The Bryan daily eagle. (Bryan, Tex.) 1895-1898, 1896-09-23


jury that have been
reported In the
past. says the New York Herald. That
conclusion. briefly stated, is that a part
OF the brain, when ontNly destroyed
or removed. may be replaced by the
growth OF new brain cells
II this be true. then the hraln-the
dominating organ OF the animal econ
ON! -po.aessos property that Is
shared by none OF the lower organs
over which Il presides namely. that
Of natural replacement after injury.
II mans finger Is cut on by a circular
saw no one expects 20 see new finger
grow out In It's place: II he loses an
eye we do not look :or another 10 re-
place Il. Yet II NJ Vitzou is right the
destruction OF an important lobe Of the
brain-for instance. that which pre-
sides over sight need not be hopeless.
Tho cells viii gradually form again aud
respond to the visual impressions re-
ceiyed through the optic nerve as be-
fore.
This property Of regrowth Is COM
mon among lower creatures. II a lob
rier's claw be taken on new one will
grow In It's place with lower organ
ismo the removal OF almost any amount
Of tissue is scarcely a serious affair
and its replacement Is largely a matter
Of M. Now tapi ears that The hifh T
animals share this power. at least with
respect TO one organ. and that the most
| important OF ALL
This Is not altogether a new idea. II
has been advanced before and has even
been made the subject Of somewhat
heated controversy. but NJ Vitzou's cx-
perimonts are 80 apparently decisive
that they may settle the matter. al
though In science all questions are open
and no one may consider that he has
/ had permanent last word" How
ever this may be. these are the expert
ments that seem to settle the matter.
| They were tried not on man. Il Is I'M
necessary 20 say for Il IL not yet legal
10 scoop out even part OF human
/ brain while Ia owner yet llyos-but on
some OF his nearest relatives among
] the lower animals-namely MONKEYS.
| The opponents Of viyisection would
! doubtless raise their voices In eper-
gctic protest at the cruelty shown 20
these creatures That experimentation
Of this kind must necessarily be cruel
few win deny. but 10 the enthusiastic
psychologist cruelty Is quite justiGallc
when 1t leads TO the acquisition OF
scientific knowledge.
In this ease that part OF the brain
which presides over the sense OF sight
was removed from each Of the mon
keys the part without which any one
Of 90 would be- quite az blind as II his
eyra were put out. Il was quite evident.
after the operation. that the animals
we're, In fact totally blind. They we're
kept and cared Tor and as the mouths
went on they seemed TO be on the WY
to recovery Finally. IN about a years
time, II was evident that they saw. Il
not rs perfectly as before. az least par
TALLY; that "a, something was perform
ing the functions OF the removed brain
tissue. SO far the experiment can
hardly be said TO be conclusive. for
cases have been known where one part
Of the brain has been able to perform
the duty Of another part. Il may have
been, then. that the task OF responding
20 visual Impressions had been learned
by some other part OF the brain. Tn,
monkeys we're therefore operated upon
again part OF the skull was removed
and the brain was examined. The part
that had been taken out was found "a
be partly replaced by growth OF 1ow
cells, so that II seems practically Ger.
tain that Il was this new brain growth
that had been the cause Of the partial
restoration Of sight.
What will all this lead to- Ifn will
be OF any benefit to the human race
then the poor monkeys suffered ant
died in a good cause. II a monkey,
brain cells can grow again. 70. I'M
doubtcdly, can mans and this fac
gives as reason 20 hope for recovery II
cases OF serious brain injury that be
fore seemed hopeless. Again. II sucl
growth Ia possible. means OF fos,orln,
and stimulating Il are probable and vii
b doubtless be the objects OF further r.
search. Some method may even be dis
covered by which the new growth ma,
be made more vigorous and health,
than the old. IN which case 0iartlml
aud sensational results may follow
though this may seem to be looking
little too far into the realms OF mer
e toss bllty. Dat WY IN uld rot cal
part Of the brain be cut out and re-
= placed with a new and healthy growtl
/. OF brain cells? why should not th
! idiot be given IN this way a new think
{ ing machine. and the imbecile. th
paranoaic. the crank, be fitted out will
/ new mental apparatus?
= In the days to come the statemen
that John Smith had just been growln
n new ccrobellum In the hospital ma.
= be heard with no more surprise than !
now caused by the news Of an opera
0 ton for appendicitis. The question
d would then arise who Is the recon
: structcd John smith, Has his person
ality altered Is he the same or an
5 other? But this must be left to IN
= psychologists and the courts OF law Q
. the year i95O-or theroabouts.
4 Dsg's Expensive Appetite