Comments for en-gb 30 Sat 18 Apr 2015 11:59:25 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at CecilyW The piece on this morning's show made me very angry indeed. The female scientist talked about the need for brains with which to study autism. After talking about the amount of money autism costs the state she then said that her research was vital to 'reduce the burden of autism on the state and families'. I was so shocked. There was no mention whatsoever of benefitting people who actually are autistic. No other discussion about research would be framed in these terms. Can you imagine someone talking about the benefits of research into, say, motor neurone disease or depression without talking about how it could help those who had the condition? If this scientist regards people with autism as somehow sub-human, only important in terms of the 'burden' they place on 'normal' people or how much they cost the taxpayer, then I respectfully suggest that she finds another area to research, one that won't be informed by dislike and prejudice. It is prejudice like this that actually causes a lot of the financial 'burden' on the state, as even highly able autistic adults are shamefully underemployed. As it happens, I have a son on the autistic spectrum, who is loving, highly intelligent, full of ideas and in no way a burden to his family. Fri 05 Jun 2009 08:50:32 GMT+1 secrethawkeye really nice post>>thanks a lot>> Wed 21 Jan 2009 16:37:05 GMT+1 alanborky This blog's subject conjures up the image of neuroscientists and their students becoming so deranged from a lack of materials to study they end up taking to the street, pestering every passerby for "Brains...brains...brains..." Wed 07 Jan 2009 22:53:24 GMT+1 U13772353 I must apologise to Prof Preston as I now realise the Speaker out of line was Prof Steven Rose. Wed 07 Jan 2009 21:15:19 GMT+1 Rita Kingham We certainly didn't need Steven Rose to tell us that there are "vast areas of the brain that scientists know nothing about". Why didn't you invite a neurologist to comment on some of the things scientists do know about the brain?Dr Susan Greenfield would be a good choice. Wed 07 Jan 2009 18:53:27 GMT+1 U13772353 I assume that it was Prof Preston speaking on the 'Today' programme this morning. I only caught a snippet of it. While I support his appeal - having spent some time learning the intricacies of the brain in the dissecting room, I can appreciate the importance of a supply of material for research. However,I believe that he should keep his mouth shut regarding political matters; his views on the Israeli cabinet are of no interest to us and irrelevant to the subject of his interview. Wed 07 Jan 2009 18:31:26 GMT+1 ScienceFiend Steve, I really hope that was your attempt at a witty comment and not your real opinion; otherwise it's people with mindsets like yourself that stop us progressing in Neuroscience. Wed 07 Jan 2009 15:03:13 GMT+1 TomFeilden Woolyhead,The short answer is no. The donor card scheme only applies to organs that can be donated - like livers, hearts and lungs. Since no one (Dr Frankenstein excepted) has ever transplanted a brain into a living patient, brains are specifically excluded. The best advice I can offer you, and anyone else who wants to donate their brain to medical research, is to contact a brain bank directly. There are about 10 in the UK. You can search on the internet to find the one nearest to you.Tom Wed 07 Jan 2009 14:40:56 GMT+1 chatmandu_uk This post has been Removed Wed 07 Jan 2009 14:16:37 GMT+1 duhbuh This post has been Removed Wed 07 Jan 2009 13:57:28 GMT+1 steve_webprogrammer Wanting to donate your brain to science is a neurological condition - so the study will never be ballanced. Wed 07 Jan 2009 13:52:30 GMT+1 woolyhead How do ensure that I donate my brain to medical science? Would an ordinary donor card do the job? Wed 07 Jan 2009 13:43:27 GMT+1