This is an interview with Dr. Alison Christy, whose love of history generated the History of Neurology Special Interest Group, which met for the first time at the CNS Annual Meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 2025. Dr. Christy is Chair of the History of Neurology section for the American Academy of Neurology, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Child Neurology, and Clinical Director of Pediatric Neurology at Providence Health and Services in Portland, Oregon.
QUESTION | What inspired you to create a new SIG focused on the history of neurology?
When I was on the board of the Child Neurology Society, we discussed the current setup of committees. We decided that Archives didn’t really need to be a committee. It wasn’t a select group that needed to meet regularly to make decisions; instead, our history should be open to everyone, and we should be encouraging trainees and students to get involved. Instead of a committee, we thought it should be a Special Interest Group.
I think right now, no one has more special interest in the history of neurology than I do, so I created the group. But the goal is that everyone becomes passionate about history and clamors to take over the SIG.
QUESTION | Why is it important for child neurologists to know about the history of their field?
Some SIGs only apply to some of us – you may never see Demyelinating Diseases in your clinic, for instance, or you may have no interest in Games for Neurology Education (another SIG I started with Jess Goldstein and Matt Goldfinger). But I would argue that everyone belongs in this SIG. Our history affects all of us.
There are particular challenges around medical history. No one instinctively understands history. It is always taught, and the stories of history can never be presented with true neutrality. Since history isn’t something medical students need to know for their Steps and residents don’t need to know any of it for boards, it usually isn’t taught at all – or it’s only taught in a “neat trivia” kind of way.
But knowing the history of medicine matters because everything about the culture and system of medicine is a choice made by people who didn’t necessarily make the right choices. Understanding how and why these choices were made historically helps physicians make choices now about the system we work in. Understanding how we know the information we think we know, understanding where we have made mistakes in the past, understanding why we choose certain people to enter medical school and choose to educate them in a certain way, lets us make different, possibly better choices, and may help us make a better medical culture.
I also believe that seeing ourselves in great people from history and identifying with their struggles can help with fatigue and burnout. Understanding how diverse people managed to achieve great things despite societal oppression (spoiler: it was often really good mentorship) helps us understand how we can help diverse people today (being a really good mentor).
Another benefit I find in knowledge of history is that adage, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” When I see medieval texts bemoaning that this generation of children simply isn’t as tough or as educated as they used to be, I worry less about future generations. When I read essays from the 1400s worried that the technology of the printing press was going to change the world and make everyone less intelligent, I’m less anxious about AI. When I read letters from early women physicians in the 1800s and their words sound just like my feelings, I feel connected to humanity in a meaningful way. People are always people, and there are always terrible things to fight against, and there are always people doing good things for humanity when things are terrible. I find that reassuring, although I guess there’s a way you could look at it that is less reassuring.
QUESTION | Is there something about neurology (the science of the brain and mind) that makes it a particularly relevant historical topic?
That’s an interesting question! I do think the history of neurology is fascinating. It’s hard now to imagine not knowing the brain is where thought comes from, or of considering the ventricles the location of memory. So many steps had to take place to understand how localization works, the different areas of the brain, that neurons exist and how they function and interact with each other, the electrophysiology of the brain – and so many incredibly interesting wrong theories have existed along the way. This has been an interest of mine for a long time, and I was interested in sharing it with others, for all the reasons above.
But I wouldn’t have gotten into neurology history as a primary academic venture except that so many stories about diverse people in the history of neurology haven’t been uncovered yet. My co-history sleuther (and Vice Chair of the History Section at the AAN), Alexis Simpkins of Cedars-Sinai, asked me who the first Black woman neurologist was – and we realized that no one knew. So we’ve spent a lot of time trying to find out, and in the process, we’ve uncovered a number of impressive early Black neurologists we’re researching in work that is currently unpublished. I also have a paper in revisions on a woman who is likely the first academic neurologist, Jeanne Cady Solis. These things shouldn’t be new in 2025, but they are, and it’s exciting. I feel like there is a lot to be said that hasn’t been said yet.
QUESTION | At the inaugural meeting of this SIG in October, was there a lot of interest among the membership? Was the SIG well attended?
The SIG was very well-attended! We had child neurologists from all stages of training, and we ran out of chairs. Even though we went about thirty minutes over our time, most people stayed until the very end and then some. Some people contacted me afterwards about getting involved with history research, which was the best. I love seeing this level of enthusiasm.
QUESTION | What topics were discussed at the first meeting?
Phil Pearl, Chair of Neurology at Boston Children’s Hospital, started us off with an excellent discussion of the history of epilepsy research in Boston: giants who led the field in child neurology.
I took a broader view and talked about why we talk about history at all. I think it’s important to answer that question for yourself when you’re giving a history talk – your answer may not be the same as my answer, but there’s a reason you’ve decided to talk about history, and it’s never neutral. The stories you select from the vast depths of history are intended to paint a picture for your audience – and this should be done with intention.
We also talked about how to research history, from libraries to Google Books, and different ways you can present history: through research articles; academic and popular books; posters, presentations and lectures; medical school courses; social media; and games. We spent a few minutes playing a neurology history game called Time is Brain that I developed with Zach London of the University of Michigan. (It’s fun, even if you know nothing about the history of neurology, and you can print and play it for free at https://www.neurdgames.com/playground).
QUESTION | What are some examples of topics that you envision being discussed at future meetings?
The History SIG meetings – in person or online – will be the perfect place to present short topics in neurology history that people find interesting! This setting doesn’t require original historical research or diving into archives (although, of course, it’s always encouraged), so it’s really open. You can present on Charcot, measles, an artwork, or Isabelle Rapin; you could interview former CNS President Ann Tilton or tell us about an individual from your country or institution. There are lots of options, and we have the freedom to be creative.
I would love to keep discussing creative ways to discover and share information about history, as well. I’m really excited to see what we can come up with together.