|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 314
OCR for page 315
ELIOT STELLAR
November I, I 9 ~ 9-October I 2, ~ 993
BY JAY SCHULKIN
ONE OF THE FOUNDERS of what we now call behavioral
neuroscience cliec! recently. Eliot Stellar was seventy-
three years oIc! at the time of his cleath en c! was university
professor of physiological psychology at the University of
Pennsylvania. He was a former editor of The Journal of Com-
parative and Physiological Psychology, the precursor of behav-
ioral neuroscience. During that time the journal grew in
stature as the fielc! rapicITy expanclecI. He lee! the journal as
he clic! most things, fairly en c! with catholic sensibilities. He
championec! incliviclual initiative en c! expanclec! the possi-
bilities for others to be included in physiological psychol-
ogy. As editor en c! as an incliviclual, he clemonstratec! the
art of inclusion: namely, he brought diverse inclivicluals to
participate in the inquiry of the role of the brain and be-
havior.
In our lifetimes most of us meet few truly great people.
Eliot Stellar was for me, en c! many others, one of them. His
particular genius was to nurture both scientific excellence
and humane expression. In fact, Eliot Stellar is the para-
digmatic example of the statesman-scientist. His example
inspirer! others as they trier! to pursue science. The great-
ness of Eliot Stellar is that he nurtured the science that
315
OCR for page 316
316
B I O G RA P H I C A L
EMOIRS
one was pursuing, and, perhaps more importantly, he bol-
sterec! the life that one ought to be living.
Who was Eliot Stellar? Eliot was born en c! raiser! in Bos-
ton. He attenclec! the Boston Latin School en c! Harvarc!
College. At Harvarc! he heart! lectures by Karl LashIey en c!
the philosopher Alfrec! North WhiteheacI. At Harvarc! he
began his inquiry into relationships between the brain en c!
behavior. Clifforc! Morgan was at Harvarc! at the time, en c!
Eliot began to work with him. This culminates! in a paper
on symbolic representation in the rat en c! the role of the
neocortex ~ ~ 942) .
Eliot Stellar then attenclec! Brown University en c! receiver!
his acivancec! degrees in psychology, uncler the tutelage of
Professor Hunt. From Hunt, Eliot's interest in motivation
was engenclerecI. This interest in motivation was lifelong
for him.
After a stint in the Army cluring the war, Eliot took a
position at Johns Hopkins as an assistant professor of psy-
chology. CTifforc! Morgan was chairman of the department
en c! was instrumental in hiring Eliot. During this perioc!
the two of them worker! on the seconc! eclition of Physiolog~-
cal Psychology (1950~. It raclically extenclec! en c! improver!
on Morgan's first eclition en c! became the main text in physi-
ological psychology for the next twenty-five years.
Of Eliot's many students during his Johns Hopkins years,
three stanc! out. One is Robert MacCleary, the seconc! is
Philip Teitelbaum, en c! the thirc! is Alan Epstein. It was a
great perioc! for Eliot ant! for physiological psychology.
MacCleary's thesis was on the role of specific hungers en c!
the clifferential contribution of taste en c! postingestive mecha-
nisms in determining ingestion. Stellar en c! Phil Teitelbaum's
work was on the lateral hypothalamic syndrome en c! recov-
ery of function from this brain damage (1954~. Alan Epstein,
an undergraduate in Eliot's laboratory, worked on the prob
OCR for page 317
ELIOT STELLAR
317
lem of soclium appetite. He en c! Stellar clemonstratec! (1955)
that the appetite for sodium was innate. a Aniline that Curt
Richter also hac! postulatecI.
Richter was also at Hopkins, having founclec! the first
laboratory in psychobiology in this country there. Richter's
influence on Eliot Stellar was enormous. Richter never re-
ally hac! any students en c! worker! largely alone. But Eliot
quickly saw that Richter's concerns were on a continuum
with his own namely, the way in which behavior servec! in
the regulation of the internal milieu. The appetite for so-
clium was an example of how behavior servec! to regulate
the neecis of the belly. Both Richter en c! Stellar wan tee! to
know how the brain servec! to initiate en c! integrate behav-
ioral responses that servec! the bocly. For Eliot Stellar the
biological basis of motivates! behavior was pervasive en c!
amenable to stucly, basic drives for minerals, water, or the
sexier one namely, the motivation for sex servec! as moclel
systems in which to stucly how the brain proclucec! moti-
vatec! behavior to serve bocliTy neecis.
Eliot StelIar's classic paper was titled "The Physiology of
Motivation" (1954~. It was a seminal work that clominatec!
the field! for over thirty years, integrating what was known
about hypothalamic function in regulating basic cirives like
hunger en c! sex into a moclel of brain function. It orientec!
basic research to a tremendous degree en c! is now notes! as
one of the most cited papers in psychology.
But Eliot clic! not align himself with the tradition of el-
egant and rigorous experimental design that was emerging
from psychology. The tradition of Richter and Stellar is less
about design en c! more about biology. While the experi-
ments were perhaps less elegant, they were tint! to real-
worIc! events. Statistics were never the determining factor,
large phenomena serving biological ends were.
Eliot Stellar was also an inventor, having macle an impor
OCR for page 318
318
BIOGRAPHICAL MEMOIRS
ten t contribution to stereotaxic surgery with the introcluc-
tion of his stereotaxic apparatus. It was a simple innovation
of a technique that macle a major difference in the fielcI.
His early work with Hill on the lick rates of rats was about
how the hardware of systems worker! (1952~: How many
licks conic! the rat generate? When clic! it clecline? How
cloes motivation for thirst interact with it? These were Eliot's
questions.
Eliot mover! to the University of Pennsylvania (1954) un-
cler unfortunate circumstances. He was toic! that the De-
partment of Psychology at Hopkins conic! not house both
him en c! Clifforc! Morgan, so he began to look arounc! for
another job. At that time Penn was in the micist of recruit-
ing faculty for something branc! new the Institute of Neu-
rological Sciences. Lewis FIexner was the chairman of
Anatomy at Penn en c! the director of the institute. After a
few minutes of conversation, he hirer! Eliot as the behav-
ioral person in the group. At that time one conic! still clo
that.
Thus began a wonclerful perioc! for Eliot en c! for the
University of Pennsylvania. Within a short period, the Insti-
tute of Neurological Sciences en c! the Department of Anatomy
came to house very special scientists who worker! well with
one another in the new fielc! (e.g., Bill Chambers, John
Liu, Jim Sprague) that we now call neuroscience. Interest-
ing work on memory en c! attention appearec! within a short
time ~961,2, ~963). The inquiry was oriented to what we
now call behavioral neuroscience. Each was recluctionistic
but without reclucing behavior from the purview of what
was to be explainecI. Behavior was one level of analysis among
others, such as anatomy and physiology. Eliot's role was as
the "behaviorist." Of course, he was no behaviorist, either
in Hull's or Skinner's sense. What they meant was that his
focus was on behavior, on how the brain regulatec! it, en c!
how behavior influencec! the brain.
OCR for page 319
ELIOT STELLAR
319
Eliot hac! a number of students in behavioral neuroscience
at Penn (e.g., Douglas Mook, who went on to the University
of Virginia, John Corbitt to Brown University). It is not
surprising that an aware! in behavioral neuroscience namer!
for Eliot Stellar was establishec! at Penn for the best thesis
in behavioral neuroscience.
Eliot's role at the University of Pennsylvania was a large
one. At one point he was heat! of the Institute of Neuro-
logical Sciences, provost of the university, en c! then at the
enc! of his life chairman of the Department of Anatomy. He
helpec! cultivate the Department of Psychology into one of
the best departments in America en c! with a strong biopsychol-
ogy group. He also initiates! a number of eclucational
programs at the university. They included the University
Scholars Program, Biological Basis of Behavior Major, en c!
scholarship programs that reacher! out to universities in
Europe, Asia, en c! the MicicIle East. Students en c! scholars
were both coming to Penn uncler Eliot's encouragement or
going to some place. His sense of scholarship en c! science
was one that knew no borclers. The programs of scholar-
ship that he establishec! at Penn reflected! this fact. An c!
they always hac! one important property, they reacher! out
to people
Eliot in his elegant manner ran a number of seminars.
One that he helpec! run for almost forty years at the univer-
sity was something he caller! the "fouling seminar." It was
founclec! by Eliot en c! Mickey Stunkarc! in the micI-1950s
en c! is still going on. It brings together a broac! base of
scholars to discuss over lunch the mechanisms of ingestive
behavior.
Eliot hac! great colleagues that championec! behavioral
neuroscience at Penn. They incluclec! Vincent Dethier, who
also taught at Penn, Princeton, and the University of Massa-
chusetts at Amherst. He cliec! several weeks before Eliot at
age seventy-eight. They wrote a book ~ ~ 961~ together that
OCR for page 320
320
B I O G RA P H I C A L
EMOIRS
represented a comparative approach to behavioral neuro-
science. I can remember the debates between Eliot Stellar
en c! Vince Dethier about whether the concept of motiva-
tion was necessary in the explanation of behavior. If there
was a concept that Eliot thought necessary in the explana-
tion of behavior it was that of motivates! behavior. Motiva-
tion was a central state for Eliot in the sense in which Karl
LashIey, his teacher, hac! envisionec! it.
Eliot Stellar clic! not publish many papers, but what he
clic! publish macle a profounc! difference. With his son, Jim
Stellar, now a clean at Northeastern University, he wrote a
book titles! The Neurobiology of Reward and Punishment ( 1985 ) .
As I have inclicatecI, beyonc! his academic en c! aciministra-
tive roles, Eliot hac! a wonclerful way with people en c! a
capacity to nurture inquiry en c! scientific cooperation. Some-
one working with me on a program project grant from the
National Institute of Mental Health asker! what Eliot Stellar
wouIc! contribute. The answer I think is that he civilizer! us.
Eliot was always the impetus for the team spirit in inquiry.
That was one of his gifts. He lover! to see inquiry thrive.
At the end, he was busy on two major fronts one as
heat! of the Committee on Human Rights at the National
Academy of Sciences. Earlier he hac! worker! for the Com-
mittee on the Ethics of Meclical Research in Washington,
en c! his interest in human rights was a Tong-stancling one.
He prizes! his work on this committee. They laborer! to free
other scientists abuser! en c! in prison arounc! the worIcI.
This work en c! the boncis of the community of scientists
were major themes in Eliot's life. Scientists form a commu-
nity, en c! this community neecis to bone! together. After all,
both rights en c! inquiry were former! cluring the scientific
enlightenment perioc! in culture.
The other activity was as president of the American Philo-
sophical Society, the oiclest intellectual society in America.
OCR for page 321
ELIOT STELLAR
32
It was founclec! by Benjamin Franklin en c! is clevotec! to
what Franklin caller! "practical philosophy." Eliot lover! the
work at the society. It was, after all, what his life was cle-
votec! to the expression en c! cultivation of inquiry, the bring-
ing together of people to pursue that noble end.
Eliot Stellar servec! the community of inquirers in so many
ways. An c! he was a political man, not just because of the
work he clic! at the University of Pennsylvania but also that
of the boards he was on. He cultivates! science at the Na-
tional Institutes of Health, en c! he was on the boars! of
foundations that he helpec! orient to behavioral neuro-
science the MacArthur en c! Whitehall foundations.
Let me enc! with several personal notes. As a graduate
student en c! still in the philosophy department, I came to
see Eliot Stellar on the acivice of Paul Rozin, who then was
chairman of the psychology department. I was not sure where
I fit in the intellectual arena at that time. Eliot hac! the gift
to lift the spirits of those arounc! him. I walker! out of his
office feeling that, despite the fact that I clic! not clovetaiT
nicely uncler the rubric of any department, it was legitimate
to pursue inquiry, and he backed me then and right up
until he cliecI.
I was Eliot StelIar's last student. I worker! with him, pub-
lished one paper with him (1985), and we were faculty mem-
bers in the same department over a number of years. I went
to Penn because my science teacher (George Wolf) toIc! me
as a unclergracluate to go there because Eliot Stellar, he
thought, wouic! appreciate me. He clicI. How lucky I was.
Eliot's large imprint is on the people he cultivates! en c!
his work for the community. A worIc! without Eliot Stellar is
a woric! with one less smiling face.
OCR for page 322
322
B I O G RA P H I C A L
S E L E C T E D
EMOIRS
B I B L I O G RAP H Y
1942
With C. T. Morgan and M. Yarosh. Cortical localization of symbolic
processes in the rat. 7. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 34:107-26.
1950
With C. Morgan. Physiological Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1952
With J. H. Hill. The rat's licking rate of drinking as a function of
water deprivation. 7. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 45:96-102.
1954
The physiology of motivation. Psychol. Rev. 61 :5-22.
With P. Teitelbaum. Recovery from the failure to eat produced by
hypothalamic lesions. Science 10:894-95.
1955
With A. N. Epstein. The control of salt preference in the adrenal-
ectomized rat. 7. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 48:167-72.
1961
With V. G. Dethier. Animal Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall.
With J. M. Sprague and W. W. Chamber. Attentive, affective and
adaptive behavior in the cat. Science 133:165-73.
1963
With J. B. Flexner and L. B. Flexner. Memory in mice as affected by
intracerebral puromycin. Science 141 :57-59.
1985
With J. Schulkin and P. Arnell. Running to the taste of salt in min-
eralocorticoid treated rates. Horm. Behav. 19:413-25.
With J. R. Stellar. The Neurobiology of Motivation and Reward. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
OCR for page 323
Representative terms from entire chapter:
behavioral neuroscience
