Brain Project Draws Presidential Interest
20/02/13 16:14 Filed in: sciencemag.com
Submitted by Steven Pelech on Wed, 02/20/2013
I imagine that 10 years from now, the Brain Activity Map Project proponents and the organizations that fund the project will claim that all of the medical and scientific breakthroughs in neurobiology during the decade were a direct or indirect consequence of the funding of this specific project – much as been inappropriately claimed with the Human Genome Project and to a much lesser extent with its follow up, the ENCODE Project.
The Brain Activity Map proposal in the 2011 white paper “The Whole Brain Activity Map: Merging Nanoscience and Neuroscience for Technology and Health” and the follow on 2012 Neuron paper “The Brain Activity Map Project and the Challenge of Functional Connectomics” provide a longer term vision that is equally fanciful and frightening. It essentially describes the creation of nanobots that will ultimately monitor and regulate neuronal activities in brains. While this might, if successful, have potential neurological disease applications, it would indubitably be used much more widely, including for more sinister aims.
There is a huge litany of issues ranging from technical, economic and practical to profound ethical considerations associated with such a proposal. One of my chief concerns are that fruitful research along different lines, such as the promising use of stem cell technology or molecular pharmacology, to treat neurological disorders, will be compromised with a major effort that is fixated on mapping neuronal connections that in the end may not really be able to rectify the pathological processes that underlie the most common brain and spinal cord diseases. In the vast majority of these illnesses, it is the destruction of neurons and other supporting brain cells that leads to loss of brain function. Neuroscience researchers will be diverted from engaging in more timely and practical directions as they will be forced to follow the money if they wish to receive any significant financial support.
My other primary concern relates to the plasticity of the human brain itself. While each muscle in the human body is ultimately controlled by a single neuron, and the brain is organized into distinct subregions linked with particular motor control and cognitive functions, there does not appear to be a requirement of specific neuronal interactions at the cellular level. The number of neural connections in the adult human brain is in the order of 100 to 500 trillion. Each neuron has on average about a thousand direct links to the synapses of other neurons. The true value of mapping this to such a high level of precision is dubious and only a generalized map can be produced ultimately. Vast variations with the individual differences in the connectivities of nervous systems amongst people will significantly undermine the value of any generalized map. Such differences arise, because personal genomics and different environments have a huge impact on brain development and fine structure. As a very plastic organ, whole regions of the brain can wane and expand depending on, for example, the sensory inputs, nutrition and exposure to toxic substances. Overall, it seems to be a highly ill conceived project.
Link to the original blog post
I imagine that 10 years from now, the Brain Activity Map Project proponents and the organizations that fund the project will claim that all of the medical and scientific breakthroughs in neurobiology during the decade were a direct or indirect consequence of the funding of this specific project – much as been inappropriately claimed with the Human Genome Project and to a much lesser extent with its follow up, the ENCODE Project.
The Brain Activity Map proposal in the 2011 white paper “The Whole Brain Activity Map: Merging Nanoscience and Neuroscience for Technology and Health” and the follow on 2012 Neuron paper “The Brain Activity Map Project and the Challenge of Functional Connectomics” provide a longer term vision that is equally fanciful and frightening. It essentially describes the creation of nanobots that will ultimately monitor and regulate neuronal activities in brains. While this might, if successful, have potential neurological disease applications, it would indubitably be used much more widely, including for more sinister aims.
There is a huge litany of issues ranging from technical, economic and practical to profound ethical considerations associated with such a proposal. One of my chief concerns are that fruitful research along different lines, such as the promising use of stem cell technology or molecular pharmacology, to treat neurological disorders, will be compromised with a major effort that is fixated on mapping neuronal connections that in the end may not really be able to rectify the pathological processes that underlie the most common brain and spinal cord diseases. In the vast majority of these illnesses, it is the destruction of neurons and other supporting brain cells that leads to loss of brain function. Neuroscience researchers will be diverted from engaging in more timely and practical directions as they will be forced to follow the money if they wish to receive any significant financial support.
My other primary concern relates to the plasticity of the human brain itself. While each muscle in the human body is ultimately controlled by a single neuron, and the brain is organized into distinct subregions linked with particular motor control and cognitive functions, there does not appear to be a requirement of specific neuronal interactions at the cellular level. The number of neural connections in the adult human brain is in the order of 100 to 500 trillion. Each neuron has on average about a thousand direct links to the synapses of other neurons. The true value of mapping this to such a high level of precision is dubious and only a generalized map can be produced ultimately. Vast variations with the individual differences in the connectivities of nervous systems amongst people will significantly undermine the value of any generalized map. Such differences arise, because personal genomics and different environments have a huge impact on brain development and fine structure. As a very plastic organ, whole regions of the brain can wane and expand depending on, for example, the sensory inputs, nutrition and exposure to toxic substances. Overall, it seems to be a highly ill conceived project.
Link to the original blog post