The brain. At the mention of this concept probably only a minority think of a mere cauliflower-sized heap of cells; the majority will think about thinking processes. It seems to be a source of pleasing irritation to many people that events dealing with the mind regularly draw large crowds. If such events also combine questions of genius, intelligence and exceptional individuals the fascination mix is complete. It is therefore not surprising that over a hundred people arrived one evening last week at the Schauspielhaus (City Theatre) to learn more about the book "Brillian Brains" (Geniale Gehirne. Zur Geschichte der Elitegehirnforschung) from a dialogue between Guido Kalberer, editor of the Tages-Anzeiger and the ETH professor of Science Studies and author Michael Hagner.(1).

Cultural and technical prerequisites

Asked what motivates brain scientists to delve into such issues as genius and the elite, Michael Hagner named two prerequisites: first, a new method was needed and, secondly, an appropriate political-cultural climate. As research interest into the brains of the elite emerged in the first half of the 20th century–research interest on the source of genuis in the brain had already started around 1800–this had to do with the fact that Germany and the Soviet Union, where initial interest was awakened, were among the vanquished countries of World War I. Their biopolitics, however, would hardly have been possible without cytoarchitectonics, a method developed by Oskar Vogt. Should research interest in the brains and thought processes of the intellectually elite ever be reawakened today–Hagner deliberately chooses the conditional form–then it would be because of existing imaging techniques on the one hand, and a crisis in education on the other, which was manifesting itself, for example in Germany, in debates about a new "intellectual elite".

Nevertheless, for the ETH researcher the assignment of mental processes to images of the brain is not merely cyber phrenology. Face recognition can be attributed to areas of activity in the brain with a high degree of certainty. For Hagner it becomes problematic when one tries to do the same with notions such as musical talent or brilliant minds. Because for him these are social attributes and therefore hardly "transplantable" into the brain of a person said to have such an attribute.

Einstein's brain changed the book project

The ETH researcher described how he had been taken rather unawares by the "discovery" of the seat of genius in Albert Einstein's brain. In 1999 the Canadian researcher Sandra Witelson published an article in which she described a unique morphology owing to a thickened cerebral convolution in the brain of the famous physicist. Michael Hagner then decided that his book would not end with the 1940s, but that he would follow the history through to the end of the century.

In his latest book ETH science historian Michael Hagner investigates the history of the research on intelligence and the intellectually elite. large

Witelson's work proves that "brilliant brain" research lives on. What especially irritated Hagner was Witelson's implication that her results were based on modern technology, something that was practically impossible. The discussion surrounding Einstein's brain was rekindled and showed that research interest in the brains of exceptional individuals is time dependent. As Hagner told those present, after Einstein's demise his brain had not been removed and conserved with any great degree of care by the pathologist Thomas Harvey, simply because there was no particular interest in the 1950's in the connection between brilliancy and the anatomy of a brain. Interest was directed much more to cybernetics during this period.

Even though Michael Hagner cited a few foolish examples of stages in the history of brain research he emphasised that it wasn't his goal to uncover aberrations or expose researchers, some of who belonged to the best in their field. What he rather wished to demonstrate was that quite distinct symbolic attributes were attributed to the brain depending on the historical context and zeitgeist. Whether the awareness raised by the evening's discussion will have done enough to ensure that the next localisation of genius in the brain will meet with more scepticism is something only the future will show. The fascination with the brains of the highly intelligent will hardly disappear from the field of brain research–even after Hagner's latest publication.