The Frontal Lobe

to our clinical and research laboratories and to my position, so that the first person to be officially called a neurochemist was at the MNI. Today there are about a thousand recognized neurochemists around the world, many in various national and international organizations for neurochemistry. I believe that our neurochemistry laboratory was the first research laboratory of the MNI to become individually endowed. Penfield was able to communicate his intuition to W.H. Donner and allowed me the pleasure of imparting some of our enthusiasm to that friendly philanthropist, so in 1951 it became the Donner Laboratory for Experimental Neurochemistry. In 1955 the first comprehensive survey of brain and nerve chemistry appeared. Called "Neurochemistry",1 it was edited in our laboratory in collaboration with I.H. Page and J.H. Quastel. A second edition2 appeared in 1962. Thereafter it became no longer possible to condense the field into a single volume. (An eight-volume "condensation" has lately been edited by Abel Lajtha in New York). Because of wartime concerns my first research assignment at the MNI was to work with Jasper on brain swelling in relation to head injuries.3 This influenced me to become Jasper's pupil in neurophysiology and established the close relation of the Donner laboratory with neurophysiology that has expressed itself in much further work. The interest in brain swelling has remained a major preoccupation of the Donner laboratory and has involved cooperation with other departments within and outside the MNI. Penfield's feeling for the unity of the sciences and their clinical aspects promoted integration of the objectives and the work of the neurochemistry laboratory with other aspects of the MNI and the Montreal Neurological Hospital. Penfield sought to integrate my interests with the major interests of others at the MNI working in the field of epilepsy. He would invite me into the operating room so that I could appreciate the problems. My awe stimulated a permanent interest in the mechanism of brain function and epilepsy. With Penfield a group of us from various departments of the MNI published a survey of early studies on epileptogenic areas of the brain.4 The introduction to this article referred to Penfield's earlier conclusion that there is a decrease in the richness of the capillary bed within an epileptogenic focus, leading to the possibility of disturbance of homeostasis and consequent local metabolic changes. Penfield also often expressed his idea that an "x-substance" may be produced that triggers the epileptogenic activity. In my opinion these are valid and related ideas. We now know that there are a number of factors electrolytes, metabolites and transmitter substances that affect neuronal activity. Their production and release are affected by metabolic conditions, and they, together or individually, could correspond to the "x-substance". Thus almost any study on brain tissue metabolism and the "action substances" of nervous activity is relevant to the problem of epilepsy. One of my first publications from the MNI described a study of the metabolism of focal epileptogenic human brain tissue;5 Penfield was coauthor. Much of our early work68 on brain tissue metabolism, electrolytes, transmitter substances and active amino acids has been forgotten but it has led to rapid and exciting developments in many other laboratories. And such work in many of these other laboratories is being carried out by our former students and coworkers. Meanwhile in our laboratory Wolfe has become an authority on, and contributor to basic understanding of, various neurologic diseases,9'10 and Pappius has carried on our old interest in brain swelling and has become a leading authority on cerebral edema.'1"2 Penfield's legacy to neurology is part of his more universal legacy. His scientific books and his historical novels and other writings have pleased and informed many of us. I have been especially affected by "The Mystery of the Mind".13 I have believed that the mystery will remain, but Penfield showed that concrete thinking, based on remarkable observation and anatomic-physiologic knowledge, can be applied to the mystery. With neurochemical knowledge now added I believe the mechanisms behind the mystery are soon to be at least definable in much clearer detail. The influence of Penfield has been felt in tangible ways in his personal works and in his organization and encouragement. But I, and I think others, have felt his presence in less definable ways. There was warmth, yet with controlled severity, an expectation of excellence and a benign dominance that keyed one up and also made one feel part of a whole vital enterprise. An era has ended. We must live without Penfield. But he has made sure that we can.