Introduction

The Nobel Prize has always held a special place in my heart for its emphasis on the more positive aspects of humanity. When I was a child, I was often asked about the greatest thing that I hoped to accomplish when I grew up, and my answer was always the same: win a Nobel Prize. I don’t believe I had a specific reason at the time, or maybe my reason was childish, but as I grew older, I began to ask myself why this dream was so compelling to me. The answer finally came to me upon attending my first class at UBA Medical School: because perfection is what we were created to aspire in every aspect of our lives and the Nobel Prize is awarded to those who have approached this perfection. The goal of this introduction is to express my appreciation for the prestigious foundation that awards the Nobel Prize and to clarify that I have nothing but respect for the foundation and for those who have achieved this honor. In the fields of medicine and especially neurology, it is difficult to find anyone who is unfamiliar with the name Roger W. Sperry, whose work with split-brain patients led to his acceptance of the Nobel Prize in 1981. Some textbooks even refer to this work as "the ingenious experiment of Sperry." [1]. However, despite an abundance of contradictory information obtained prior to and following Sperry’s work, students of medicine, neurology, and physiology still regard the results of Sperry’s experiments as incontrovertibly true. Though many scientists have expressed their doubts regarding Sperry’s research, I was unable to find any single article that discussed the experimental errors and contradictory evidence that might call his conclusions into question.

After days of searching, I realized that perhaps I should be the one to revisit Sperry’s experiments and offer a more unbiased perspective. I was hesitant at first, as the task of writing a rebuttal against one of the most renowned scientific endeavours in neurology would require significant effort. Instead, I considered waiting for my medical career and devoting my time to Sperry’s experiment. However, I also realized that, as time passes, more students will continue to accept Sperry’s experimental results as truth, and perhaps tomorrow there will be more important cases meriting my focus and attention. Though we can never know what tomorrow holds, my former professor Brian Tracy once said: "No matter what it takes to accomplish something, when you feel the need to accomplish it, do it instantly. Later, you may miss the opportunity, and it could be a huge loss for your life and the lives of others.” Therefore, I have halted much of my other work to focus on what I believe to be an issue of the utmost importance.

As scientists, it is our duty to be diligent observers of the true nature of reality. Often, however, individual philosophies can obscure or prevent a scientist’s appreciation of the truth. In the first part of this article, I will cease to be a scientist, donning the skin of an epistemologist in order to raise questions regarding the validity of Sperry’s work. In the second part, I will present the physiology of the nervous system as it relates to the different components of Sperry’s experiments and begin to formulate conclusions regarding the matter. However, these conclusions will require further validation by you, the reader, and by other researchers, in order to gain validity and traction in the scientific community.

Epilepsy and Callosotomy

Epilepsy is a neurological disorder caused by increased electrical activity that can spread throughout the affected brain hemisphere. In the presence of the corpus callosum, such activity can also spread to the contralateral hemisphere, depending on its magnitude or intensity. The study of patients with epilepsy has allowed researchers to uncover a great deal of information regarding the higher functions of the nervous system. However, some of these discoveries occurred accidentally, as in the case of patient Henry Molaison 1926-2008. After exhaustive attempts to understand and treat H.M.’s seizures, which were extremely severe and lifethreatening, his attending physician, Dr. Scoville, concluded that the only remaining solution was to remove part of the temporal lobe, including the hippocampus. He performed the surgery on September 1, 1953; it wasn’t until later that scientists discovered that the hippocampus and other regions of the temporal lobe play critical roles in processing and storing information. Accordingly, H.M. lost the ability to store new memories and information. Although Dr. Scoville regretted his decision, the subsequent study of H.M.’s condition, until his death in 2008, unearthed a vast amount of information regarding the neural basis of memory and emotion.