Skip to main content

In the footsteps of William Harvey


William Harvey 1578-1657
Often our ‘gut instinct’ is to take a particular course of action but our ‘rational mind says no’, and often in hindsight we wish we had followed our ‘gut instinct’.  The heart figures prominently in our cultural expression of emotions. It is in our poetry and our literature. But is there a physiological explanation for this? Can the heart once again be centre-stage of our feelings? Do we really have ‘gut’ instincts? In a three-part series of videos by Voices from Oxford, Professor David Paterson, Associate Head of Medical Sciences at Oxford University, explores with Denis Noble a paradigm shift in the way we think about our heart and brain and the intimate neural connections between the two.

 Appropriately the filming is at Merton College where, as a result of the 17th Century English Civil War, William Harvey was briefly Warden. Harvey revolutionised our understanding of how the body works by describing the role of the heart as a pump, a mechanical device for circulating the blood round the body. His seminal work contributed over centuries to a “decoupling” of brain and heart, and of the heart from our concept of mind.   But as David Paterson explains the heart is “physically hard-wired by the nervous system”. It has a nervous network involved in its excitability.  The heart and brain are not “isolated islands”.
 
Understanding what these connections between brain and heart do is one of the big challenges for the 21st Century. Reductionism has driven science historically. We have “been very good at breaking things down” into organs, cells, molecules, but “the challenge now is to bring those parts back together, to reassemble them.” The potential for interdisciplinary work is “one of Oxford’s greatest strengths” but it is still “poorly tapped”. It is a challenge, Professor Paterson says Oxford University is well placed to address with opportunities for multidisciplinary interaction between sciences and the humanities and also with international collaboration.

This article also appeared on Voices from Oxford

In the footsteps of William Harvey

Ray Noble is News Editor of Voices from Oxford

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As