landmark achievements in these disciplines were published in this journal. To commemorate these accomplishments, we have compiled a list of the Top 100 Authors over these 100 years, representing approximately 1% of all its authors. To select these individuals, three performance criteria were applied: number of publications, total number of citations attracted by these articles, and mean citation rate of the papers published by each author. The resulting list of the Top 100 Authors provides a fascinating insight into the history of the disciplines covered by the Journal of Comparative Physiology A and into the academic careers of many of their leading representatives.

Neurobiological reduction: From cellular explanations of behavior to interventions

Scientific reductionism, the view that higher level functions can be explained by properties at some lower-level or levels, has been an assumption of nervous system analyses since the acceptance of the neuron doctrine in the late 19th century, and became a dominant experimental approach with the development of intracellular recording techniques in the mid-20th century. Subsequent refinements of electrophysiological approaches and the continual development of molecular and genetic techniques have promoted a focus on molecular and cellular mechanisms in experimental analyses and explanations of sensory, motor, and cognitive functions. Reductionist assumptions have also influenced our views of the etiology and treatment of psychopathologies, and have more recently led to claims that we can, or even should, pharmacologically enhance the normal brain. Reductionism remains an area of active debate in the philosophy of science. In neuroscience and psychology, the debate typically focuses on the mind-brain question and the mechanisms of cognition, and how or if they can be explained in neurobiological terms. However, these debates are affected by the complexity of the phenomena being considered and the difficulty of obtaining the necessary neurobiological detail. We can instead ask whether features identified in neurobiological analyses of simpler aspects in simpler nervous systems support current molecular and cellular approaches to explaining systems or behaviors. While my view is that they do not, this does not invite the opposing view prevalent in dichotomous thinking that molecular and cellular detail is irrelevant and we should focus on computations or representations. We instead need to consider how to address the long-standing dilemma of how a nervous system that ostensibly functions through discrete cell to cell communication can generate population effects across multiple spatial and temporal scales to generate behavior.

Collaboration in the competitive world of science: lessons to be learned from William T. Keeton

The tremendous increase in the number of authors and institutional affiliations on papers published in the natural sciences over the last few decades is commonly interpreted as an indicator of an increase in the collaborative spirit. However, a closer analysis suggests that this development reflects an increase in cooperation (defined as a strategy to divide labor among participants), rather than a rise in collaboration (defined as a mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to jointly solve a problem). An exception to this development was William T. Keeton (1933-1980), who, as a faculty member at Cornell University, pioneered research into pigeon homing. A direct result of his willingness to openly share ideas and collaborate with other investigators is the article by Hagstrum and Manley (J Comp Physiol A, 2015) in this issue of the Journal of Comparative Physiology A. Their study is based on data from experiments Keeton and his collaborators conducted some 40 years ago. Despite the age of these data, their analysis and the interpretation of the results are likely to stimulate fruitful discussion in the field of avian orientation.

We're the Same... but Different: Addressing Academic Divides in the Study of Brain and Behavior

How the brain mediates behavior is a question relevant to a broad range of disciplines including evolutionary biology, basic neuroscience, psychiatry, and population health. Experiments in animals have traditionally used two distinct approaches to explore brain–behavior relationships; one uses naturally existing behavioral models while the other focuses on the creation and investigation of medically oriented models using existing laboratory-amenable organisms. Scientists using the first approach are often referred to and self identify as “neuroethologists,” while the second category spans a variety of other sub-disciplines but is often referred to broadly as “behavioral neuroscience.” Despite an overall common scientific goal – the elucidation of the neural basis of behavior – members of these two groups often come from different scientific lineages, seek different sources of funding, and make their homes in different departments or colleges. The separation of these groups is also fostered by their attendance at different scientific conferences and publication records that reflect different journal preferences. Bridging this divide represents an opportunity to explore previously unanswerable questions and foster rapid scientific advances. This article explores the reasons for this divide and proposes measures that could help increase technology transfer and communication between these groups, potentially overcoming both physical and ideological gaps.