The David Smith Lectures in Anatomical Neuropharmacology, Part of the 'Pharmacology, Anatomical Neuropharmacology and Drug Discovery Seminars Series', Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford. The 15th David Smith Award Lecture in Anatomical Neuropharmacology will be delivered by Professor Tim Bliss, Visiting Professor at UCL and the Frontier Institutes of Science and Technology, Xi’an Jiaotong University, China, and is hosted by Professor Nigel Emptage. This award lecture was set up to celebrate the vision of Professor A David Smith, namely, that explanations of the action of drugs on the brain requires the definition of neuronal circuits, the location and interactions of molecules. Tim Bliss gained his PhD at McGill University in Canada. He joined the MRC National Institute for Medical Research in Mill Hill, London in 1967, where he remained throughout his career. His work with Terje Lømo in the late 1960’s established the phenomenon of long-term potentiation (LTP) as the dominant synaptic model of how the mammalian brain stores memories. He was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1994 and is a founding fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences. He shared the Bristol Myers Squibb award for Neuroscience with Eric Kandel in 1991, the Ipsen Prize for Neural Plasticity with Richard Morris and Yadin Dudai in 2013. In May 2012 he gave the annual Croonian Lecture at the Royal Society on ‘The Mechanics of Memory’. In 2016 Tim, with Graham Collingridge and Richard Morris shared the Brain Prize, one of the world's most coveted science prizes. Abstract: In 1966 there appeared in Acta Physiologica Scandinavica an abstract of a talk given by Terje Lømo, a PhD student in Per Andersen’s laboratory at the University of Oslo. In it Lømo described the long-lasting potentiation of synaptic responses in the dentate gyrus of the anaesthetised rabbit that followed repeated episodes of 10-20Hz stimulation of the perforant path. Thus, heralded and almost entirely unnoticed, one of the most consequential discoveries of 20th century neuroscience was ushered into the world. Two years later I arrived in Oslo as a visiting post-doc from the National Institute for Medical Research in Mill Hill, London. In this talk I recall the events that led us to embark on a systematic reinvestigation of the phenomenon now known as long-term potentiation (LTP) and will then go on to describe the discoveries and controversies that enlivened the early decades of research into synaptic plasticity in the mammalian brain. I will end with an observer’s view of the current state of research in the field, and what we might expect from it in the future.

In this talk, I shall not argue for any single thesis or theory in the realm of the (un)consciousness and (in)attention. Instead I will discuss specific examples where philosophers and psychologists can have genuine collaborations in this area. Since issues concerning phenomenological overflow is already too familiar for this audience, I will briefly discuss it only, and focus on other issues that have not been overworked. The exact contents are to be determined, but I will perhaps focus on recent controversies over “sustained representation of perspectival shape” (Morales, Bax, and Firestone, 2020, 2021).

COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) policies have been one of the most important and contentious decisions of our time. Beyond even the "normal" inherent difficulties in impact evaluation with observational data, COVID-19 NPI policy evaluation is complicated by additional challenges related to infectious disease dynamics and lags, lack of direct observation of key outcomes, and a multiplicity of interventions occurring on an accelerated time scale. Randomized controlled trials also suffer from what is feasible and ethical to randomize as well as the sheer scale, scope, time, and resources required for an NPI trial to be informative (or at least not misinformative). In this talk, Dr. Haber will discuss the challenges in generating useful evidence for COVID-19 NPIs, the landscape of the literature, and highlight key controversies in several high profile studies over the course of the pandemic. Chasing after unknowables poses major problems for the metascience/replicability movement, institutional research science, and decision makers. If the only choices for informing an important topic are "weak study design" vs "do nothing," when is "do nothing" the best choice?

The cognitive neuroscience of conscious perception has seen considerable growth over the past few decades. Confirming an influential hypothesis driven by earlier studies of neuropsychological patients, we have found that the lateral and polar prefrontal cortices play important causal roles in the generation of subjective experiences. However, this basic empirical finding has been hotly contested by researchers with different theoretical commitments, and the differences are at times difficult to resolve. To address the controversies, I suggest one alternative venue may be to look for clinical applications derived from current theories. I outline an example in which we used closed-loop fMRI combined with machine learning to nonconsciously manipulate the physiological responses to threatening stimuli, such as spiders or snakes. A clinical trial involving patients with phobia is currently taking place. I also outline how this theoretical framework may be extended to other diseases. Ultimately, a truly meaningful understanding of the fundamental nature of our mental existence should lead to useful insights for our colleagues on the clinical frontlines. If we use this as a yardstick, whoever loses the esoteric theoretical debates, both science and the patients will always win.