The real question is what is "controversial". That there is some degree
of neurogenesis in human and mammalian brains has long been known.
But it usually was considered just a token, trivial issue. The real change
is that now people are beginning to believe that it might be an important
If you are a proponent of something relatively new or different, you might
(or, probably more to the point, your institution might) express the
information as a "sensational" or "controversial" new finding. That gets
a lot of ink in the popular press. Certainly the publications in the
primary literature simply cite the findings as matter-of-fact. If the new
findings step on your toes, you might well respond with outrage and
nitpick all the little details you find wrong. On the other hand, if you
not terribly involved you might well take the attitude that it is all just
business as usual. That is, a slight ripple in the surface of science,
not a tidal wave.
JoshCahoon <joshcahoon at cs.com> wrote in message
news:20000104181329.09361.00000298 at ng-bk1.news.cs.com...
> I'd like to get a feel for this controversy. Various publications,
> the NYT today, say that findings indicating neurogenesis in humans have
> been resisted by the neuroscientific community, being contrary to dogma.
> other hand, my professor at the Salk told me their really isn't a
> Is there? Perhaps just over whether new neurons are functional?