From: Salon
Telling neuroscientists to stop criticizing a big government research project is not how science should be done
(Credit: Viktoriya via Shutterstock)
If
only we had access to technology that would allow us to accurately map
all the brain activity going on at a single moment inside the skull of a
particular human. Such technology would allow us to conduct some fun
and instructive neuroscience experiments. For example, we could compare
the changes in synaptic action in the brains of neuroscientists before
and after they read a letter sent April 12 by Larry Swanson,
the president of the Society for Neuroscience, to all 42,000 members of
his association. (Hat tip to science writer extraordinaire, Ed Yong, for the news.)
BEFORE: Your everyday snapshot of the neurochemical and electrical activity in the brain of a scientist going about her or his normal business. Incredibly complicated, yes, but nothing particularly out of the ordinary.
AFTER: All hell breaks loose! We’ve got damage reports pouring in from every sector, captain!
In his letter, Swanson addressed the vigorous debate that has taken place among neuroscientists since President Obama recently unveiled his BRAIN initiative, a plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year for ten years on research that would develop technologies that could “uncover new ways to treat, prevent, and cure brain disorders like Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, autism, epilepsy, and traumatic brain injury.” (Such technologies might include, for example, ways to comprehensively map brain activity!) The news has sparked a ton of commentary. Discussants questioned the project’s goals, funding structure, marketing, and basic theoretical feasibility. And like good scientists will, they also criticize each other’s criticisms.
But in Swanson’s view, the debate was a little too vigorous.
BEFORE: Your everyday snapshot of the neurochemical and electrical activity in the brain of a scientist going about her or his normal business. Incredibly complicated, yes, but nothing particularly out of the ordinary.
AFTER: All hell breaks loose! We’ve got damage reports pouring in from every sector, captain!
In his letter, Swanson addressed the vigorous debate that has taken place among neuroscientists since President Obama recently unveiled his BRAIN initiative, a plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year for ten years on research that would develop technologies that could “uncover new ways to treat, prevent, and cure brain disorders like Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, autism, epilepsy, and traumatic brain injury.” (Such technologies might include, for example, ways to comprehensively map brain activity!) The news has sparked a ton of commentary. Discussants questioned the project’s goals, funding structure, marketing, and basic theoretical feasibility. And like good scientists will, they also criticize each other’s criticisms.
But in Swanson’s view, the debate was a little too vigorous.
While we should all continue to explore and discuss questions about the scientific direction, it is important that our community be perceived as positive about the incredible opportunity represented in the President’s announcement. If we are perceived as unreasonably negative or critical about initial details, we risk smothering the initiative before it gets started.
No comments:
Post a Comment