NY Times headline: "President Plans Decade-Long Effort to Map Human Brain"

  • Edit/rename discussion
  • Make sticky
  • Archive discussion
  • Move discussion
  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    NY Times headline: "President Plans Decade-Long Effort to Map Human Brain"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/science/project-seeks-to-build-map-of-human-brain.html?hp

    Wow...and I thought the multi-talented Obama was off playing golf with Tiger Woods!

    The Times headlines will never use Obama's name in relation to any story on the crappy economy, but hey, Obama is going to study the brain, what a genius.

    It is science, of course, so we dumb rube conservatives better not object to it! The government bureaucrats may well study the conservative brain and decide surgery is warranted in every case...

    "The project, which could ultimately cost billions of dollars, is expected to be part of the president’s budget proposal next month. And, four scientists and representatives of research institutions said they had participated in planning for what is being called the Brain Activity Map project."

    "The details are not final, and it is not clear how much federal money would be proposed or approved for the project in a time of fiscal constraint or how far the research would be able to get without significant federal financing. "

    "The initiative, if successful, could provide a lift for the economy.." Yeah, the poor sucker working hard at Wal Mart can expect a new job mapping the brain any day now.

    Can we study the liberal brain and determine why spending billions we dont have stimulates their nerve cells to irrational levels?

    The successful Human Genome Project had a specific and attainable goal , which was achieved...what is the specific measure of success or failure, for 'mapping the brain"? We await the big brains of liberal bureaucrats to enlighten us dummies.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Re: NY Times headline:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    what is the specific measure of success or failure, for 'mapping the brain"?


    Well, I think the first measure is that they don't use yours.

    For those interested by the concept but not in the mood for listening to CLC bescumber at liberals....

     

    ______________________________________________________________

     

    The project, which the administration has been looking to unveil as early as March, will include federal agencies, private foundations and teams of neuroscientists and nanoscientists in a concerted effort to advance the knowledge of the brain’s billions of neurons and gain greater insights into perception, actions and, ultimately, consciousness.

    Scientists with the highest hopes for the project also see it as a way to develop the technology essential to understanding diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, as well as to find new therapies for a variety of mental illnesses.

    Moreover, the project holds the potential of paving the way for advances in artificial intelligence.

    The project, which could ultimately cost billions of dollars, is expected to be part of the president’s budget proposal next month. And, four scientists and representatives of research institutions said they had participated in planning for what is being called the Brain Activity Map project.

    The details are not final, and it is not clear how much federal money would be proposed or approved for the project in a time of fiscal constraint or how far the research would be able to get without significant federal financing.

    In his State of the Union address, President Obama cited brain research as an example of how the government should “invest in the best ideas.”

    “Every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 to our economy — every dollar,” he said. “Today our scientists are mapping the human brain to unlock the answers to Alzheimer’s. They’re developing drugs to regenerate damaged organs, devising new materials to make batteries 10 times more powerful. Now is not the time to gut these job-creating investments in science and innovation.”

    Story C. Landis, the director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, said that when she heard Mr. Obama’s speech, she thought he was referring to an existing National Institutes of Health project to map the static human brain. “But he wasn’t,” she said. “He was referring to a new project to map the active human brain that the N.I.H. hopes to fund next year.”

    Indeed, after the speech, Francis S. Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, may have inadvertently confirmed the plan when he wrote in a Twitter message: “Obama mentions the #NIH Brain Activity Map in #SOTU.”

    A spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy declined to comment about the project.

    The initiative, if successful, could provide a lift for the economy. “The Human Genome Project was on the order of about $300 million a year for a decade,” said George M. Church, a Harvard University molecular biologist who helped create that project and said he was helping to plan the Brain Activity Map project. “If you look at the total spending in neuroscience and nanoscience that might be relative to this today, we are already spending more than that. We probably won’t spend less money, but we will probably get a lot more bang for the buck.”

    Scientists involved in the planning said they hoped that federal financing for the project would be more than $300 million a year, which if approved by Congress would amount to at least $3 billion over the 10 years.

    The Human Genome Project cost $3.8 billion. It was begun in 1990 and its goal, the mapping of the complete human genome, or all the genes in human DNA, was achieved ahead of schedule, in April 2003. A federal government study of the impact of the project indicated that it returned $800 billion by 2010.

    The advent of new technology that allows scientists to identify firing neurons in the brain has led to numerous brain research projects around the world. Yet the brain remains one of the greatest scientific mysteries.

    Composed of roughly 100 billion neurons that each electrically “spike” in response to outside stimuli, as well as in vast ensembles based on conscious and unconscious activity, the human brain is so complex that scientists have not yet found a way to record the activity of more than a small number of neurons at once, and in most cases that is done invasively with physical probes.

    But a group of nanotechnologists and neuroscientists say they believe that technologies are at hand to make it possible to observe and gain a more complete understanding of the brain, and to do it less intrusively.

    In June in the journal Neuron, six leading scientists proposed pursuing a number of new approaches for mapping the brain.

    One possibility is to build a complete model map of brain activity by creating fleets of molecule-size machines to noninvasively act as sensors to measure and store brain activity at the cellular level. The proposal envisions using synthetic DNA as a storage mechanism for brain activity.

    “Not least, we might expect novel understanding and therapies for diseases such as schizophrenia and autism,” wrote the scientists, who include Dr. Church; Ralph J. Greenspan, the associate director of the Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind at the University of California, San Diego; A. Paul Alivisatos, the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Miyoung Chun, a molecular geneticist who is the vice president for science programs at the Kavli Foundation; Michael L. Roukes, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology; and Rafael Yuste, a neuroscientist at Columbia University.

     

    The Obama initiative is markedly different from a recently announced European project that will invest 1 billion euros in a Swiss-led effort to build a silicon-based “brain.” The project seeks to construct a supercomputer simulation using the best research about the inner workings of the brain.

    Critics, however, say the simulation will be built on knowledge that is still theoretical, incomplete or inaccurate.

    The Obama proposal seems to have evolved in a manner similar to the Human Genome Project, scientists said. “The genome project arguably began in 1984, where there were a dozen of us who were kind of independently moving in that direction but didn’t really realize there were other people who were as weird as we were,” Dr. Church said.

    However, a number of scientists said that mapping and understanding the human brain presented a drastically more significant challenge than mapping the genome.

    “It’s different in that the nature of the question is a much more intricate question,” said Dr. Greenspan, who said he is involved in the brain project. “It was very easy to define what the genome project’s goal was. In this case, we have a more difficult and fascinating question of what are brainwide activity patterns and ultimately how do they make things happen?”

    The initiative will be organized by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, according to scientists who have participated in planning meetings.

    The National Institutes of Health, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation will also participate in the project, the scientists said, as will private foundations like the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Chevy Chase, Md., and the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle.

    A meeting held on Jan. 17 at the California Institute of Technology was attended by the three government agencies, as well as neuroscientists, nanoscientists and representatives from Google, Microsoft and Qualcomm. According to a summary of the meeting, it was held to determine whether computing facilities existed to capture and analyze the vast amounts of data that would come from the project. The scientists and technologists concluded that they did.

    They also said that a series of national brain “observatories” should be created as part of the project, like astronomical observatories.

     

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/science/project-seeks-to-build-map-of-human-brain.html?pagewanted=2&hp&_r=0

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: NY Times headline:

    Certainly not a waste of money if, managed properly. I would rather see the govt do these types of studes as opposed to spending 10's of millions on the ecology of certain amphibians.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY Times headline:

    Certainly not wha the founding fathers intended as a government activity.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Re: NY Times headline:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    It is science, of course, so we dumb rube conservatives better not object to it!


    Unlike picking specific companies, this is general basic research into a relatively new and growing area.

    This is exactly the type of science government should fund!

    Like the giant collider that was canceled.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY Times headline:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    It is science, of course, so we dumb rube conservatives better not object to it!



    Unlike picking specific companies, this is general basic research into a relatively new and growing area.

     

    This is exactly the type of science government should fund!

    Like the giant collider that was canceled.



    Why should the federal government fund it, particularly considering there is no amendment or enumeration that you can point to that allows it?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: NY Times headline:

    Just wait until we are all required to get our brains mapped when we go in to get our drivers licenses renewed.  The government will have a map of our brains and know what we are going to think before we do.  The government under Obama's Executive order will invoke proactive incarceration in order to lower the crime rate and make the need to document gun owenership unnecessary.

    This msg brought to you by the tinfoil hat society.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: NY Times headline:

    "Yet the brain remains one of the greatest scientific mysteries."

    I would support $20 billion to study airborne ranger's brain...

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: NY Times headline:

    Wow...and I thought the multi-talented Obama was off playing golf with Tiger Woods!

     

    Wow, and here I thought that Obama was "focused on the economy like a laser." I guess his laser like focus tends to wander occasionally (I'm picturing the eye of Sauron here.) I wonder if he thinks that spending money on brain research is authorized by 57th amendment to the constitution or something.


    And librul. Just because I like saying it.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: NY Times headline:

    I would support $20 billion to study airborne ranger's brain...

     

    Tweezers and a microscope would hardly be worth $20b...

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Re: NY Times headline:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    I wonder if he thinks that spending money on brain research is authorized by 57th amendment to the constitution or something

     

    Yeah, uh, the founders didn't draft the Constitution like an appropriations bill.

    Have any of you conservatives actually.....    read any history? And I don't mean watching The History Channel or O'Reilly.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: NY Times headline:

    "Have any of you conservatives actually..... read any history? And I don't mean watching The History Channel or O'Reilly"

    Is that a rhetorical question, or just reinforcing your liberal smug prejudices about how smaat progressives are?

    Yes, I have read dozens of books on American history, and am a published author on the subject,  thanks for asking...

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Re: NY Times headline:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Is that a rhetorical question


    It could be, but no.

    The founders realized they were planning for a long future and also realized that it would be simply unworkable to ennumerate in extreme detail the specific types of things the government could and couldn't do.

    They also realized they couldn't see the future, including brain scanning. They realized that if an amendment had to be passed specifically authorizing federal government to meet each and every new contingency they failed to put in.

    They also had only so much paper.

     

     

    So, they drafted a constitution with broad grants of power, and narrow limitations on that power.

    The Supreme Court said as much in cases decided while most of the founders were still around to object. They didn't.

     

     

     

    Asking what portion of the constitution provides for brain scan research belies extreme ignorance about the fundamentals our system.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY Times headline:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    I wonder if he thinks that spending money on brain research is authorized by 57th amendment to the constitution or something

     

     

    Yeah, uh, the founders didn't draft the Constitution like an appropriations bill.

    Have any of you conservatives actually.....    read any history? And I don't mean watching The History Channel or O'Reilly.



    Obviously we study history more than you, because, 9f you did, you would know that constitutionally, the only "science" that the federal government is allowed to fund is that which directly relates to an enumerated power.

    That we violate the cosntitution in this regard does not make it right.

     

LOG IN TO COMMENT

Already registered? Just log in:
E-mail:
Password:

Forgot your password?

Please note, if you've previously registered with Facebook on Boston.com, for security reasons, you will be required to create a Boston.com password to access the area of the site. Please click here to create your password.
Not registered? Signing up is easy:
Please take a minute to register. After you register and pick a screen name, you can publish your comments everywhere on the site. Posting Policy .