• M. C. Shelesnyak
Part of the Perspectives in Neuroendocrine Research book series (PNR, volume 1)


The invitation to submit some “… personal and idiosyncratic accounts of the steps taken and the drive and motivation that led workers like yourself to interest themselves in the relationship between the brain and endocrine system,” was difficult to turn down. Of course, my action immediately reveals an important element in the research worker’s character (shared by most everyone else); namely, seeking self-satisfaction and nuturing one’s ego. My second reaction, however, was curiosity about why I was asked, since direct and straightforward investigations of problems in neuroendocrinology did not cover much of my published work. But thinking about the matter (the invitation was too attractive to refuse, yet I had to demonstrate substantive involvement in the development of neuroendocrinology), I discovered a good deal of work, mostly by indirection and by relationship to some other research problem. Some work was actually by serendipity. Nonetheless, these incursions into areas of neuroendocrinology were not random; they resulted from a philosophical and conceptual approach to research that I have developed over the years.


Brown Trout Estrous Cycle Smithsonian Institution Weizmann Institute Physics Teacher 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barnea, A. (1966). The sympathetic nervous system and reproductive patterns: Analyses of uterine catecholamines during oestrus and progestation. Doctoral thesis, Weizmann Institute. Rehovoth, Israel.Google Scholar
  2. Kisch, E. S. (1967). Analysis of the interruption of progestation in the rat by the ergot alkaloid, ergocornine: A contribution to the understanding of the mechanism of nidation. Doctoral thesis, Weizmann Institute. Rehovoth, Israel.Google Scholar
  3. Rosen, S., M. C. Shelesnyak, and L. R. Zacharias (1940). Naso-genital relationship: II. Pseudopregnancy following extirpation of the sphenopalatine ganglion in the rat. Endocrinology 27: 463–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Shelesnyak, M. C. (1931). The induction of pseudopregnancy in the rat by means of electrical stimulation (1931). Anat. Rec. 49: 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Shelesnyak, M. C. (1954). Ergotoxine inhibition of deciduoma formation and its reversal by progesterone. Am. J. Physiol. 179: 301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Shelesnyak, M. C. (1957). Some experimental studies on the mechanism of ova-implantation in the rat. Ree. Progr. Hormone Res. 13: 269 - 322.Google Scholar
  7. Shelesnyak, M. C. (1963). Interdisciplinary approaches to the endocrinology of reproduction. Pages 231 243 in P. Eckstein and F. Knowles, eds., Techniques in Endocrine Research. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  8. Shelesnyak, M. C. (1964). Exploration of biological bases for fertility control. Proceedings of the II nd International Congress of Endocrinology. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam. P. 1365.Google Scholar
  9. Shelesnyak, M. C. (1966). Biodynamics and the population explosion. Ariel, No. 13: 21. ( A review of the Arts of Sciences in Israel) Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  10. Shelesnyak, M. C., S. Rosen, (1938). Naso-genital relationship: The induction of pseudo- pregnancy in rat by nasal treatment. Endocrinology 23: 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shelesnyak, M. C., S. Rosen, L. R. Zacharias (1940). Naso-genital relationship: III. Some aspects of sexual function in female rats deprived of sphenopalatine ganglia. Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. Med. 45: 449 451.Google Scholar
  12. Varavudhi, P. (1965). Studies on the mechanism of nidation and interrelationship between the CNS, the adenohypophysis and the ovary. Doctoral thesis, Weizmann Institute. Rehovoth, Israel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. C. Shelesnyak
    • 1
  1. 1.Interdisciplinary Communications Program, Office of Assistant Secretary (Science)Smithsonian InstitutionUSA

Personalised recommendations