Final Entry - Advice to emerging scientists

First off, I should hope that anyone wanting to get into the same field as Rebecca Saxe would already be a successful student of the sciences! Saxe’s work covered such an array of disciplines that I was able to explore resources that would be beneficial for a variety of emerging scientists.
To find ideas that could spark the composition of new theories I would suggest participating in a network at a workplace or university such as MIT’s http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/index.html which is also their source for campus news. Popular national and international networks such as Twitter could also serve as an uncanny place for the exchange of ideas.
Explore facets of your theory through general reference books such as encyclopedias, dictionaries, and textbooks.

Secondly, books on the specific topic would give the researcher an idea of where other scientists have taken their related theories. If your theory is unique- like Saxe’s- you may have to study a variety of disciplines to understand all of the approaches and intertwining subjects.

Seeking guidance from colleagues and teachers is another way to refine a theory. Speaking with other people familiar with the areas of science you wish to explore will often offer references to popular and little known publications in the field. I know from experience in the History Department at IUP, the professors are always suggesting articles for their colleagues to check out leading to discussions, debates, and further research.

After reading current literature that deals with your proposed theory you may study the historiography of the debate by searching journals, either in print or online for the evolution of the debate. ISI Web of Science would be beneficial in determining which articles have garnered the most attention. Again, if the proposed theory was as far reaching across the disciplines as Saxe’s, numerous publications would have to be explored.

In studying Saxe’s information seeking habits, it is clear that she’ll use whatever information she can find that is conducive to her purposes. The information could come from a well-known, reputable source, or a lesser known, but groundbreaking source or even a source completely out of her normal area of study such as a popular magazine like Parents. Researchers should be prepared to always keep an eye out for new material and be open to nontraditional means of communication- open access, networking- as well as traditional printed materials.

Isolated Disciplines...

As I was hoping, I have a great friend who dug into his science knowledge for me-- throughout his experience in medical school / residency he's run into only a few isolated disciplines-Geology / Geosciences, Astronomy, and he's thinking a few of the social sciences, but has minimal experience with those. In his words, "Everybody has biology, chemistry, physics, organic chemistry, microbiology, biochemistry."

In applying this information to Saxe's areas of expertise, she obviously is not involved in the Geosciences or Astronomy, but she definitely is involved in the social sciences. As for disciplines within the social sciences, I would argue that Psychology and Sociology are the most directly related.

Saxe's study of the development of infants is quite unique from what I can tell from her publications and the attention the press has given her. Perhaps her study could be considered a field studied in isolation merely for its uniqueness.

Saxe's Resources

Since only a single publication Saxe has been published in offers Open Access I also wanted to check on the resources Saxe utilizes.

Current Biology has a great website at: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/home with videos and full text documents with all the pertinent graphs, charts, and diagrams.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences do ask for membership, but does offer free online access to articles published since 1993. ( http://www.bbsonline.org/ )

Science had links to the current issue –which actually had an article about weiner dogs which is funny because just today I saw one walking down my street. Anyway, in addition to the current issue, http://www.sciencemag.org/index.dtl also had links to previous issues which are published weekly with the opportunity to subscribe as well.

Nature Neuroscience not only had full text articles from current and previous editions, but also had advance web access to upcoming issues! (http://www.nature.com/neuro/index.html )


At first Animal Behavior seems to offer free full-text downloadable documents of their journal, but then the link sends you to Science Direct where articles can be purchased. NeuroReport also asks for registration and pay-per-view for articles. (http://www.neuroreport.com/pt/re/neuroreport/home.htm;jsessionid=JhQTH21GnxnF2Qk40GK1r5r6Y3vphQQhR617ccQ1yTSJ3ZhVCWLF!1204955331!181195628!8091!-1

Brain required a subscription to “Brain Online” although it is possible to search the holdings without a subscription (http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/ ) Very tricky how these things are labeled

Most of the other journals I looked at required purchase or at least subscription. Very interesting to see that the majority of resources Saxe uses offer public access compared to the inaccessibility of the publications in which she has been published.

Access

This week I noted the publications in which Rebecca Saxe has published her work and then checked access to each publication.

Current Opinion in Neurobiology, Acta Psychologica, Psychological Science, NeuroImage, Brain Research, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Neuropsychologia, and Annual Review of Psychology all require subscriptions to access the publications online.

Cognition offers the opportunity to purchase individual articles through online .pdf files at : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00100277

Cerebral Cortex published by Oxford Journals offers Open Access materials at online at: http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/current.dtl#FEATURE_ARTICLE with links to back issues.

Overall, the journals in which Saxe has been published are difficult for the public to access. Without connection to a university or fortunate public library, Saxe's articles are out of reach.

Next I'd like to take a look at the resources Saxe references and their availability.

Networking

More to come later on the study of sub-disciplines and isolated disciplines later- I have a few emails out to some medical student friends for some input.

When I first read the networking question I immediately thought of H-Net, a networking site for the Humanities and Social Sciences. Through this site anyone interested in either discipline and a multitude of sub-disciplines can sign up for discussion forums and list-serves. The forums offer a great place for the discussion of new publications in the fields and even opportunities to discuss job opportunities.

The National Science Teachers Association also offers a similar forum for discussion of science at the elementary and highschool levels. As for Rebecca Saxe it seems that MIT has its own fairly structured forum for discussion among its faculty through article postings, pod casts, e-news, and rss feeds. ( http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/saxe-tt0514.html )

The New York Academy of Science, of which Saxe is apparently either a member or simply a visitor (she spoke there in April 2007) is an interdisciplinary organization for the presentation of research in print and electronic format with conferences and symposiums.

Brain Talk Communities is a non-profit organization geared toward patients undergoing treatment or observation for a neurological condition. Brain Talk maintains forums for discussion and support and a specific forum for Child Neurology. Although this forum is far from formally scientific, it does connect people w/ common issues and could offer Saxe a look into observations of children not in her study. ( http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=115 )

Back to scholarly resources-- Social Science Research Network maintains Cognitive Science Network for the publication of research papers, job postings, directory of professionals in the field, and other announcements. ( http://www.ssrn.com/csn/index.html ) Cognitive Science Network, after searching for author Rebecca Saxe returns "1 out of 0 results" so I'm not sure what they're getting at here.....

Networks of scientists sharing ideas through online forums and organizations create a variety of new resources for Saxe and her colleagues.

Sometimes It's a Struggle

After what I thought was a ground breaking epiphany of information resource 'awesome-ness' on Friday, back to the real world. Now that I see that Elsiever is the publisher and thus is picky enough to only promote their publications I feel that I've had a great experience in the next question- Interdisciplinary cross over would most definitely complicate any scientist's information seeking behavior.

In Rebecca Saxe's case, not only must she be able to find information on the biological workings of the brain, she must also be open to the constant stream of psychological and philosophical theories that pass through publications, forums, and conferences. It is very doubtful that Saxe would ever find a publication that would include all areas of her research or a conference that focuses specifically on her desired balance of biology, chemistry, neurology, psychology, and philosophy-- and whatever else she decides to throw in. Therefore, she must (as any librarian must also become accustomed to) be willing to search a variety of sources both traditional and non for research findings that could be woven together to serve her needs. As I have learned through 'googling' sometimes the best answers come from the most surprising places. In the name of science, a forum of scientists openly discussing their findings and theories could create new partnerships and spark new ideas.

Databases like Science Direct though would be most helpful since searching for a key word would produce articles from a variety of sources as in this age of technology it is hard to imagine that any non - librarian really spends time leafing through the latest journals. Electronic access is quickly taking over and as a result publications from a multitude of disciplines can be combined and searched in tandem easing the researching dilemmas of cross-over scientists utilizing a combination of disciplines to discover awesome things.

Yay for Google!

After trying to avoid ‘googling’ these journals, I gave in and had better luck in finding descriptions of the scope of some of the journals in which Saxe has been published. Review sites contained more useful information on the content of the journals than the official sites of the journal and some even offered free issues for perusal. The Science Direct Database (in Browse mode) offers a link to "About this Journal" and it turns out that many of the descriptions that I found for the scope of the journals I looked at were from the same source- Elsevier. The Reed Elseiver company produces information in the fields of science, medicine, law, and business.

I don't want to give you a play by play of all of the journals in which Saxe has been published, but through these examples I've learned that journals can be very broad in their scope like Psychological Science or very narrow like Current Opinion in Neurobiology--

Psychological Science is a journal that publishes articles concerning the brain and human behavior, clinical science, cognition, learning and memory, social psychology, and developmental psychology as well as articles discussing the application of psychological topics in government and the public sphere.

Unfortunately Current Opinion in Neurobiology seems to strictly adhere to reviewing Neurobiology and thus the cells of the brain and how they function-- lacks the interdisciplinary facets of the other journals at first glance.

I find it very interesting that many journals limit authors from submitting their work to any other journals, but at the same time can vary so much in their scope that perhaps they might not consider a piece as within their area when the author does. It would be very prudent for scientists hoping to have their research published to be familiar with exactly what the publishers are looking for and be well-acquainted with their requirements for consideration for publication. Journal publication is much more selective than I had originally thought so it is surprising how interdisciplinary Saxe's research is and how it has been received by publishers.

Interdisciplinary??

Saxe's work is definitely interdisciplinary. Merely looking at the journals in which she has been published showcases the multitude of disciplines her research bridges. Psychology, Philosophy, Biology, Chemistry, Neurology, and Cognitive Science.

Saxe's study of the human mind obviously involves chemical and biological process, but the inclusion of Psychology and Philosophy covers her hypotheses as well as the influence of human behavior.

As a result, her research would also include such disciplines.

I am trying to find descriptions of what the journals her work has been published in focus on, but many of the publisher's sites merely describe the ethics expected when submitting articles for publication. Any ideas?

Looking for Ideas

I think that Saxe may systematically scan publications focusing on her area of cognitive study; specifically the Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience journal from Oxford University. I think that Saxe would be especially partial to this journal since she attended Oxford herself. Another example is Social Neuroscience from Psychology Press. Through my research I discovered that much like the History discipline, Neuroscience also publishes compendiums of selected readings that have contributed to the field. The website for Social Neuroscience offers a list of suggested reading- the first suggestion being Social Neuroscience: Key Readings edited by John T. Cacioppo and Gary G. Berntson. (http://www.psypress.com/socialneuroscience/books.asp )


Earlier this week I mentioned that Saxe may reference common magazines for observations of children, but as my research of her area of expertise grows I have realized that her research has encompassed far more than the Popular Science brief mentioned. It seems that research in the field of Social Cognitive Neuroscience has been ongoing for quite some time (as compared to something like nanotechnology I’m sure) so Saxe has a plethora of information to examine, but it would be interesting to know- with the aid of a well –educated scientist- how much of the older research has been disproved.

You found that information where???

I find it hard to believe that a scientist of Saxe's level would serendipitously scan for ideas, but isn't it the way that the best ideas come at the strangest times. Think of the eureka moment that occurs in the shower or in the middle of the night. I would think that Saxe, the the perusal of published material, may come across something that would spark an epiphany, but I doubt that she goes in search of new ideas by reading the work of others.

The journals in which her own work is published such as Annual Review of Psychology, Psychological Science, and Brain Research would offer the most fitting articles for comparison to her own work, but it could be argued that common magazines such as Parents would offer insight into her study of infants. The observations of parents of infants on a daily basis offer valuable insight into the behaviors of their children in familiar environments. Although Saxe does maintain the play lab, I can't help but think that children would behave differently at home as they would from the lab. Only with regular visits to the lab would the infants become familiar with the atmosphere. I'll admit that I'm not a scientist, but am drawing these conclusions based on my experience with my own extended family. Much like an infant will cry when held by someone who is a stranger to them, I'm struggling to accept that the children in Saxe's study are completely at ease in the play lab and that is why I would consider common parenting magazines appropriate resources for Saxe in her research.

What types of resources does Saxe use?

In attempting to study Saxe's reference sources one of the articles referenced in her MIT biographical snippet was freely available on the net, but the rest required subscriptions to online databases.

I discovered that locating Saxe's articles was quite a challenge. Stapleton Library at Indiana University of Pennsylvania was able to provide full-text digitization's for only 3 of the 12 listed articles through Ebsco. Three were available in print in the serials department. I used IUP's resources rather than Clarion's because it was far easier to search for the articles on campus rather than from a remote location where I had to constantly re-sign in for access to the various databases.

The articles "It's the Thought that Counts...," "Secret Agents...," and "Understanding Other Minds..." all utilize a great number of resources. "Understanding Other Minds..." had a 7.5 page Literature Cited list!

Overall, the articles utilized psychology oriented publications and articles and books pertaining to childhood development. Saxe's research focus on infants and their ability to recognize visual stimulants--(really stretching my scientific jargon that hasn't been used in 3 years) requires a wide variety of material discussing neurology and psychology and it is evident through the bibliographies that this has been achieved-- one resource is titled
Neuropsychology.

It seems that most of the references are trying to prove nearly the same things as Saxe, but have only completed a portion of the processes Saxe has achieved. I searched for a few of the articles Saxe referenced and found that the Psychology articles were much easier to locate in full-text format than any of the Neurology focused. The differences between institutions effects the available resources. Perhaps if IUP offered a major in Neurology more articles would be readily available...I could only imagine the presence of future Neurosurgeons in Indiana.

Who is Rebecca Saxe and what is she doing?

Rebecca Saxe is a former philosophy student who turned to science to study ho the human brain processes the information received by the eyes and ears. In 2005, Saxe proved that a single, specific part of the brain is dedicated to thinking about others’ desires.

Utilizing, what she has named the Playlab, Saxe is studying babies and how they interact with other babies to determine when and how the brain starts to recognize people and interact socially. Saxe explains, "[The mind] makes us make systematic mistakes over and over again, as individuals but also as societies, in how we mete out punishment and who we value, and who we think is good and who we think is bad, and how we try to change behavior for better or for worse," she says. "Maybe we can prevent ourselves from making those same mistakes again and again and again. That would be success." http://www.popsci.com/category/tags/brilliant-10-class-2008

To begin this research project I found Saxe on the MIT website. Her faculty entry describers her position at the institute and presents a short abstract (not sure if that word does the paragraph justice) exemplifying Saxe’s scientific frame of mind and the goals of her ongoing research. MIT also provides a short bibliography of Saxe’s published works. It is through the mentioned works that someone could find a more complete description of Saxe’s research.

Uniquely Human Social Cognition Saxe R (2006) Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

The perception of Causality in Infancy. Saxe R, Carey S. (2006) Acta Psychologica

It's the thought that counts: Specific brain regions for one component of Theory of Mind. Saxe R, Powell L. (2006) Psychological Science

Divide and Conquer: a defense of functional localizers Saxe R, Brett M, Kanwisher N (2006) Neuroimage.

Why and how to study Theory of Mind with fMRI. Saxe, R. (2006) Brain Research .

Secret Agents: Inferences about hidden causes by 10- and 12-month-old infants. Saxe R, Tenenbaum J, Carey S (2005) Psychological Science 16(12) p 995 - 1001.

Five-month-old infants know humans are solid, like inanimate objects Saxe R, Tzelnic T, Carey S (2006) Cognition.

Against Simulation: the Argument from Error. Saxe, R. (2005) Trends in Cognitive Science 9(4):174-9.

Dissociation between emotion and personality judgments: Convergent evidence from functional neuroimaging. Heberlein A, Saxe, R. (2005) Neuroimage .

Making sense of another mind: the role of the right temporo-parietal junction. Saxe R, Wexler A. (2005) Neuropsychologia.

My body or yours? The effect of visual perspective on cortical body representation. Saxe R, Jamal N, Powell L (2005) Cerebral Cortex.

Understanding other minds: linking developmental psychology and functional neuroimaging. Saxe R, Carey S, Kanwisher N (2004) Annual Review of Psychology 55:87-124.

A region of right posterior superior temporal sulcus responds to observed intentional actions. Saxe R, Xiao DK, Kovacs G, Perrett DI, Kanwisher N (2004) Neuropsychologia 42(11):1435-46.

People thinking about thinking people: fMRI studies of Theory of Mind. Saxe R, Kanwisher N (2003)Neuroimage. 19(4):1835-42.

( http://web.mit.edu/bcs/people/saxe.shtml )

Simply ‘Googling’ “Rebecca Saxe” provides sites and articles from MIT (http://saxelab.mit.edu/ and http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/saxe-tt0514.html ) as well as articles from forums such as Boston Review (http://bostonreview.net/BR29.1/saxe.html ) to name only a few of the results.

Hi! I'm Laura. Don't let the title of my blog confuse you- I haven't lost my mind and forgotten my name, Lola is a nickname- and way more fun than Laura!-

I hope that this can be a great learning experience for all of us while exploring science / engineering / medical resources!