Talk:Brain of Albert Einstein

Untitled

Einstein had requested that his brain be donated to science after his death in 1955

I seem to distictly recall that Einstein's brain was removed against his wishes, but then again my memory might be failing me. So, can anyone point me to a source that supports the above claim? -- Koffieyahoo 07:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You can search The Bizarre Odyssey of Einstein's Brain [1] on Amazon. From page 211 "Before haning up, (Otto) Nathan repeated what he had said to the Kansas City Times four years earlier: "Albert Einstein did not want his brain studied." Nathan knew that Einstein had never been so unequivocal himself. A few months before his death the physicist had written to biographer Carl Seelig that he liked the idea of donating his body to science, but he left no instructions on the matter since he feared it would be a "theatrical gesture." --Broom eater 08:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't have anything supporting it.

I read one of the sources linked on this page, which clearly states the following:

Why the brain was preserved at all is not clear; the rest of the body was cremated shortly after death. One biographer says Einstein wanted it to be used for research; the executor of his estate denies this, and says the decision to preserve it was made by his son.

I was confused as I read the article to see a contradiction, but by no means would I consider myself an expert, and the article is older than I am, so something new could have come up. -- Eclipsed Moon 08:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I went to a talk a couple of years ago about Einstein's brain, and in that talk the lecturer claimed that the person doing the autopsy on Einstein simply thought it would be in the interest of science if the brain was kept and preserved.:

Accuracy?

The article follows the information claimed by Steven Levy [2] that the brain was rediscovered by Levy in 1978. Other articles on his brain (look at the others linked at the bottom) do not mention this. Also, the various articles seem to indicate the brain is in pieces, which doesn't fit very well with the photograph of it.

Barbara Shack 16:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Einstein's brain was removed at autopsy. It was photographed. Then, after the photographs were taken it was cut into sections. A television programme by Channel 4 in the United Kingdom explained this in 2005.--223.176.227.93 (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the various articles don't agree well either. One says the brain was given to Witelson [3] while another says it was given to Krauss [4], but one of the links is a short article about the brain written by Witelson [5]. However, another linked page says samples were recieved and its location revealed by Diamond and Scheibel in 1987 [6].

Perhaps not all of the information, either on the internet or in the article, is reliable?

If I recall correctly (Ahem). the following book, although being a quote book contains some info on Einstein's brain: [7]. -- Koffieyahoo 08:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Direct Contradiction - Needs clarification

Here's another thing, it says in the article that he had an "enlarged Sylvian fissure" but two sentences later it claims that his "Lateral sulcus" (Another name for the Sylvian fissure, as noted in the article) is completely missing. Clearly, a part of his brain cannot be both larger than normal and missing altogether. If these are actually referring to different regions, it needs to be clarified.Scipio Carthage (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to see if anyone else had brought this up. There's another contradiction to this effect in the caption for the photo next to the paragraph you mentioned where it says his Sylvian Fissure was "truncated". This definitely needs to be cleared up. --184.186.197.37 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Umm?

Wouldn't organic matter put in a cider box for twenty years dissolve? Can we at least source this, since it looks dubious as-is, and I'm probably not the only reader to raise an eyebrow. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 08:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the linked articles mentions that the brain was (sectioned) in two Mason Jars, the jars being hidden inside the cider box.: Stovaa

Barbara Shack 16:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Einstein's brain was cut into sections. The sections were then embedded in a plastic-like material to preserve them. A television programme by Channel 4 in the United Kingdom explained this in 2005.

Is it feasible to add more information about the jar where the Einstein's brain was contained? e.g. the kind of candy it used to include.--Paritto (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if we could find the information, it's probably not relevant to this article. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The same argument than here.--Paritto (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

and the eyes

According to a biography about Einstein, his eyes were also conserved after his death. Do you confirm this?Ramoul 09:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, someone else got the eyes. Ive seen a reputable newspaper article on the guy (named) with a photograph of them in a jar, but I can't remember the details. Oh, and apparently a bunch of other doctors helped themselves to his other internal organs at the same time. It seems that when Einstein died, the call went out, and a bunch of doctors descended to get their hands on the freebies before they ran out. I think the common story that Einstein donated his brain may have been a bit of self-serving mythmaking -- people wanted the stuff, it was there, it was free, they took it.

I'm not convinced that Einstein wanted any of his remains kept and labelled -- remember, this was a guy who wanted to be cremated, and insisted that he didn't want a grave or a statue or a monument. If he thought that having a statue was creepy, god knows what he would have thought of people hoarding bits of his brain and other internal organs.

I think that the police should confiscate all this material, and unless anyone can provide evidence that it was taken legally, it should all be cremated in accordance with the guy's wishes. And a blood-curse on everyone who was involved. ErkDemon 02:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

inferior parietal lobe

can anyone substantiate that the functions of this part of the lobe are indeed understood and or known? AFAIK there is little understanding of the functions much less agreement amongst specialists so the bit in this article seems a wee bitty wishful thinking IMHO.

--Hurkummer 13:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Some things

There seem to be a number of different accounts floating around. Here is some brief sluething I did in some more respectable sources.

• The finding of the brain in 1978 by Levy is somewhat corroborated by an article from the time period: "Brain that Rocked Physics Rests in Cider Box", Science, New Series, Vol. 201, No. 4357. (Aug. 25, 1978), p. 696. Seems to be based off of Levy's account primarily, but at least it's some evidence that he's not just a quack. It says that brain was in number of mason jars in a cider box. The brain was indeed sectioned by not completely, "the parts of Einstein's brain which remain unsectioned are the cerebellum and a piece of the cerebral cortex." Additionally it doesn't say what the sectioning was -- if it was just sliced in half, there's no reason the pictures couldn't be of it.
• Here is the bit on Einstein's brain from Ronald Clark's biography: "He had insisted that his brain should be used for research and that he be cremated." True? Not? In any event, it is a respectable source to quote, even if we also quote people saying something contradictory. --Fastfission 18:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Section removed

The section titled "Possible experiments" was removed; this entire sections is speculation and in no way relates to the factual information regarding Einstein's brain. This sections is also a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Semiconscious • talk 21:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Name clarification

The article mentions someone named, "Altman" but it doesn't say who that person is. It doesn't even provide a first name. --Moogleii 08:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Added it. --Fastfission 14:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Prove or disprove"... unscientific? (Resolved)

"... and apparent regularities or irregularities in the brain have been used to either prove or disprove various notions about correlations in neuroanatomy with general or mathematical intelligence."

Since when is anything proven or disproven in science? Wonderstruck 07:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Scratching my head... Since the invention of science you come up with a hypothesis and thry to prove or to disprove it by means of experiment? -- Koffieyahoo 07:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that you try to 'support' or 'refute' a hypothesis. -- Wonderstruck 06:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, we are doing a most correct language thing. Yes, to 'support' or 'refute' is probably more correct. Unless you're doing mathematics then it's perfectly okay to either prove or disprove. -- Koffieyahoo 08:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the page, changing "prove or disprove various notions" to "support or refute various ideas". Wonderstruck 10:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the page again, changing it to just "support various ideas", since refuting (more accurately, contradicting) an idea is the same as supporting the negative of the idea. This way, it's less wordy and still conveys the important information. Wonderstruck 10:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Lost & Found

The intro and an image caption briefly mention the brain was rediscovered in 1978, but there's nothing in the body about either the "loss" of the brain or its subsequent finding. What happened? Pimlottc 21:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also curious about where the brain is now. 74.101.126.34 06:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Autism

I resent the claim that Einstein was speculated to have been autistic. This is inaccurate; he is speculated to have had Asperger's Syndrome. There is a difference. One is a disability, the other is not necessarily. Research these kinds of statements for god's sake, this is so inaccurate as to be offensive. Belueberry 00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence that Einstein had Asperger's before we post it as being true. This is quite a lofty claim and at the moment there is absolutely no evidence supporting it on the site. Link #6 is also worthless as it does not lead to any page. There is no source at the link destination. I'm considering deleting the Asperger's part if no one can pull up any evidence for it. Let me know what you guys think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darmokandgalad (talk • contribs) 00:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Looie496 (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

First, Belueberry, Asperger's is an autistic spectrum condition (ASC), so the article was not inaccurate (just not specific). We Aspies are cut from the same cloth as our Autie cousins. Many diagnosed with 'classical autism' are able and intelligent individuals, self-advocating, and voicing some of the same affirmative ideology (pro-neurodiversity, etc.) more commonly associated with Aspies. The distinctions you make, therefore, are not warranted.

Second, Darmokangalad, postmortem diagnosis is unreliable, and no definitive resolution will come to this question until the genes associated with ASCs can be identified. However, a reference should remain for the following three reasons: (1) There is a legitimate line of speculation in support that he was autistic, and the idea has appeared to have gained popular credence and media backing (e.g., the BBC), and is therefore more than a mere oddball notion. (2) It seems clear that some abnormal neuro-physiology is at play in Einstein's brain. That does not mean he was autistic, but even if not, similar 'symptoms' might still suggest common underlying neurological mechanisms. This could be significant. (3) The possibility that Einstein was an Aspie is significant in autistic culture. It might seem natural to keep this article in the domain of the 'hard' sciences, but the fact is, the gray matters of history's greatest scientist is in fact sociologically relevant. Philolexica (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Dyslexia

There is no reason to claim that Einstein had trouble with mathematics. The Albert Einstein article contradicts that. Netuser500 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The line "(see below for discussion relating to Einstein's difficulties with language)" seems to have been orphaned. Any idea where the section about Einstein's difficulties with language might have gone?

I replaced it with a comment referencing Einstein's apparantly having Asperger's Syndrome. However I don't have a source. Anybody else care to source it for me? RadoxRedux

===================

A quote attributed to Einstein goes like this, "These thoughts did not come in any verbal formulation. I rarely think in words at all. A thought comes, and I may try to express it in words afterward." I'm thinking this may have something to do with his operculum being malformed. The operculum contains Broca's area - important for language.. This might have been an advantage for him, as for most of us words come in the way of thinking.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.207.3 (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This quote could quite nearly have come out of "Thinking in Pictures : and Other Reports from My Life with Autism" by Temple Grandin (1996). She is autistic, not dyslexic. She also writes about Einstein, and speculates whether or not he had Asperger's Syndrome (an autistic spectrum condition). What is the evidence to suggest dyslexics are naturally disposed to visual thinking, as many on the autistic spectrum are? Philolexica (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Truncated

The link to "truncated" on the 3rd picture does not seem to be relevant. It links to a mathematical procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.218.30 (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone convert the cubic millimeters into cubic centimeters? Isn't it divide by 1,000?

Cubic millimeters is a very uncommon measurement of volume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.148.101 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, divide by mm^2 by 1000 to get cm^2. Rklawton (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

New Article

The online journal, Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience has a new article on Albert Einstein's Brain, by Dean Falk, a Professor at Florida State University. She is primarily a physical anthropologist who studies how the brain has evolved, including studying the brains of Homo floresiensis. I am currently traveling for work, so I don't have time to add anything to the article, but I thought that I would place the link here, in case someone else has a chance to read it over and add any new information. New Information about Albert Einstein's Brain. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to mention that too. Anyway, here is the full citation:

• Falk, Dean (2009). "New information about Albert Einstein's brain". Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience. doi:10.3889/neuro.18.003.2009.

There is also a quick overview of the paper here:

• Hickock, Gregory (21 April 2009). "Einstein's brain: anomalous auditory/language dorsal stream". Talking Brains. Retrieved 23 April 2009.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1999 study and citations

This page isn't well-cited. I would appreciate it if someone with some expertise in this topic would look at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)10327-6/fulltext in particular as it's the important 1999 study and doesn't seem to be properly cited. Fixentries (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Also several of the citations are dead links. Really needs to be cleaned up before someone decides something in the article isn't true because it isn't cited. Fixentries (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

some clarifications

look at modern mris of brains --- you can see the clear difference einstein's brain as shown in the photos is unusually wide and flat, perhaps some flattening occurred during preservation. but the lateral sylvian fissure goes way up on the right side and is pointed out in the photos with arrows.

most particularly, the article contains errors---the difference is not in the frontal lobe, it is in the parietal lobe. well, there are frontal differences too, probably.

or is the original caption to the photo in error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.159.191 (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No mention of where it is now or its current state of preservation

Where is it now?

New photos, article in _Brain_ to appear today

See subject. Shlishke (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Publicly available link: http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/brainj/press_releases/prpaper.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.60.8 (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a reference to the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"no parietal operculum" disputed

This edit says that "no parietal operculum" is disputed in http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/11/14/brain.aws295.abstract%29, and that reference does says "Contrary to the literature, Einstein’s brain ... does not lack parietal opercula".

The article needs to be updated. Initially I thought that:

• "the Oxford Journal" should be replaced with the journal's name Brain
• the inline URL should be wrapped in ref tags

but the wording of the Brain article doesn't actually say that Harvey's findings were disputed - it's possible that Harvey didn't make that observation at all and that statement should be removed from our article. The ref for that paragraph [8] doesn't mention "parietal opercula" at all. I'm not a subject matter expert, so I'd like a few other opinions before I change it. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The source for that BBC story, PMID 10382713, does state: "In Einstein's brain, the parietal operculum was missing in each hemisphere". Academic publications often avoid explicitly saying that they have refuted an earlier claim, so I don't think the lack of specific wording is a problem. In my opinion, you can go ahead and make the change. Looie496 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Location of brain now

This article doesn’t even mention Dr. Elliot Krauss the chief pathologist at Princeton at plainsboro that has been in possession of the brain for years. 2601:18E:C101:BD00:602B:CF05:850F:4617 (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Consent?

I have a question whos answer I couldn't find here: Did Einstein consent to this procedure? If not, how could they legally do it? --Slow Phil (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It is covered in the article. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)