The attraction of brain mapping owes much to an obsolete scientific paradigm. Why is this mapping initiative more important than other possible initiatives? Is it more important than finding a cure for AIDS? More relevant than beating cancer in all its manifestations? Although the notion of mapping everything going on in the brain has curb appeal, such an open-ended endeavor calls for at least some solid evidence that it is likely to produce substantive changes in disease outcome, understanding of diseases and better public health for the nation.Ī deep problem hampering this discussion is the near-universal lack of awareness about the limited, historically determined, very probably transient character of our prevailing assumptions about the relationship between gray matter and brain function. 'For the human brain, what would you need to know to build a simulation? That's a huge research question, and it has to do with what's important to know about the brain.'"Įvery scientist (including me) would love to be able to get a grant without having to specify any goals, hypotheses or endpoints, but is this a realistic way to do science? 'It's not like the Human Genome Project, where you just have to read out a few billion base pairs and you're done,' said Peter Dayan, a neuroscientist at University College London. In an article last month, also in the New York Times, Tim Requarth pointed out: "Other critics say the project is too open-ended - that it makes little sense without clearly defined criteria for success.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2022
Categories |