The Wolf in the Parlor: How the Dog Came to Share Your Brain - Softcover

Jon Franklin is the winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Journalism and the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing, among numerous other awards. He was a science writer for The Baltimore Evening Sun and is now a journalism professor at the University of Maryland. He is also the author of The Molecules of the Mind, a New York Times Book of the Year, and Writing for Story.

CHAPTER ONE
To live the considered life is to dwell in an enigma. Nothing is truly as it seems. The certainties we hold when we are twenty- five have become absurdities by fifty. In the process, we have to nose along through the clamor and smoke of existence, trying to understand what is really going on as opposed to what only seems to be going on, struggling to separate the vagaries of the moment from the constants of existence, to eliminate the obvious irrelevancies that so many people get hung up on, like fashion and, oh, I don’t know ... dogs. Dogs are a good example. They are there, for some reason, and can be enjoyable creatures, but the why of it is not worth our time and energy. Alexander Pope said as much: “The proper study of mankind is man.” Man, not cats or rabbits or hyenas or aardvarks. Or dogs.
Eliminating the trivia, clearing our minds of chaff, allows our attention to fix on the things that really matter. Then sometimes those things, things we otherwise might not even notice, can stun us with their relevancy.
The element of surprise adds to the power of such moments. As scientists like to say, serendipity is often the crux of discovery. In my case it all started thirty years ago or so, in an instant burned forever into my mind.
I was sitting in the northeast corner of the Baltimore Sun newsroom, feet propped on my desk and a cold cup of coffee by my elbow. I was opening mail, which, for me, was like a hound hunting rabbits. I would patrol the mail, ruffling my nose through the news, never sure what would emerge from the next envelope I slit open. So it was that one day in the late 1970s, I opened an envelope and pulled out a photograph that would forever change my perception of myself and set me on a journey that has consumed much of the rest of my life since.
They called me a science writer, but I thought of my beat as Truth and Beauty; and, yes, in my heart of hearts, I looked down on other reporters. All they got to cover was the everyday trivia of city hall, elections, the machinations of administrators and officialdom, fires and floods and homicides and growth plans and school bud gets and cats stuck in trees— this and all the other superficial stuff that seemed relevant to the dullards on the city desk. Everything else— the whole, magnificent, unfolding panorama of scientific endeavor, from the moot to the apocalyptic— belonged to the science writer. Me!
Think of the great imponderables of existence. The mystery of the quasars, shining so brightly at the far horizon of time. The enigma of what makes a volcano explode, or a tornado germinate. Why butterflies flutter and fireflies blink and black carbon fuses together to make glittering diamonds. Fruit fly genetics. The denning behavior of Asian bears. The molecular machinery of the red blood cell, the burial preferences of ancient Micronesians, the tidal motions of the Bay of Fundy, the sex life of the lesser kudu, the quixotic search for the ivory- billed woodpecker ... what is science, anyway, if not a living compendium of ballads, mystery yarns, and shaggy dog stories?
And there was always more, and more, and more. The forces of history shifted with the avalanche of discovery and invention, and the hard realities that shaped life came less and less from the political process and more and more from the laboratory. Everywhere you look, you see the results of science: The hydrogen bomb, the birth control pill, the computer, the Internet— science is everywhere. Science has become the primary driving force of modern existence. And politics? In modern times, politicians are almost always behind the game. Science acts. Politicians scramble to react but by the time they do, the science is usually a fait accompli.
Drama, meanwhile, does just what it always it did, which is follow reality. When the stirrup was invented, allowing armored warriors to balance themselves on horses, the balladeers strummed their lutes and sang of knight and fair damsel. A few centuries later, when a spacecraft blew up or a researcher died in pursuit of knowledge, you had a tragedy with Shakespearean possibilities. When biologists tracked down the cause of a disease (or when one of them phonied up a journal article) you had a detective story Sir Arthur Conan Doyle would have killed for. When a team from France and another from the United States raced to find the cause of AIDS, it was mano a mano à la Ernest Hemingway, even if the fight was set in the barroom of the mind. Sometimes, as when ulcers turned out to be caused by bacteria that thrive in the hot acid of the stomach, you had a delicious surprise ending. Other times, as when beasties were found living happily in the throats of undersea volcanoes, it was pure science fiction— a bad phrase, probably, considering that the science had long surpassed most of the fiction built on it.
It isn’t all that much of stretch to connect science with art. If science is based on process and obscured with unfamiliar words, it nonetheless grew out of a fundamentally human, childlike curiosity. What makes the sky blue, why does ice float, what is “blood,” how does the mind work? What child fails to ask those questions? And what child fails to try to draw what she sees, or sing what he knows?
As curiosity morphs into science and the powerful new instruments come into play, the questions go deeper and the fascination quotient goes up. Look close enough into the cell and the gooey protoplasm turns into a churning mix of little gizmos. Suddenly the living cell is crisscrossed with highways, all crowded with trucking engines carrying supplies in and out of the industrial areas near the center of the cell. There are factories and recycling plants, entry ports and guarded secure zones. Or you can look through the other end of the microscope and focus your mind on the realities of black holes, supergalaxies, and parallel universes that go on and on beyond the meager limits of our comprehension.
In the middle decades of the twentieth century, physics and astronomy were the real sciences. But as the century proceeded the best stories were happening in biology. Once it was the purview of rich men with butterfly nets, physicians with leeches. By the 1970s, when I was earning my spurs as a science writer, biology had turned into Big Science, complete with million- dollar bud gets, interdisciplinary research teams, and instruments that examined molecules as small as the galaxy was large. Medicine followed right behind, beginning its historic transformation from art to science. Brain scanners were on the horizon. Psychology, which I had long considered only slightly more credible than voodoo, would evolve into a hard science. I was in the audience of a press conference Johns Hopkins held in 1973 to publicize a paper one of their professors had written about the breakthrough he, Dr. Solomon Snyder, and his postdoctoral partner, Candace Pert, had made. They’d discovered that the human brain contained receptors— tiny ports on the surfaces of brain cells— that were built to attract and hold opium molecules. I thought that sounded bizarre. If the receptors were there, did that mean the brain made its own opium? Was that why people became addicted to opiates like morphine and heroin? What on earth was the purpose of that?
Trying to write the story of the discovery for the newspaper, I read the scientific paper again and again and reviewed my notes. Piece by piece, it came together. If the brain had opium receptors, that must mean it made its own opium. If so, I could only conclude that these powerful secretions were the source of good feelings, and that we were hooked on the behaviors that produced those feelings. You didn’t have to reach far to conclude that the human mind was therefore a chemical process, explainable in chemical terms— really, in natural addictions.
Motherly love, for instance, would be a woman’s addiction to her own opiates. Her baby smiles; she gets a fix.
The more I puzzled over the implications, the more it seemed to me that Snyder and Pert had just handed us the keys to the kingdom. We had a way, now, to truly understand ourselves. A few steps down the scientific road and we’d have a new and very specific grasp of the mechanism of yearning, the metabolism of love, the chemistry of all human compulsion. It was a glimmer of a different future.
There is nothing more fundamental to our worldview than our attitude toward the mind, the seat of the self. Now, in a couple of hours, the foundations of how I saw myself and the human race had been deconstructed and restructured. I was left in the state of shock and confusion that follows any major psychological realignment. The enigma had rolled over on me, the world was different than I had thought it was. The only thing I understood clearly was that I was in on the ground floor of a revolution in biopsychology that would ultimately change everything from the depredations of mental illness and addiction to our view of our own history.
Much has been written about the explosive chain reaction of knowledge that happened in the following de cades. It started in brain chemistry and spread rapidly to neurophysiology. New generations of brain scanners appeared. Now, with our first glimpses of the thinking human mind, the revolution spread further: to psychiatry, to social science, and to anthropology. Every new discovery in brain science seemed to reinforce the thinking in anthropology, which fed back to suggest new experiments in the flux rate of neurotransmitters.
It stands to reason that all the really important scientific papers on the brain went back, one way or another, to Darwin. The premise of the new brain science was that the brain had evolved to produce thought, emotion, and behavior— and in those terms, the discoveries were often understandable even to the layperson.
Why did we have opium receptors in the brain? Obviously, to make us feel good. When you were a student, and you did a math problem properly, you felt good. So you did it again, and aga...