How the Academia-Cyberspace-Pharmaceutical-Biotech-Publishing Complex Incentivizes Bad Brain Research

Countless times on this blog, I have discussed poor quality research about brains. An interesting question to ponder is: why is there so much bad research done about brains? Why do we see so many studies guilty of Questionable Research Practices such as way-too-small study group sizes and a lack of blinding protocols? Why do many scientific papers make claims about their observations that are not justified by any observations reported in the paper? Why do we have so many misleading stories in the press claiming that some brain research showed something that it did not actually show?

In my previous post "Why the Academia Cyberspace Profit Complex Keeps Giving Misleading Brain Research" I made a fairly good start at answering such questions. I identified a social network I called the academia cyberspace profit complex, and I explained some of the reasons why that complex incentivizes poor quality but interesting-sounding brain research.  Among the factors I identified were these:

• Professors tend to be judged these days by the "easy-to-quantify" metrics of the number of papers they have written or co-written, and the number of citations such papers get, rather than a "hard-to-quantify" metric of  the quality of the research procedures they followed. 
• The more "quick and dirty" studies scientists publish (studies that are relatively easy to produce, but do not involve very high standards of research quality), the higher a "papers published count" a scientist will have. 
• Scientific journals these days have a high bias called "publication bias," a tendency to prefer to publish papers reporting some supposed "positive effect" supposedly involving some causal relation rather than a null result reporting no such causal relation. 
• The more interesting-sounding or important-sounding a paper may be, the greater the likelihood that it will be cited by other scientists, and the higher the "citation count" of the scientist authors will be. 
• The desire to produce interesting-sounding or important-sounding papers reporting "positive effects" rather than null results tends to bias the way papers are written and the way studies are designed and performed, creating an incentive for study designs likely to end up with some "positive result" rather than a null result.  Among the resulting effects is often "cherry picking" of data, so that the paper ends up with a "publishable" positive effect rather than a null result.
• Once a study has been published in a scientific journal, it is announced to the public by means of a university press release or college press release. Nowadays university press offices are notorious for their hype and exaggeration, and routinely make interesting-sounding claims about new research that are not justified by the observations in the scientific paper being announced.  An abundance of such hype helps to glorify universities, keep them in the public's eyes, and helps to justify the very high tuition rates of universities. Misstatements in press releases come both from press office copywriters who are encouraged to glorify and hype new research, but also from scientists quoted in the press releases, who often make unwarranted or false claims about their own research, in an effort to maximize the attention such research will get. 
• There is nowadays an extremely large cyberspace industry that has an incentive to uncritically parrot university press releases, and an additional incentive to further exaggerate and hype the results reported by such press releases.  The incentive comes in the form of web pages containing ads that generate revenue for the owners of web pages.  So we see an enormous "clickbait" effect, in which sensational-sounding headlines appear on web pages, with the headlines being hyperlinks that take the reader to a page filled with ads.  Every time a page with such ads is viewed, money is generated for the owner of the web site.  The "clickbait" headlines often take you to pages discussing research that never justifies the sensational clickbait headline. For example, you may see on some web page a headline "Scientists Make Giant Leap in Understanding Memory." Clicking on that headline will typically take you to some story about merely another very poorly designed study using mice, something that is no actual progress in understanding memory. 
• "Quick and dirty" scientific research helps science journalists fill their quotas of science stories. Knowing that web sites prefer to publish stories with sensational-sounding headlines, science journalists are incentivized to "go with the hype" rather than critically discussing poorly designed research. 
• The increase in "papers published" counts and citation counts resulting from "quick and dirty" research helps scientists meet paper count quotas and citation quotas that may be informally required for their promotion or advancement, and increases their chances of getting profit from things such as book deals and consulting contracts. 

My previous post discussed many of the factors that incentivize poorly designed and executed scientific research. But I left out a discussion of several very important additional factors:

• Nowadays pharmaceutical companies may have a very large incentive to fund and/or promote poorly designed and executed brain research, particularly whenever such research helps to promote some pill that such companies sell. The mental health  pharmaceutical industry is estimated to be a 36 billion dollar industry. 
• Nowadays biotech companies may have a very large incentive to fund and/or promote poorly designed and executed brain research, particularly whenever such research helps to promote some device that such companies sell. Biotech companies include very many companies such as the manufacturers of MRI devices, the manufacturers of EEG equipment, the manufacturers of implantable medical devices, and the manufacturers of noninvasive brain-related devices that a person may put on his head. The biotech industry is a trillion-dollar industry, and many billions of that involves brain-related products. 
• Nowadays the publishers of scientific papers have a very large incentive to publish poorly designed and executed brain research, simply because a profusion of such "quick and dirty" papers means more available newly written papers that can be published. The more papers published, the more journals can be published, and the more journal subscription fees can be charged.  According to one site, "The worldwide revenue from academic publishing stands at over $19 billion per year," and that "out of this figure, over 50% is attributed to 5 major publishing companies – Elsevier, John Wiley & Sons, Taylor & Francis, Springer Nature, and SAGE."
• Scientists doing brain research often have conflicts of interest, such as the ownership of shares of corporations that may increase in value if the research reports a particular type of result, or something like a relationship in which the scientists get consulting fees from some corporation whose fate may be affected by the research they are doing. 
• Nowadays much of brain-related research is funded largely or mainly by private corporations interested in having the research find some particular result. 
• The relationship between private industry and brain-related research is so strong that many scientific papers are essentially "ghost written" by anonymous employees of corporations standing to benefit if the research reports a particular result. 

To diagram these complex relations and financial motivations, I must present a diagram much larger than the relation diagram that I presented in my earlier post. The revised diagram is below:

The diagram shows a complex stream of profits that results from scientists starting out by doing "quick and dirty" poorly designed research.  The result is a set of winners and losers.  

The Winners

These are the winners from "quick and dirty" brain-related research:

• The scientists who get some additional paper with their name on it to increase their "papers published" count, and also may get some more of the highly coveted paper citations. Many of these scientists are heavy investors in pharmaceutical companies or biotech companies (or recipients of income from such sources), and indirectly profit when such companies profit in the ways described below. 
• The universities who can announce important-sounding research by some exaggerating press release, thereby helping to maintain their prominent public profile, and their reputation as a center of "cutting edge" research. 
• The science journalists who get some new sensational-sounding press release that they can use as the basis for some interesting-sounding article that will help them fill their quota of articles written. 
• The owners of web pages that will announce the results using clickbait headlines leading to pages containing ads that generate money for the people running the web sites. 
• The pharmaceutical companies that may benefit when a specific product of theirs is favorably mentioned by the new scientific paper, and who also in general benefit when literature keeps people thinking that brains are the source of our minds and our mental problems, and keeps people thinking that the way to solve psychological problems is by taking pills. 
• The biotech device  companies that may benefit when a specific product of theirs is favorably mentioned by the new scientific paper, and who also in general benefit when literature keeps people thinking that brains are the source of our minds and our mental problems, and keeps people thinking that brain-related devices can help solve mental problems or mood problems. 
• The publishers of expensive scientific journals, who can meet their monthly quotas of papers to be published (for such publishers it is financially better for there to be written in any month 800 poorly-written papers describing poorly designed papers and 200 well-written papers describing well-designed papers, than for there to be written in the same month 100 poorly-written papers describing poorly designed papers and 300 well-written papers describing well-designed papers).

The Losers

These are the losers from "quick and dirty" brain-related research:

• All the people in the general public, who keep being misled by "science news" headlines giving them the wrong idea about the source of their minds and the storage place of their memories, and who keep reading research reports which give them the wrong idea that they are mere brains rather than souls, minds or spirits. The resulting psychological, moral and spiritual harm is enormous but incalculable. 
• Very many people with psychological problems or emotional problems or learning problems who are given the wrong idea that the way to help such problems is by fiddling with brains or brain chemistry, rather than by improving education techniques and educational literature, improving access to education and counseling,  improving social conditions, improving social justice, improving family relations or improving worldviews and positive attitudes about selves by properly educating people so that they learn about the most important facts and observations related to who they are and how they got here. 

In a classic essay, the distinguished military officer Smedley Butler stated this: "War is a racket...It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many." It is true to say exactly that about junk science research.  The production of such research is a racket, for the benefit of the few beneficiaries listed above, at the expense of everyone else. 

Long story short, if you want to know why so much junk research gets published about brains, follow the money and ponder who profits. But it would be an oversimplification to suggest that financial interests and career advancement offers a full explanation for why we see so much bad brain-related research and so much bad reporting about such research. Another important factor is that poorly-designed, poorly-executed and poorly-described research relating to brains helps to provide what can be regarded as belief system justification. We should not forget that those behind such research are members of a belief community with cherished dogmas that they keep claiming are facts but which are very much unproven, such as the dogma that your brain produces your mind and thinking, and the dogma that your brain stores your beliefs and memories.  Members of such a community get a non-financial mental reward whenever there appears research which they can claim as evidence their beliefs are correct. In cases when unfounded beliefs are held and cherished,  poorly-designed poorly-executed and inaccurately-described research can provide a comforting feeling of assurance that well-designed well-executed and accurately-described research might never be able to provide. 

Covering the Biotech Startup "Prophetic," Slate Fails to Mention a Failed Replication Attempt

A recent article at the widely ready site www.slate.com gives coverage about a brain-zapping startup called Prophetic. The article is entitled "It Uses A.I. It Goes on Your Head. Can It Induce Lucid Dreams?" But on the site the headline leading you to the article sounds more encouraging, saying, "They Raised $1 Million for a Device That Gives You Lucid Dreams. There’s Just One Problem."  We read, "Within just four months, Wollberg and Berry’s new company, Prophetic, raised more than $1 million in funding for a consumer device—the 'Halo'—from venture capital heavy hitters and acquired advisers who’d worked in neurotech at Apple."

We get a visual of a head device that the company Prophetic is developing, one that it claims will be able to give you lucid dreams. Lucid dream are dreams in which you are aware that you are dreaming. Supposedly lucid dreams can be quite pleasurable for certain people who are able to steer the dreams towards desired content.  You can imagine how fun it would be, for example, to will your dream to show you naked movie stars, or maybe will your dreams towards some scene in which you are swimming in a beautiful lagoon in Tahiti. 

I have little doubt that if a head device caused you to start lucid dreaming, it might be highly profitable. But is there evidence that zapping the brain with some energy can help produce lucid dreams? 

Both the Slate article and the website of Prophetic showcase a 2014 study by Voss and others entitled "Induction of self awareness in dreams through frontal low current stimulation of gamma activity." That paper appears at the top of the "Lucid Dreaming Research" page at the website of Prophetic:

 The Slate article says this about the 2014 Voss paper, claiming an increase in lucid dreams after zapping brains at a frequency of about 40 Hz:

"That study found that it was possible to induce lucid dreams using electric currents. Wollberg and Berry plan to build a headset that utilizes a different kind of 'noninvasive neurostimulation'—a transcranial focused ultrasound. This emerging technology activates highly specific regions of the brain, through the skull, using high-frequency sound waves."

We hear nothing in the Slate article disputing the 2014 study "Induction of self awareness in dreams through frontal low current stimulation of gamma activity" by Voss and others.  But, very importantly, there was a later study that failed to reproduce their results.  The later study was the 2020 study "Attempted induction of signalled lucid dreaming by transcranial alternating current stimulation." 

The study concludes this:

"Results do not support the conclusion that frontal 40 Hz tAC stimulation heightens dreamed self-awareness. Our findings further cast doubt on whether 40 Hz frontal brain activity in REM sleep is a reliable index of lucid dreaming as previously claimed (Voss et al., 2014). Not only is our observed lack of an effect of 40 Hz frontal stimulation on lucid dreaming inconsistent with that claim, but other findings similarly question it. Specifically, Dodet, Chavez, Leu-Semenescu, Golmard, and Arnulf (2015) did not see distinct 40 Hz activity in frontal regions or any other regions in a sample of 14 lucid dreams from 7 patients with narcolepsy who were frequent lucid dreamers."

There is no link to this study on the "Lucid Dreaming Research" page on the web site of the Prophetic startup.  We get a page that begin with a link to the 2014 Voss study "Induction of self awareness in dreams through frontal low current stimulation of gamma activity," but no link to the 2020 study quoted above, one failing to reproduce the results of the 2014 Voss study. Investors should beware of startups offering pages of scientific results on their web sites. The studies mentioned may be cherry-picked. 

The writer of the Slate story at least did right by reaching out to two brain experts who are quoted as saying that there is no evidence yet that brain stimulation can produce lucid dreaming. But the Slate story ends by saying this about the Prophetic startup's "Halo" device: "Still, their headset seems more promising than some of the other lucid-dreaming products out there." No justification is given for this dubious claim. 

The situation seems to be this:

(1) A 2014 study ("Induction of self awareness in dreams through frontal low current stimulation of gamma activity" by Voss and others) claimed that electrical stimulation could help produce lucid dreams. 

(2) A 2020  study  ("Attempted induction of signalled lucid dreaming by transcranial alternating current stimulation") tried to reproduce the results of the 2014 Voss study, but failed to do so. 

(3) The Prophetic startup's "Halo" device does not even use the electrical stimulation technique attempted by the 2014 Voss study that was not replicated by the 2020 study, but a different technique of ultrasound. 

(4) There are apparently no studies showing that ultrasound can cause lucid dreaming. None of the seven studies listed on the "Lucid dreaming research" page of the Prophetic startup website refer to ultrasound. The site has another page listing seven studies pertaining to ultrasound, but none of them have titles mentioning dreaming. The site seems to list no scientific paper referring to both ultrasound and dreaming in its title. 

(5) Doing a Google Scholar search for "ultrasound and dreaming" seems to show no results (on the first two pages of search results) mentioning any study involving dreaming effects of ultrasound stimulation. 

(6) There is no robust evidence that dreaming is produced by the brain, and some evidence that may hint that dreaming is not produced by the brain, as I discuss in my post here.  A study cited on the Prophetic web site ("Frequent lucid dreaming associated with increased functional connectivity between frontopolar cortex and temporoparietal association areas") is not robust evidence for a brain involvement in lucid dreaming. Not limited itself to some exact hypothesis by using pre-registration, the study attempted to find some difference in the brains between a small set of lucid dreamers (about 14) and about 14 controls. Since there are 1001 ways to analyze brain features, it is always possible to find differences using brain scans of two groups of about a dozen people. There are countless different ways in which neuroscientists attempt to quantify "brain connectivity."   

Before investing in a startup such as Prophetic, I would wait for the appearance of a solid scientific study suggesting that there is reality behind its premise that lucid dreaming can be stimulated by ultrasound. 

The Lack of Evidence That Brains Produce Dreaming, and Some Evidence Hinting They Don't

In a year 2020 "Dream Catcher" study described here and the scientific paper here, EEG recordings were made of subjects while they were sleeping. The subjects were awakened at random times, and asked to state whether or not they were dreaming.  Then some scientists ("blind" to which EEG reading were from the dreamers) were asked to guess whether particular subjects were dreaming. The result was a null result. There was no evidence that by studying EEG recordings you can tell whether a person is dreaming.  

Scientists apparently delayed the release of these results for years. A 2015 paper describes results just like those of the Dream Catcher study, but results that had apparently not yet been published:

"When data from serial awakenings of 9 subjects had been collected, these data were divided. Introspective reports and electroencephalographic recordings were analysed by different judges who were ignorant of which EEG sequences had led to dream reports and which ones had not. An external EEG research group used a number of statistical methods to identify the signature of the recordings that were followed by dream reports. But the accuracy of their predictions turned out to be no better than chance. A doctoral researcher presenting these findings at a conference explained that there were 4 different explanations for this failure: ‘Subjective experience is a) not in the brain, b) is in the brain, but not in the EEG, c) is in the EEG, but not in our data, or d) is in the data, but needs more complex and novel methods of analysis.’" 

The paper then quotes someone from 2008 saying this:

"We still haven’t found any objective sign indicating the presence or absence of consciousness in the dreaming brain. Maybe that’s something that Descartes would have predicted: that you cannot objectively capture consciousness because it is this immaterial, non-spatial, and imperceptible thing ... We haven’t been able to disprove the Cartesian position ... The dream catcher experiment is a test of the whole emergent materialist position ... We will continue our analysis, but if we can’t find anything then we have a real problem where to go."

The result suggested the brain is not the source of our dreams. There is another reason for thinking such a thing. There is no robust evidence that removing or damaging some part of the brain causes a cessation of dreaming. The paper "Dreaming and REM sleep are controlled by different brain mechanisms" is an example of one of the countless neuroscience papers that make claims not established by the research that is cited. The paper claims "Dreaming is eliminated by forebrain lesions which completely spare the brain stem."  The paper claims that "108 further cases with complete (or nearly complete) loss of dreaming in association with focal forebrain lesions have been published."  The use of the phrase "or nearly complete" should alert us that no good evidence has been given that "dreaming is eliminated by forebrain lesions."  The claim of 108 cases referred to were cherry-picked from dozens of papers that each mentioned only a few cases; but neuroscientists often make incorrect citations claiming that papers said things the papers did not show or state. The paper does not even give the titles of the papers it claims contained such cases. The paper then claims that dreaming is lost by damage near the "parieto-temporo-occipital (PTO) junction."  But a 1985 paper "Dream Recall After Sleep Interruption in Brain-Injured Patients" had found successful dream recall in  6 out 8 brain-damaged patients that were identified as having lesions in just such a "parieto-temporo-occipital" region (Table 1). 

A 2004 press release is entitled "The (Brain) Stuff Of Which Dreams Are Made." It describes a case of a woman who had a stroke, and then reported she no longer dreamed several times a week, as she did before. The story is referred to by a 2015 Psychology Today article, as if it was evidence that brains create dreams. What the Psychology Today article fails to mention is that the press release had told us that the woman's dreaming ability returned, with dreams occurring as often as once a week. The facts in the 2004 press release are misrepresented by the Psychology Today article, which falsely tells us "her vision issues improved after several days, but her dreaming remained suspended." 

Another example of the literature misleading us is a 1951 paper entitled "Cessation of Dreaming After Brain Injury." The paper reports three cases of brain injury, and in two of them there was actually no "cessation" but merely a self-reported reduction in dream activity. In one of the three cases someone reported a complete cessation of dream activity. But we don't know how accurate such a report was. A 2014 paper tells us that "the inability to recall dreams and the loss of dream experience are rare in stroke patients," something we would not expect if brains produce dreams.  

Anecdotal reports of dream cessation are not very reliable, and papers reporting dream cessation after brain damage tend to have unreliable standards for reporting such a cessation. Someone may be asked "Do you recall any dreams you recently had?" and the answer may be "no."  Such a person may then be described in a paper as someone who lost his ability to recall dreams, even though no good evidence yet exists the person has had such a loss.  We can imagine something like this sometimes occurring:

Neurologist: So can you recall any dreams you had last night?

Patient: No. 

Neurologist: Well, I'm real interested in people with brain damage who can't recall dreams, because that helps to show that the brain causes dreaming. Can I put you down as one of those people?

Patient: Sure. Whatever. 

Memories of dreams usually fade very rapidly, so asking someone whether they recall dreams (at a time 30 minutes or more after they woke up) in not a reliable way of judging whether they are dreaming. The only reliable way to test whether someone has lost dreaming ability is to do something a lot more rigorous, like waking someone up many different times at random intervals (preferably after REM activity had been detected), and to immediately ask whether he recalled having any dream that night. If such a test failed after 30-different sudden wake-up events on ten different nights, that might be good evidence that the person had lost the ability to dream.  But I doubt whether a test as rigorous as this has been applied to most of the people described as brain damaged people who lost the ability to dream. 

A 2017 paper was entitled "The Neural Correlates of Dreaming." The paper was disputed by a 2020 commentary entitled "The Neural Correlates of Dreaming Have Not Been Identified Yet. Commentary on 'The Neural Correlates of Dreaming. Nat Neurosci. 2017.' "

No one has ever given a credible account of any natural reason why humans would have developed the ability to dream, something that has no survival value or reproduction value. Accounts that attempt to describe biological reasons for dreaming are usually examples of mere hand waving. Studies cited to support the claim that dreaming helps consolidate memories are typically bad examples of junk science. For example, we often get people claiming that rodent studies have suggested an idea, with a reference to the paper "Reactivation of Hippocampal Ensemble Memories During Sleep." But the paper seems like p-hacking science shlock, as it  involves a way-too-small study group size of only 3 rodents, and reporting unimpressive statistical significance of merely p < 0.05. 

There have been some studies that had people in a lab engage in some video game task in the hour before falling asleep, and then had the subjects woken up at various times at night to be asked about what they were dreaming about. It was claimed that the people dreamed more frequently about the task they had done before sleeping,  but anyone being a subject in such a study might tend to interpret dreams as having some relation to some task he did before sleeping, knowing or suspecting that this was the result desired by the scientists. Claims of better performance by those who dreamed of the task are unimpressive, involving small study group sizes and unimpressive statistical significance.  

My own personal experience is that for the past three years I have been playing video games for about an hour in the ninety minutes before sleeping, and I have also been also been rigorously recording my dreams during the past three years, recording them at night on a notepad just after awaking after the numerous random times during the night in which I would wake up. My very extensive account of such dreams is here. Among the thousands of dreams I have recorded during these three years, there never seemed to be a single dream in which I was replaying or rehearsing any of the tasks that were occurring in a video game I had played, nor did there ever seem to be a single dream that contained any of the content or characters or challenges of the video games I was playing.  Based on this experience, I am very skeptical of all claims that dreaming serves to consolidate memories. 

What I have seen after three years of recording most of my dreams is an effect completely at odds with claims that dreams are random content produced by the brain.  During the past three years my dreams have very strongly seemed to express thematic content, with more than 400 dreams seeming to suggest themes of life after death.  There is another very meaningful theme that has occurred more than 300 times in my dreams, one I have not listed in my published dream log, because it is too personal to make public. That theme is also related to life after death.  Counting dreams I have listed as related to life after death in my published dream log, and 300 additional dreams also related to life after death that I have not published, the total number of dreams I have had in the past three years that seemed to refer to life after death (often through symbolism) is in excess of 700. In addition to such dreams, I have also had over 600 dreams of deceased people during the past three years. Besides such dreams I sometimes have dreams with extremely subtle and sophisticated philosophical concepts, dreams that leave me thinking "such a dream could not have come from a sleeping brain." 

There has been considerable evidence (experimental or anecdotal) for telepathic effects or clairvoyant effects occurring during dreaming.  You can read here about some of the laboratory evidence for ESP during dreaming, which was mainly collected at the Maimonides laboratory in the 20th century.  The meta-analysis here finds highly significant evidence for ESP during dreaming.  Such evidence is inconsistent with claims that dreams are products of the brain. All evidence of ESP is evidence against claims that the brain is the source of the mind, as no one can conceive of how telepathy could occur by any action of the brain.  That is part of the reason why we see such a strong effect in academia of psi denialism, in which professors stubbornly deny two centuries of strong evidence for psi effects such as ESP,  including very strong laboratory evidence gathered in the past hundred years (some examples are discussed here, here and here). 

There are many cases of dreams seeming to foretell a death, as I describe in my posts here, here and here.  A reasonable hypothesis consistent with such reports is the idea that when people get old or come within a few years of death, they may start to get content in their dreams alerting them (often through symbolism) of the transition ahead of them, in which they will go from this earthly realm to some afterlife realm.  My dream experience during the past three years has strongly supported such a hypothesis.  The evidence for ESP during dreams is consistent with such a hypothesis. A dreaming mind may get dream content through ESP from residents of some afterlife realm.  To further substantiate such a hypothesis, more old people or dying people should keep long-term dream logs like those I have kept.  There have been some studies done  on dreams of the dying, which tend to support or be consistent with the hypothesis I mentioned.  But such studies have usually been affairs in which people in hospices were simply asked what dreams they remembered.  A more vigorous way to study the topic is to have older people maintain long-term dream logs, in which they write down on a notepad all dreams while waking up in the middle of the night, and then publish the results, while trying to categorize what they think the dreams suggest. 

Hydrocephalus Studies Confirming Low Correlation Between Brain States and Intelligence

One of the strongest challenges to claims that brains make minds came from the research decades ago of the physician John Lorber. Lorber studied many human patients with hydrocephalus, in which healthy brain tissue is gradually replaced by a watery fluid. Lorber's research is described in this interesting scientific paper. A mathematics student with an IQ of 130 and a verbal IQ of 140 was found to have “virtually no brain.” His vision was apparently perfect except for a refraction error, even though he had no visual cortex (the part of the brain involved in sight perception).

In the paper we are told that of about 16 patients Lorber classified as having extreme hydrocephalus (with 90% of the area inside the cranium replaced with spinal fluid), half of them had an IQ of 100 or more. The article mentions 16 patients, but the number with extreme hydrocephalus was actually 60, as this article states, using information from this original source that mentions about 10 percent of a group of 600. So the actual number of these people with tiny brains and above-average intelligence was about 30. The paper states:

"[Lorber] described a woman with an extreme degree of hydrocephalus showing 'virtually no cerebral mantle' who had an IQ of 118, a girl aged 5 who had an IQ of 123 despite extreme hydrocephalus, a 7-year-old boy with gross hydrocephalus and an IQ of 128, another young adult with gross hydrocephalus and a verbal IQ of 144, and a nurse and an English teacher who both led normal lives despite gross hydrocephalus."

Believers in the "brains make mind" dogma have sometimes tried to suggest that maybe Lorber was just some erring researcher who got things wrong. But an examination of scientific papers by other authors will produce some results similar to those of Lorber.  For example, consider the paper "Intellectual Development in Shunted Hydrocephalic Children," which has its full text hidden behind a paywall.  The study examined the intelligence of 200 children who had lost varying amounts of their brain due to the brain-wasting disease of hydrocephalus. The abstract contains no specific numbers on IQ. But we read this:

"The following groups were found to be of normal intelligence: white patients with internal hydrocephalus and with meningomyelocele, and black patients with meningomyelocele and with external hydrocephalus. Intelligence quotient was found to be unrelated either to number of shunt revisions or severity of hydrocephalus prior to initial surgery, but was related to age at initial shunt placement and shunt function. Children with internal hydrocephalus and hydrocephalus with meningomyelocele whose shunts were kept functioning were found to be of normal intelligence."

Here we have a remarkable claim indeed: that there was no relation between IQ and the severity of the devastating brain-wasting disease hydrocephalus. A paper on the same topic is the paper "Psychometric intelligence after infantile hydrocephalus." In this case the full text of the paper is available for free online.  The paper tested examined IQ in 48 children who had the brain-wasting disease of hydrocephalus.

The paper gives us the interesting graph below.  Each third of the graph shows a different type of IQ measurement. 

I can summarize these results and comment on them:

• 14 of the 48 children could not be tested for intelligence using IQ tests. There are various reasons why brain damage might make someone unsuitable for participating in IQ tests, such as damage that might cripple vision or coordination or speech capabilities. Being unable to participate in an IQ test does not necessarily mean very low intelligence. 
• Of the severely brain damaged children who could participate in IQ tests, IQ ranged from 55 to 130, with the average being not far from the average IQ of 100.
• Very notably, 16 out of 34 of the severely brain damaged children who could be tested for verbal IQ scored higher than average for verbal IQ, scoring above 100. 
• Four of the severely brain damaged children scored above 115 on the verbal IQ test, with one of these children having a "genius" score on the verbal IQ test, a score higher than 130. 

Overall the results of this paper corroborate John Lorber's results. We are left with an anomaly that is very hard or impossible to explain under the "brains make minds" dogma, but easy to explain under the hypothesis that brains do not make minds. 

A related study was reported in the Scientific Reports sub-journal of the very prestigious journal Nature, and had the title "Life without a brain: Neuroradiological and behavioral evidence of neuroplasticity necessary to sustain brain function in the face of severe hydrocephalus."  The study examined a rat named R222 that had lost almost all of its brain because of a disease caused hydrocephalus, which replaces brain tissue with a watery fluid. The study found that despite the rat having lost almost all of its brain, "Indices of spatial memory and learning across the reported Barnes maze parameters (A) show that R222 (as indicated by the red arrow in the figures) was within the normal range of behavior, compared to the age matched cohort."   In other words, the rat with almost no brain seemed to learn and remember as well as a rat with a full brain. The authors stated, "It was not possible from these images of R222 to identify the caudate/putamen, amygdala, or hippocampus." Contrary to the frequently stated but incorrect claim that a hippocampus is crucial for memory, the rat without a hippocampus managed to learn just fine.