This is something to do the history and evolution of the neuroscience field. Although glial cells are about 10 times more than that of neurons in the brain, historically they were considered only as supporting cells. However, everyone in the field aware that this is not the case and they play crucial roles due the presence of almost all kinds of receptors. In fact they can also direct neuronal functions.

The fact that the entire field was built on neuron, it is always best to call it as a neuroscience. There are very good books on glial cell biology as big as or even bigger than neuroscience volumes. If you want more information, you can always refer to it! You can learn a lot about glia and astrocytes.

Hypothetically, if we change as you suggested, what are we going to accomplish? Does it solve any pressing issues or unsolved issues in neuroscience?

On an average human adult male is approximately 60% water, by weight. Should we rename, Physiology of Humans to Physiology of Water?

I think that when they move the neuro studies to space, they should call it astro-science. That would be awesome. ;-)

This is something to do the history and evolution of the neuroscience field. Although glial cells are about 10 times more than that of neurons in the brain, historically they were considered only as supporting cells. However, everyone in the field aware that this is not the case and they play crucial roles due the presence of almost all kinds of receptors. In fact they can also direct neuronal functions.

The fact that the entire field was built on neuron, it is always best to call it as a neuroscience. There are very good books on glial cell biology as big as or even bigger than neuroscience volumes. If you want more information, you can always refer to it! You can learn a lot about glia and astrocytes.

Hypothetically, if we change as you suggested, what are we going to accomplish? Does it solve any pressing issues or unsolved issues in neuroscience?

On an average human adult male is approximately 60% water, by weight. Should we rename, Physiology of Humans to Physiology of Water?

Neuroscience is traditional name not only in medical sciences - see. e.g. computational neuroscience. It eeems this name is wide used and accepted. So why change name if it works properly? It seems more important issue may be perceived dividing of neuroscience into particular parts and providing clear classification within this rapidly developing area.

If it's your goal to gain notoriety as the person who coined some new jargon, that seems as good a means as any. Adding to jargon is also a fantastic way to muddle a discussion and make it generally impenetrable. I recently reviewed a manuscript that discussed four cognitive constructs (proposed by different researchers in the existing literature) and spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out if and how they differed. It did not contribute positively towards my enjoyment of the manuscript. Before introducing jargon, I wish people would weigh the benefits of precision against the necessary burden on the reader to digest, differentiate and incorporate the new term.

Glia are important, however, this might be an overly complicated change. I doubt it would be adopted. I am also not entirely sure that the "neuro" in neuroscience refers to neurons per se and not the nervous system. "Neurology" for example, does not need to be changed to "neuroglialology" and if you have an astrocytoma you don't need a gliologist to remove it. That's an amusing suggestion though, that made my morning interesting. Thanks!

.....and there are a number of reasons to redefine neuropathic pain as gliopathic pain....

Neurons without gila cell means:

My Dear friends

Thanks for your contribution.

Please let me know if you are agree with creation a new filed with "glia-science" and named the subfield of this new branch of science if you know.

HI Hossein, I think you didn't get the point of the arguments against your proposal. Please see this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Neuroglia-Bruce-R-Ransom/dp/0199794596/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=1GSNT1E188ZBF6KBFV5N

There could be another 100 other books related to glia.

The way you suggest as if there is nothing out there and you're proposing a new field.

It is not necessary. The field has very well advanced and integrated into mainstream neuroscience.

Just for the fact scientists working in glial cells didn't call themselves as 'glioscientists', doesn't mean that the field doesn't exist!

Please read the comments carefully! There are so many pioneering glial cell biologists that I know. I am sure many would name them!

My dear friend

I have more than 1600 papers about astrocyte and the last book which I study was Glial Neurobiology of Verkhratsky (that's good) and I don't have the book that you mentioned and no access to it. I wish I could. BUT

1- I think many papers repeat a same things and talk general about this topic because of leakage of knowledge. I know the equipment such bi-photon Ca imaging, for study glia are expensive and rear. There is no in Iran (I wish we had).

2- Glia cells especially astrocytes are more complex than neuron and also more more powerful than them (I believe this).

3- There are many many thing unknown about them. I have many questions without answer in my mind for test I ask some questions in this site about them but haven't get proper and exact answers yet.

4- I think glia cells are oppressed cell or strength and mysterious cells. German scientist had called them glia because he had thought that they are glue for neural systems and until recent years scientist have thought that they are just supportive cells and also many scientist now days remind in that stets.

5- There are many neural drug but rear glia drug are used and still many incorrect theories are there about them. for example in some diseases, tray to omit TNF-Alpha but I think it may have major side effect. It may damage learning and memory.

6- What's the problem if we call the man who work in this field 'glioscientists' instead of neurologist or neuro scientist or so on ????!!! ( My friends call me Dr. astrocyte ! Because I always talk about them. That was fun)

I think we should create new branch and work more specific on this like computational neurosis, neurology, Neuroanatomy and so on. Furthermore the student pass some course about this cells instead of neuron. (Usually resident of neurology, Neuroanatomy and so on know less about these cells and focus on neuron)

There are many thing in but usually humane patience for hearing is low.

Hi Hossein, I appreciate your enthusiasm and passion to classify as a separate discipline for glia.

As you know, most glia are derived from ectodermal tissue of the developing embryo, in particular from the 'neural' tube and crest. What if someone makes an argument that since 'neural tube' or 'neural crests' (and not 'glial tube or glial crests') are involved, still it qualifies to be in the neuroscience? What about if some one argues that the glia in the brain is part of central 'nervous' system (as we don't have a central 'glial' system). What about those who work on the neuron-glial communications? How would you call them? Neurobiologist? Giolioscientists? or Neuroglioscientists? Can you see the points? Can you understand the intricacies in such move?

The fact that you have your collection of papers from leading authors or pioneers in glial biology; have you ever discussed your ideas with them as why such idea might be worthwhile? Any paradigm shift must come from the higher up. Not from you and not from me. We are not pioneers. Additionally, any such move should be proposed in a specialty glia conference and a consensus has to be made among the scientists.

I have proposed my own theory on glia, but never published for various reason. But I am no expert or a pioneer. Do you think, those pioneers in glia, didn't thought about it? Why they haven't done so far? Have you thought about it?

Hypothetically, everyone agrees that the name that you suggested 'glioscientists' is the most appropriate way to call scientists in this research domain. How would you call a basic researcher who is focusing on 'spinal cord neurons'? There are tons of information (basic and clinical) on spinal cord. There are lots of research going on in this domain. What if those researchers felt that they are working on neurons, but in spinal cord - not in the brain. If they say, 'Although we do work in the CNS circuitry, we need to be called in a special name'. Would such argument is acceptable to you? Do you think, either they would ask such manner or would you go ahead and grant one if any such requests arise?