Politics Logology (science of science)

thomas r. insel

thomas r. insel, director of national institute of mental health, 1 of several agencies organizing u.s. s brain initiative (others include national science foundation , defense advanced research projects agency) says policy-makers , scientists inspired urge expansion of brain research concern spread , cost of mental disorders, combined excitement new brain-manipulation technologies such optogenetics.

the history of european union s human brain project makes instructive case study in mismanagement of big science project. human brain project inspired neuroscientist henry markram s vision of reverse-engineering circuitry of human brain. in 2009 ted talk, first presented general public vision of mathematically simulating brain s 86 billion neurons , 100 trillion synapses on supercomputer. said done within 10 years , suggested such mathematical model might capable of consciousness. in various talks, interviews , articles, suggested mathematical brain model produce breakthroughs such simulation-driven drug discovery, replacement of kinds of animal experiments, , better understanding of such disorders alzheimer s disease. furthermore, expected simulated brain spin off technology building new, faster computers , create robots cognitive skills , possibly intelligence. many neuroscientists skeptical, vision seemed vindicated in january 2013 when european union awarded him $1.3 billion, spread on 10 years, build simulated brain.

however, human brain project created deep public schism among european neuroscientists, , in less 2 years markram lost position in executive leadership of project. july 2014 open letter attacking project s science , organization gathered on 800 signatures of scientists. in march 2015, signatories threatening boycott of supposed europe-wide collaboration, markram initiated mediation process address critics concerns. committee of 27 scientists reviewed both sides arguments and, except 2 dissenters, largely agreed critics. mediators called massive overhaul of human brain project, including new management structure , change in scientific focus.

stefan theil argues that, dysfunction there has been around [human brain project] s swiss headquarters, ultimate source of problem [...] in brussels. there, @ seat of european commission, executive arm of european union, system of big science funding marries politics scientific objectives, allows little transparency, , exercises insufficient control has enabled mess hbp has become.

if [henry markram] s project of reverse-engineering human brain s circuitry] possible, mainstream neuroscientists say, reengineering brain @ level of detail envisioned [him] tell nothing cognition, memory or emotion—just copying hardware in computer, atom atom, tell little complex software running on it. others accused markram of exaggerating [human brain project] s potential breakthroughs. [...]

despite skepticism in neuroscience community, markram won on people mattered: funders @ european commission, seem have looked less closely @ proposal s scientific feasibility @ potential economic , political payoff. project s genesis politicians wanted european industry catch up, [...] says [christoph ebell], human brain project s executive director]. in 2009, driven fear of falling further behind u.s. in computers, digital services , other technologies, european commission s directorate general communications networds, content , technology began creating competition flagship projects funded @ least 1 billion euros each. industrial policy science, these initiatives enable europe take lead in future , emerging technologies [...]. markram s brain on supercomputer—and promises of achieve neuroscience, medicine, robotics , computer technology—was fit bureaucracy believed 10-year, top-down plan disruptive innovation possible.

because human brain project envisioned showcase project outside usual science-funding process—and because of big budget had justified—politicians, bureaucrats , scientists had strong incentives exaggerate promises.

as human brain project being set in 2013, european commission failed insist on usual checks , balances. according 2015 mediation report, project s governance riddled conflicts of interest. not did markram , 2 other scientists control board of directors, , distribution of funds among consortium of 112 institutions, markram s , several other board members projects beneficiaries of own funding decisions. after neuroscientists july 2014 open letter european commission began mention governmance problems @ human brain project. without neuroscience community s revolt , writes stefan theil in october 2015, not clear organizational changes @ hbp happening now.

the u.s. s brain initiative, announced in april 2013, @ first met similar skepticism had european union s human brain project. instead of proceeding secret panels , confidential reviews european project, u.s. national institute of mental health put initiative on hold, named panel of 15 leading brain experts, , let country s brain scientists define project in series of public workshops. year s deliberations produced ambitious interdisciplinary program develop new technological tools enable researchers better monitor, measure , stimulate brain.

the key difference between european union s human brain project , u.s. s brain initiative latter not depend on single scientific vision. instead, many teams compete grants , lead innovation different, unplanned directions. competition happening via u.s. national institute of mental health s peer-review process, prevents conflicts of interest plagued european human brain project s decision-making. peer review not perfect; tends favor known scientific paradigms. brain initiative s more competitive , transparent decision making , writes stefan theil, far removed political black box in brussels produced [human brain project].

the [u.s.] brain initiative has chance of succeeding because despite packaging moon shot-style megaproject, not big science model of distributed innovation under central funding umbrella, rules encourage collaboration. initiative s megaproject label is, perhaps, clever pr raise funds , galvanize support. when talk members of congress, want know new idea is, insel [director of national institute of mental health] says. don t want spend money on more of same. media coverage flocks big new ideas. result big science project—or 1 packaged such—is easier sell politicians, constituents , journalists. there zeitgeist of big science being more effective, says zachary mainen, head of systems neuroscience @ lisbon-based champalimaud foundation , co-organizer of [july 2014] open letter against [human brain project]. doesn t mean have eliminate competition.