Book ReviewsIf you would like to review books for <strong>ACNR</strong>, please contact Andrew Larner, Book Review Editor, c/o rachael@acnr.co.ukM<strong>in</strong>ds Beh<strong>in</strong>d the Bra<strong>in</strong>: A History of the Pioneers <strong>and</strong> their DiscoveriesThis book is enterta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>formative with plenty ofpersonal detail <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>sights <strong>in</strong>to the work<strong>in</strong>g practices <strong>and</strong>conditions of some of the major contributors to what wenow call neuroscience. Prof. F<strong>in</strong>ger states that the purpose ofthe book ‘is to look at the lives <strong>and</strong> discoveries of some of themajor Western th<strong>in</strong>kers who contemplated how the bra<strong>in</strong>may work’. He wants to cover a great period of time, not pickanyone too contemporary, <strong>and</strong> not discount anyone becausetheir ideas would be deemed ‘wrong’ by our current underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>gof bra<strong>in</strong> function. He comes up with 19 pr<strong>in</strong>cipalcharacters (each with their own support<strong>in</strong>g cast) <strong>and</strong> coversthem <strong>in</strong> 16 chapters ordered by time. As is <strong>in</strong>evitable withany Hornby-esque list one is struck by omissions as much asby <strong>in</strong>clusions so Broca gets <strong>in</strong> but there is no place forWernicke or Dejer<strong>in</strong>e (who doesn’t even make the bench).The project really only fails <strong>in</strong> its attempt to justify itself as acoherent book, which will only bother those who wereexpect<strong>in</strong>g a common thread or overview to emerge fromthis voyage that cannot stop at every port of call. The structureof the book dem<strong>and</strong>s that the ideas presented must bep<strong>in</strong>ned to ‘giants’ of the past even when this is, by theauthor’s own admission, impossible. Thus, most of the (very<strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g) material <strong>in</strong> the first two chapters has to beattributed to two physicians, Egypt’s Imhotep <strong>and</strong> Greece’sHippocrates. The writ<strong>in</strong>gs attributed to the former (whoseperiod of existence can only be roughly estimated as3000BC) are a series of 48 fasc<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g military cases, but thepapyrus dates to 1650BC, suggest<strong>in</strong>g that the ancients sufferedfrom an even more frustrat<strong>in</strong>g peer-review delay thanwe do even now. Similarly the Corpus Hippocratum, compiledat least 50 years after the presumed date ofHippocrates’s death, is acknowledged to be an accumulationof works from multiple authors. Aga<strong>in</strong>, the sections on LuigiGalvani, Otto Loewi <strong>and</strong> Henry Dale, good as they are, havenoth<strong>in</strong>g to say about the bra<strong>in</strong> (although a lot good to sayabout nervous transmission <strong>and</strong> the conflict been those whothought that electrical currents directly animated muscles<strong>and</strong> gl<strong>and</strong>s, <strong>and</strong> those who <strong>in</strong>terposed the ‘soup’ of neurotransmitters).The author himself seems to be aware of theseproblems <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> the short summary chapter (best avoided)he is reduced to speculat<strong>in</strong>g on common factors that mayl<strong>in</strong>k his disparate heroes, such as personality <strong>and</strong> upbr<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g.But these are m<strong>in</strong>or carps about an otherwise <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>gcollection of ‘nutshell’ profiles of some of the more<strong>in</strong>fluential workers <strong>in</strong> the field of nervous system research;the work is well referenced <strong>and</strong> will readily po<strong>in</strong>t readerstowards more detailed accounts of the subject matter,should they require it.Alex Leff, FIL, Queen Square, London, UK.Stanley F<strong>in</strong>gerPublished by: Oxford UniversityPressPrice: £18.99ISBN: 0195181824Neurodegernative Diseases: Neurobiology, Pathogenesis <strong>and</strong> TherapeuticsThe objective of the dist<strong>in</strong>guished editors of this massivetome from CUP is ‘to present the latest research <strong>in</strong>to thegenetics, pathogenesis, biochemistry, animal models, cl<strong>in</strong>icalfeatures, <strong>and</strong> treatment of neurodegenerative diseases.’There are 62 chapters, divided <strong>in</strong>to 10 parts, the largestdevoted to ‘basic aspects of neurodegeneration’ such as freeradicals, oxidative stress, excitotoxicity, calcium, apoptosis,<strong>and</strong> prote<strong>in</strong> misfold<strong>in</strong>g. Sections on neuroimag<strong>in</strong>g (structural/functional)<strong>and</strong> therapeutic approaches (gene therapy,stem cells) are followed by more cl<strong>in</strong>ical sections cover<strong>in</strong>gnormal age<strong>in</strong>g, Alzheimer’s disease, other dementias,park<strong>in</strong>sonian syndromes, cerebellar degenerations, motorneurone diseases, <strong>and</strong> other neurodegenerative diseases. Itmight be argued that multiple sclerosis is, at least <strong>in</strong> part, aneurodegenerative disorder <strong>and</strong> hence merits a chapter.Hence, there is a large amount of <strong>in</strong>formation, which willrepay careful read<strong>in</strong>g, perhaps especially for those new tothe field. The book has high production values <strong>and</strong> a thorough(though not perfect) <strong>in</strong>dex. Presumably the hope is toattract both scientists <strong>and</strong> cl<strong>in</strong>icians as potential purchasers,although the science may <strong>in</strong> parts be challeng<strong>in</strong>g for thecl<strong>in</strong>ician, <strong>and</strong> there may be too much cl<strong>in</strong>ical material forthe laboratory-based neuroscientist. Moreover, those want<strong>in</strong>gthe ‘latest research’ may be disappo<strong>in</strong>ted: the editorsadmit that the ‘rapid pace of research … challenges the abilityof any textbook to ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> its currency’, but <strong>in</strong> fact thechallenge is due more to the slow pace of textbook production.Published June 2005, only 20/62 chapters have referencesdat<strong>in</strong>g to 2004 (one chapter clearly postdates theAlzheimer’s Disease Conference <strong>in</strong> Philadelphia <strong>in</strong> July2004), <strong>and</strong> ‘The neuropathology of Alzheimer’s disease <strong>in</strong>the year 2005’ bears a strik<strong>in</strong>g resemblance to how I recall itbe<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> 2004, a conclusion supported by the absence of anyreference later than 2003 <strong>in</strong> this chapter. The variable rate atwhich authors produce chapters may also lead to disconcert<strong>in</strong>geffects: the gene defect <strong>in</strong> AOA2 is reported to beunidentified (731) but is discussed (senatax<strong>in</strong>) elsewhere(742,762). Creat<strong>in</strong>e is stated not to have been used <strong>in</strong> thetreatment of MND (918) but such a trial, reported <strong>in</strong> 2003,is discussed elsewhere (779). Variable authorial effort is alsoevident: some chapters are comprehensive accounts (egMSA, SBMA), some have the feel of be<strong>in</strong>g produced <strong>in</strong> ahurry. There are plenty of typos, my favourite was Leighsyndrome described as ‘subacute narcotiz<strong>in</strong>g encephalopathy’(915). Those who th<strong>in</strong>k this is mere pedantry may be<strong>in</strong>terested, as I was, to learn that the orig<strong>in</strong>al mapp<strong>in</strong>g ofPARK4 to the short, rather than long, arm of chromosome4 was due to a typ<strong>in</strong>g error (589). The same chapter subsequentlystates PARK6 to be autosomal dom<strong>in</strong>ant (591),rather than recessive. At £220, one expects better proofread<strong>in</strong>g<strong>and</strong>/or editorial <strong>in</strong>put. Nonetheless, a highly desirableaddition for the departmental library.AJ Larner,Cognitive Function Cl<strong>in</strong>ic,WCNN, Liverpool, UK.Edited by: MF Beal, AE Lang,A LudolphPublished by: CambridgeUniversity PressPrice: £220.00ISBN: 0-521-81166-XSave £20 onThe Neurology ofEye MovementsThe Neurology of Eye Movements, Fourth Edition, by JohnLeigh <strong>and</strong> David Zee is the only book to comb<strong>in</strong>e basic <strong>and</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ical syntheses about eye movements. It is comprehensivelyrewritten with updated references, with boxes to summariseanatomy <strong>and</strong> features of cl<strong>in</strong>ical disorders.The book provides cl<strong>in</strong>icians with a synthesis of currentscientific <strong>in</strong>formation that can be applied to the diagnosis <strong>and</strong>treatment of disorders of ocular motility. Basic scientists willbenefit from descriptions of how data from anatomical, electrophysiological,pharmacological, <strong>and</strong> imag<strong>in</strong>g studies canbe directly applied to the study of disease.New for this edition: A free CD-ROM with every book,<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the entire text, hypertext l<strong>in</strong>ks, <strong>and</strong> 60 video clipsdemonstrat<strong>in</strong>g the major disorders of eye movements.Readers of <strong>ACNR</strong> are entitled to order the new edition for£100 (normal price £120). Please call +44 (0) 1536741727 quot<strong>in</strong>g the code ABNEM06. ISBN 0-19-530090-4.34 I <strong>ACNR</strong> • VOLUME 5 NUMBER 6 • JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006
Journal Reviews<strong>ACNR</strong> EDITOR’S September CHOICE 2005-10-10Anti-epileptic drugs <strong>and</strong> pregnancy –the best data to datePick a common disease area with heavy pharmaceutical <strong>in</strong>terest, someth<strong>in</strong>gto do with children <strong>and</strong> long term outcomes for the emotional <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>and</strong>someth<strong>in</strong>g to do with sexuality to add a little zest <strong>and</strong> you have researchmoney for life. The Belfast group need to be congratulated for their prescience.More importantly they have produced data which those of us at thecoal face use every day to try <strong>and</strong> help our patients with tough decisionsabout their treatment. For nearly a decade this register has been collect<strong>in</strong>gpregnancy outcomes of patients with epilepsy. The patients have to bereported to the study before any outcome is known, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g before anyantenatal scans <strong>and</strong> so is truly prospective <strong>and</strong> avoids selection bias towardsabnormal outcomes that affects retrospective ascerta<strong>in</strong>ment. From theprevalence of epilepsy <strong>in</strong> the UK, the authors estimate that about half of allpregnancies <strong>in</strong> women with epilepsy are reported <strong>in</strong>to the study. They measuredmajor congenital malformations (MCM), requir<strong>in</strong>g medical <strong>in</strong>tervention,m<strong>in</strong>or malformations <strong>and</strong> pregnancy loss. By March 2005, 4414 pregnancieswere reported <strong>in</strong>to the study <strong>and</strong> 2598 (72%) were on monotherapy,21.3% on polytherapy <strong>and</strong> 6.7% on no treatment throughout pregnancy.207 (5.7%) pregnancies were lost, 21 with a birth defect, 13 MCM. Therate of MCM was 3.5% for no AED, 3.7% for all monotherapy outcomes<strong>and</strong> 6.0% for polytherapy outcomes, which was significantly worse. Only 3drugs had large enough numbers to compare monotherapy outcomes; carbamazep<strong>in</strong>e900, valproate 715 <strong>and</strong> lamotrig<strong>in</strong>e 647. The next largest wasphenyto<strong>in</strong> with 82 <strong>and</strong> the others were very much “also ran”. MCM rate was2.2% for carbamazep<strong>in</strong>e, 6.2% for valproate (P