|
Full 1997
The Prince of Pain
page
1 | 2 |
3 | 4
| 5 |
6 | 7 |
8
The
lab's senior member, David Mayer, mapped out the brain sites that
seemed to turn off the pain, determined the right frequency to produce
the effect and, with Liebeskind, prepared a paper on this stimulation-produced
analgesia (SPA) for the journal Science. "John was an excellent
writer, obsessive-compulsive about it," says Mayer, now a professor
of anesthesiology, physiology and anatomy at Medical College of
Virginia. "We would argue and argue about a single word. He spent
an incredible amount of time agonizing over these things, and I
think this helped us articulate the two major insights in that paper."
The
first of these, Mayer's, was that the stimulation didn't turn off
nerves, but rather turned on a system that was already there --
a well-organized, separate, internal pain-killing apparatus. He
speculated that a narcotic like morphine actually engaged the exact
same machinery. The second insight, this one Liebeskind's, was that
all of this pain-killing was happening not in the brain but in the
spinal chord.
What
Liebeskind and Mayer were suggesting was unheard of -- that the
body produces its own opiate-like drugs and that the brain could
administer these drugs to powerful effect. Few scientists were convinced.
No one could explain how such an internal drug-delivery system would
work, and evidence that it existed at all was paltry. Those who
did believe -- John Hughes and Hans Kosterlitz at the University
of Aberdeen, Avram Goldstien at Stanford, to name several -- were
already scrambling to isolate natural painkillers in the brain,
working largely on instinct and faith. Liebeskind's data not only
confirmed they were on the right track, it pointed to where the
numbing process was taking place, allowing them to map those opiate
receptor sites. A year later in 1972, when Huda Akil presented data
confirming Liebeskind and Mayer's suspicions, John Hughes was about
to make history with his isolation of enkaphalin -- the first of
the so-called endorphins.
There
was, however, a small problem with Liebeskind's masterpiece: Science
had rejected it. It was interesting, the reviewers said. There was
nothing wrong with the methodology. But it wasn't about to set the
world on fire.
<previous>
<next>
|