The Neuroscientist Who Lost Her Mind: My Tale of Madness and Recovery
​Authors:  Barbara K. Lipska and Elaine McArdle
ISBN-10: 1328787303
ISBN-13: 978-1328787309

APA Style Citation
Lipska, B. K. & McArdle, E. (2018).  The Neuroscientist Who Lost Her Mind: My Tale of Madness and Recovery. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
 
Buy This Book
https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscientist-Who-Lost-Her-Mind/dp/1328787303

​Book Description
Dr. Barbara Lipska dedicated her life to neuroscience and ended up raging a personal battle with her own brain. As a neuroscientist her specialty was schizophrenia, but soon she experienced the very symptoms she studied. The Neuroscientist Who Lost Her Mind: My Tale of Madness and Recovery follows her personal story of overcoming melanoma that metastasized to the brain. She reminds us that mental illness is a brain disease and provides a blend of brain awareness and personal anecdotes to educate the reader. According to Dr. Thomas R. Insel, former National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) director, when speaking of Lipska, “You have done something so important for people with serious mental illness who do not have an observable lesion. Not only have you reminded us all that mental illnesses are brain illnesses, you have reminded us to be hopeful. People recover.” It is her expertise, desire to help reduce stigma, and optimism that leaves a lasting mark on the reader.
 
Throughout the book, Dr. Lipska divulges personal stories to build together the timeline of her amazing strength and battle with various cancers.  She began her journey in communist Poland in the 1980s where she worked on clinical trials for drugs to treat schizophrenia. Her first marriage quickly fell apart after she learned her husband had melanoma that ended up metastasizing to the brain, the very disorder she later faced. She found comfort in another man, Mirek and went on to marry him and raise her two children from her first marriage. In 1989, she was offered employment at the National Institute of Health in Maryland. Her research quickly took off and, in 1993, she published findings for the Lipska model. Then, in 2009, she was diagnosed with breast cancer and had a mastectomy on her left breast. Again in 2011, she received the unimaginable news and learned that she had the deadliest form of skin cancer, melanoma. She went on to beat cancer for a second time. In 2013, she was named Director of the Human Brain Collection Core at the NIMH. Life seemed to be taking a turn for the better, and she started to train for a half Ironman.
 
In January 2015, her story changed once again for the worse. She was working on her computer when her right hand vanished from her lower right visual field. She did not want to admit that something was wrong, but she was well-versed in the symptoms of cancer. An MRI confirmed she had three tumors and that one was bleeding and appeared to be melanoma. She was going to battle this cancer with the “kitchen sink”, including surgery, radiation, and immunotherapy. She was given steroids to prevent swelling and needed brain surgery to remove the bleeding tumor from her occipital lobe. Fortunately, the raisin-sized tumor was in a non-life-threatening location. Next, she decided to use stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to focus high doses of radiation onto individual tumors. Within one month of the brain surgery she was skiing, and within two months, training for a triathlon again. The family vacationed in Hawaii and spirits were high. After she returned, she received the news that she had been accepted into an immunotherapy clinical trial. Immunotherapy uses the body’s own defenses to fight the disease and has been touted as one of the most encouraging cancer treatments in decades.  Over 12 weeks, Dr. Lipska received four injections, consisting of a combination of two monoclonal antibody drugs that boosted the immune system. The drugs teach the dysfunctional T cells to recognize, attack, and kill off the cancerous cells.  She was not supposed to have any active tumors to complete the trial because the consequences were unknown. However, she learned from a second opinion that she had three new tumors.  Dr. Lipska decided to keep the news a secret and she proceeded with the trial. After the second injection, her body took a turn for the worse. She had an autoimmune reaction and suffered lymphedema from her previous mastectomy. When her lymph nodes were removed, her lymphatic system was blocked and her lymph fluid could not properly drain. This fluid buildup led to swelling in Dr. Lipska’s arm. It was at this time that her personality started to change. She became aggressive, acting like a 2-year-old having a tantrum, but did not have insight into her own behavior. She lashed out at her family, a physical therapist, and termite inspection man. She was angry, paranoid, impatient, and lacked empathy. Her frontal lobe was changing, but everyone wrote it off as stress. In June 2015, a variety of odd behaviors started to occur. She went for a run in her neighborhood with hair dye dripping everywhere and missing her prosthetic breast. She lost her car and, after finding it, damaged it as she frantically tried to escape the parking structure. After her final injection, she got sick on pizza and believed she had been poisoned by plastic hidden in the pizza. Upon her family’s advice she returned to the doctor for her first MRI since joining the immunotherapy trial. She learned that she had new tumors and the immunotherapy did not work. There was a total of 18 tumors, the largest in her frontal and parietal lobe.  She also had significant swelling and inflammation of brain tissue. Once again, she was given high amounts of steroids. This time her therapy included CyberKnife Robotic Radiosurgery, which used a robotic arm to shoot high-dose radiation into the tumors.
 
Dr. Lipska continued to battle her symptoms for the next two months.  She was argumentative and lost her ability to plan. She became obsessed with food and gained ten pounds. She was told to get her affairs in order, and her family began a rotation of visits. As her symptoms continued to advance, she forgot her husband’s birthday and how to do simple math, but her writing and creativity remained strong.  Dr. Lipska continued to work out, but did not understand the physical strain on her body. One specific incident included a seven-mile hike where she found chanterelle mushrooms that she wanted her husband to gather for breakfast.  After her 2.5 hour walk, she was exhausted and became overwhelmed. Her brain entered survival mode, and she blew up at her husband and family. Soon after this incident, her family noticed her short-term memory was disappearing. In addition, she would lose her balance and not be able to judge distance. One afternoon after demanding to walk home, she got lost and had her first incident of incontinence. When attending the grand opening of a local supermarket, she experienced a sensory overload from the music that sent her into panic mode. She was living a strange irony of the symptoms she once studied. 
 
Her mind finally started to return. She described it like crawling out of a black hole. Dr. Lipska wanted to keep fighting, but the two new drugs that showed promise for her genetic variation were not approved by the FDA and were not covered by insurance. The drug company gave her the drugs for “compassionate use” and she began both types. Her body exploded in a rash, but eventually she had promising results. In July 2015, she had a scan that showed the tumors shrank considerably or disappeared.  There was no way to know exactly which treatment worked, but she was grateful (even though the scientist in her was annoyed). She continued to have brain scans every six weeks. Small tumors have appeared and were treated with CyberKnife.
 
Dr. Lipska has tried to put all the pieces together and figure out how to move forward. Her family doesn’t talk much about those two summer months. She was scared about how her mind failed and has since regularly tested herself to see if her symptoms are returning. She publicly shared her story through The New York Times for the first time and received a positive response. But her story took another twist in August 2016. At the site of her biggest tumor she experienced brain tissue necrosis. This is a delayed and sometimes fatal effect of radiation, where the surrounding tissue of the brain tumor does not heal after the radiation.  Dr. Lipska noticed a blind spot at the top of her visual field in her left eye. She was diagnosed with irreversible optic neuropathy- total blindness in her left eye due to the radiation she received. Lipska refused to give up, retrained her body to deal with the blindness, and even trained for a family triathlon. Two weeks before the race she experienced a leg twitch. She was having seizures due to necrotic tissue in her right motor cortex.  Despite her complications she continued to compete in the triathlon, taking the swimming leg of the race. When she passed the timing piece to her husband, he said, “Life is a team sport! And remember, my love, we’ll conquer this beast!”
 
The prognosis for Dr. Lipska is good, but she is cautious. She is worried it could all happen again with old age. But she knows it is through the support of her family that she got through her journey to madness and back.
 
Other Related Resources
Barbara K. Lipska Webpage
https://www.barbaralipska.com/bio/
 
The New York Times Article written by Dr. Lipska
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/the-neuroscientist-who-lost-her-mind.html
Possible questions include:

1. What symptoms did Dr. Lipska experience that mimic mental illness?
2. What role did her family play in her story with melanoma?
3. How does this story fight the stigma of mental illness?
4. How is this story a testament to optimism?

 
NPR Interview with Dr. Lipska
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/03/31/598236622/the-neuroscientist-who-lost-her-mind-returns-from-madness
 
Megyn Kelly TODAY interview with Dr. Lipska
https://www.today.com/video/meet-the-neuroscientist-who-lost-her-mind-then-got-it-back-again-1209150019548
 
2018 Gaithersburg Book Festival in Maryland book talk with Dr. Lipska
https://www.c-span.org/video/?445042-12/the-neuroscientist-lost-mind
 
WGBH News interview with Dr. Lipska
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abWumGocVoU
 
WBUR- Radio Boston interview with Dr. Lipska
http://www.wbur.org/radioboston/2018/04/23/neuroscientist-new-book
 
Psychology Today posts from authors
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/experts/barbara-k-lipska-phd-elaine-mcardle
 
The Guardian Article
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/mar/30/i-was-a-caricature-of-my-worst-traits-how-brain-cancer-can-affect-the-mind
 
Wall Street Journal article written by James (son-in-law) about the family triathlon
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-triathlon-is-easy-next-to-soviets-and-polio-1495492959
 
Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor- Harvard trained brain scientist who suffers from a stroke and then writes about it
http://mystrokeofinsight.com/
http://drjilltaylor.com/book.html
https://www.amazon.com/My-Stroke-Insight-Scientists-Personal/dp/0452295548
https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104154403
 
Psychological Figures and Concepts 
Phineas Gage
 
Adrenal glands
Anosognosia- lack of insight
Antipsychotic drugs in the 1950s
Blood-brain-barrier (BBB)
Brain
Brain bank
Cerebellum
Confidentiality
Consciousness
Creativity
CT scan
Dementia
DSM-5
Dyspraxia
Empathy
Frontal cortex
Frontal lobotomy
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD)
Gray vs. white matter
Hippocampus
Id vs. superego
Immunotherapy
Language
Lipska model- neonatal hippocampal lesion model of schizophrenia
Lobes- frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital
Localization
Mental illness statistics
MRI
Nature vs. nurture
Neuroscientist
Paranoia
PET scan
Pituitary glands
Prefrontal cortex
Psychosis
Schizophrenagenic mother myth
Schizophrenia
Sensory overload
Short vs. long-term memory
Spatial memory
Stigma of mental illness
Thyroid glands
Visual field

Against Empathy:  The Case for Rational Compassion
Author:  Paul Bloom
ISBN:  978-0-06-233933-1
 
APA Style Citation
Bloom, P.  (2016). Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion, Harper Collins, New York, New York.
 
Buy This Book
https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338
​

​Book Description
Paul Bloom knows that many people will read this book out of anger, with the intention and hope of refuting the argument that empathy is bad for the world.  I did. I wanted to find fault with the reasoning that placing ourselves in the shoes of someone else was somehow a danger to both ourselves and others.  While Bloom has not convinced me that empathetic behaviors cause more harm than good, I can acknowledge that sometimes his argument is strong.  He concedes that not all empathy is negative, but rather argues that on the whole, it is not beneficial.  He opens with an example of an adorable young girl who needs a kidney transplant.  Once we get to know this girl and understand that she will likely die without the transplant, we often demonstrate empathy by imagining what it might feel like if this was happening in our own family.  When given the opportunity to move this girl up the list of those waiting for the transplant, we may jump at the opportunity to save her and her family from their continued suffering.  Bloom argues that this would be a case of empathy leading to injustice.  The feelings of empathy for this young girl have prioritized her life over the lives of others also waiting for a kidney who were rightfully in line ahead of the girl with whom we empathize.
 
Bloom argues that one of the reasons most people are so deeply in favor of the concept of empathy is that is has been associated with many concepts such as compassion, sympathy, and kindness which are related to but not actually empathy.  Bloom makes it clear that he is in favor of kindness and compassion.  He believes that empathy causes us to make decisions that seem kind and compassionate but that can actually hurt more people than help. He argues that empathy is like cholesterol and has both good and bad types.  The first, cognitive empathy is the type of empathy in which a person can understand another person`s suffering but does not feel what they feel.  We can feel compassion or sympathy without feeling what the person themselves feel, Bloom argues that this is often the case when we help others.  If a child falls from a high jungle gym and breaks his nose, we will immediately try to help, but it is unreasonable to argue that we feel what he/she feels. Similarly, we can buy a gift that we think someone else will enjoy, without necessarily liking it ourselves; this is kindness but not empathy.  These concepts are often presented as interchangeable and interwoven, but Bloom argues that can exist as distinct entities.
 
The second type of empathy is emotional empathy; this occurs when we feel the pain of others, this is the emphasis of the book and the type of empathy that Bloom believes can blur the lines of morality, balanced reasoning and fairness and that which he argues against.  Bloom argues that empathy can be learned and socialized and is often employed to encourage people to “do the right thing.”  Children are often scolded by asking, “How would you like it if someone did that to you?”  Bloom argues that there needs to be more to morality than empathy and that in fact, they are distinct because they need not occur simultaneously.  If you see someone throw garbage out of his or her car window, this may upset you morally, but there is no empathetic element, you do not feel what the person does or for that matter what the garbage feels. 
 
Bloom uses the very emotionally sensitive topic of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting in Newtown Connecticut as an example of how empathy can result in an unseen negative outcome.  While it is impossible to overestimate the tragedy that occurred in Newtown, More children were killed in the city of Chicago in a single year than those killed in Newtown.  However, the vividness of hearing the news of the Newtown victims and the painful emotions associated with this single event, makes the Newtown shootings stand out in our minds.  While the Chicago shootings may be covered daily in the paper they are not a single event, but rather multiple less salient events that are easier to forget. This availability heuristic created an outpouring of emotional empathy and gifts flooded into Newtown from all over the country.  Unfortunately, the gifts far exceeded what could be distributed in Newton a relatively affluent community, but many volunteers were needed to help store the gifts and toys even after Newtown officials asked that nothing else be sent. Bloom argues that this money could have been better spent saving lives by buying mosquito netting for children in Sudan and providing clean drinking water for those who have no access or meals to the elderly who do not have enough food.  In this way, people would be saving lives, but instead, their emotional empathy created a glut of teddy bears in a community that needed emotional support, but not tangible items and diverted resources from other potentially deadly situations.  
 
Bloom argues that this and other similar examples demonstrate that compassion is biased and often results in a cost-benefit net loss. Therapists who are too empathetic with their client’s problems face burn out and need to learn how to help their clients through the healing process without taking on the pain and suffering of their clients at the same time.  Bloom provides an example of a worker at the 9-11 sight looking for bodies when it was clear that they would find no more survivors, this person needed to try to dial back their empathy as they would otherwise have become overwhelmed and unable to help in the recovery efforts.  Surgeons may also need to practice this skill as too much empathy may inhibit their ability to do their job well.  The key here may to be employ understanding and caring rather than empathy. 
 
Empathy can also be counterintuitive; when we perceive that individuals play a role for creating a negative situation in their own life, we are likely to employ the just world phenomenon and demonstrate very little empathy even if it would be the kind and moral thing to do.  For example, if you found that someone was infected through HIV because they were an intravenous drug user who had used and infected needle, we might be likely to say that “it was their own fault.” Psychopaths are often said to lack empathy, but Bloom argues that criminal psychopaths have normal empathetic abilities, but they can dial it up to ingratiate themselves with people and then turn it down if they violate trust or engage in a criminal activity that may result in hurting others. Those with autism, unlike the criminal psychopaths, have little ability to empathize but do not have questionable moral behavior. Demonstrating Bloom`s argument that empathy and morality and not inevitable linked to one another. 
 
Bloom also discusses that the development of an in-group to whom we are likely to empathize and find similarities often creates and out-group may lead to stereotyping, dehumanization and unfair negative attributes.  While we can empathize with the victim of a crime or a family member who is suffering, Bloom argues that there are limits in empathy.  For example, if you heard that 30 people were killed in a flood in Indonesia, you would likely feel badly and perhaps empathize with the families of those killed or injured.  However, if you heard that 3000 people were killed in the flooding, would you feel 300 times worse?  We might go to herculean efforts to remove child trapped in a well, but do very little to try and change the climate which may over time results in the deaths of thousands more people.  Bloom uses quotes by both Stalin and Mother Teresa to demonstrate this point.  Stalin said, “One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic.  Mother Teresa, “If I look at the mass, I will never act, if I look at the one, I will. Both understood the limits of empathy, but one in demonstrating Bloom`s thesis, the morality of this understanding is neutral, empathy need not only be used for good.  
Bloom does recognize that some good can come out of empathy and organizations such as effective Altruism advocate doing good deeds that combines the efforts of the head and the heart.  
 
Other Related Resources
The Atlantic:  Short video of psychologist Paul Bloom making the argument that empathy is a bad thing
https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/474588/why-empathy-is-a-bad-thing/. Bloom maintains that he is against empathy but for compassion.  He poses that empathy should not override rational deliberation; it should be a reliable servant-but never a master.
 
Big Think:  Why Empathy is not the Best Way to Care:  Video in which Paul Bloom describes why empathy can backfire and lead to negative effects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhCGmDJQRpc
 
Psychology Today:  Why Paul Boom is Wrong about Empathy and Morality
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/good-thinking/201310/why-paul-bloom-is-wrong-about-empathy-and-morality
 
Quartz: Empathy Makes us Immoral
https://qz.com/1250764/work-japan-app-aims-to-help-foreigners-find-blue-collar-jobs-despite-japans-resistance-to-immigrants/
 
Oxford Education Blog:  Against Empathy?  Really
https://educationblog.oup.com/theory-of-knowledge/against-empathy-really
 
Psychological Figures and Concepts
Amygdala
Anterior Insula
Autism
Availability Heuristic
Base Rate
Clinical Psychology
Cognitive Empathy
Cognitive Neuroscience
Dualism
Emotional Contagion
Emotional Empathy
Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
File Drawer Problem
fMRI
Incentive
Just World Phenomenon
Localization
Medial Prefrontal Cortex
Mindfulness
Mirror Neuron
Neuroanatomist
Neuroimaging
Posterior Cingulate Gyrus
Psychopaths
Statistical Significance
Theory of Mind
 
Psychological Figures
Charles Darwin
David Eagelman
Sigmund Freud
Michael Gazzaniga
Marc Iacobini
Steven Pinker