
Why I Captured This MRI of a Mother and Child - DiabloD3
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why--captured-MRI-mother-child-180957207/?no-ist
======
knowaveragejoe
The negativity in this thread is really a shame. I would expect better from
HN.

> This particular MR image, though, was not made for diagnostic purposes, nor
> even really for science. No one, to my knowledge, had ever made an MR image
> of a mother and child. We made this one because we wanted to see it.

> To some people, this image was a disturbing reminder of the fragility of
> human beings. Others were drawn to the way that the two figures, with their
> clothes and hair and faces invisible, became universal, and could be any
> human mother and child, at any time or place in history. Still others were
> simply captivated by how the baby’s brain is different from his mother’s;
> it’s smaller, smoother and darker—literally, because there’s less white
> matter.

~~~
smoyer
I'd be really interested to see the difference in the brain activity when
they're "embracing" versus when they're placed separately in the scanner.

~~~
irremediable
Not sure how much you know about neuroimaging, but in case you don't know, it
might be worth my pointing out that this is a structural image -- i.e. it
doesn't measure "brain activity" in any way, only brain shape.

The same scanner could take functional BOLD measurements, of course.

~~~
smoyer
I know next-to-nothing about neuroimaging (and I didn't even stay in a
Holiday-Inn Express last night). I was wondering why there were no bright
patches like other MRIs I've seen - thanks for the explanation.

------
Faint
What grabs my attention is how the baby's skull absolutely chock-full of brain
- there doesn't seem to be any "cushioning" fluid space between the skull and
the brain like the mother (like most adults, I'd assume) has.

------
moron4hire
This is exactly what photography is supposed to be.

------
Sevrene
Why I captured this MRI of a mother and child? Because I can. /article

------
TorKlingberg
Neat, but clickbait.

------
vilhelm_s
Answer: "This particular MR image, though, was not made for diagnostic
purposes, nor even really for science. No one, to my knowledge, had ever made
an MR image of a mother and child. We made this one because we wanted to see
it."

The question _I_ was wondering about is "how did she get two million dollars
to buy a 3-tesla MRI machine". And the answer is, be a professor at MIT.
([http://saxelab.mit.edu/](http://saxelab.mit.edu/))

~~~
randlet
I'm not sure if you're trying to imply something negative about this project
or not, but there are many many research MRI's around and it's not completely
unreasonable to spare 15 min of MRI time for something like this.

~~~
vilhelm_s
I don't have anything negative to say about "the project" but I think the
headline is kindof stupid; surely there is no great mystery. Of course she
wants an MRI-picture of herself, I would love to have one too, wouldn't
everyone? But few people are in a position to get one.

~~~
cafebeen
It's easy and cheap to get an MRI by volunteering to participate in an imaging
research study. You can typically ask for the data, and they will actually pay
you for your time.

------
sandworm101
So this is meant as art? Ok. It should be judged as art.

It's junk art. Another madonna. Big deal. The image of mother and child has
been done to death in every medium. Doing it again in a new one isn't saying
much. The author picked a subject to trigger a boringly predictable emotional
response. It is as much art as the latest kittens meet puppies youtube
sensation.

Leave the art to actual artists. If you want your medical machine to create
art, allocate some time for artists. Treat it like every other mother treats a
sonogram. Put in on the mantle, not the internet. Don't waste
time/money/helium on hack projects in an attempt to generate news.

~~~
xenophonf

      Leave the art to actual artists.
    

The people who create junk Madonnas and cat videos and whatnot are artists
every bit as much as the first person who scratched stick figures on a cave
wall or the masters whose works reside in museums and galleries around the
world. They might be novices. They might be amateurs. They might not create
something you like. But they are still "actual" artists.

~~~
sandworm101
Fine. I'll correct my words.

Leave costly and expensive art to the good artists. Get a paints set. Buy a
camera. Leave the million-dollar paintbrushes to those non-novice artists able
to create something interesting.

~~~
trcollinson
In the words of Mel Brooks in the History of the World Part 1:

 _And here, in a cave, about 2 million years ago, the first artist was born.
And, of course, with the birth of the artist, came the inevitable after
birth... The critic._

Lest I get down voted for bringing humor to a comment on Hacker News, I will
make the further point. Are your comments meant to be art criticism? Ok. They
should be judged as art criticism. You say it's "another madonna" as if all
madonna's are junk art. Many of the madonna's are the most studied religious
iconography and artistic masterpieces of all time. Almost all of the most
renowned artists in history have completed a madonna. Who is to say it has
been done to death in every medium? Are you attempting to say that no artist
can come along and make a new masterpiece madonna? And frankly, you'll have to
argue much harder to make people believe that the madonna has been done to
death in every medium, particularly MR images.

As for your argument that million-dollar paintbrushes should be left to non-
novice artists to create something interesting. We create art with what we
have on hand. This person happens to have a 3 tesla MRI machine. Why shouldn't
they use it? If another artist would like to come along and use it, they can
work with the university that holds it to use it. What a horrible argument to
say that because they are a novice they should not be allowed to use such a
beautiful tool for their own artistic enjoyment.

