The Obama administration is planning a decade-long scientific effort to examine the workings of the human brain and build a comprehensive map of its activity, seeking to do for the brain what the Human Genome Project did for genetics.
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.
Obuma should be the first volunteer to have his brain thoughly examined. Its definately messed up. We need to find out where the 'wires got crossed' so we will never have a repeat....
IP: Logged
05:55 PM
Rickady88GT Member
Posts: 10648 From: Central CA Registered: Dec 2002
I hate when government interferes with private business. Other people are already doing this--will their work now be undermined? Will they get full funding for the research they did independent of the government project?
I just wish this (and the human genome project) would have just been left to private business.
Oh well, I do hope it yields a strong positive result, and do believe it will overall. I am concerned about many things, but have to look at the bright side in our current system of government.
IP: Logged
06:29 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 23638 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
2. "Obama's Next Step In His Plan To Rule The World.....All Your Minds Are Belong To Us!"
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Why would you say this? Do you actually believe it, or are you trying to cause political discourse?
If you read the attached link, you would see that No. 1 is The New York Times title to the article they wrote & I posted. The story and it's title is thiers, not mine. No. 2 was of my own making, and was a comedic parody of all the conspiracy theories regarding everything Obama, and I am quite sure I made that very obvious (i.e. "All Your Minds Are Belong To Us!").
The question is, how come you don't call others out & accuse them of trying to cause political discourse when they post ridiculous Obama stuff?
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 02-19-2013).]
If he were a true leader, he would lead by example and donate his brain to science today...right now before he can do more dam...err. cause more wear on his brain. Additionally, by the way he has been running things, his brain would be perfect because it is damn near unused so should be in great condition.
The question is, how come you don't call others out & accuse them of trying to cause political discourse when they post ridiculous Obama stuff?
Hmm.. I think you could make that assumption, but he only asked a question. I wouldn't assume he was accusing you of anything. We all know how assumptions go.
IP: Logged
01:48 PM
PFF
System Bot
2.5 Member
Posts: 43231 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Our government? I think I would be less concerned if Bill Gates, or even Donald Trump was heading this up. I can only wonder if the reason for it is the percentage of violent crimes perpetrated by the "mentally ill". (see guncontrol debate) Also I can only hope and pray whatever "findings" come about are not abused.
quote
Originally posted by theBDub:
I just wish this (and the human genome project) would have just been left to private business.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 02-19-2013).]
IP: Logged
02:34 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43231 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
"Study of human response, which includes how wide the eyes open in the reception of colors and design, facial expressions when introduced to new concepts in packaging, words that denote positive or negative reactions, is utilized to introduce new products or to stimulate interest in old ones. It is used by medical and psychiatric hospitals to put patients at ease and by hotels and restaurants to give a pleasurable atmosphere to their customers. This knowledge is also used by the media for publicizing public figures. They choose the camera angles, edit the script, package the figure they wish to promote or invalidate. ... Nobody wants to feel their minds are being controlled, but it happens all around us, all the time. The world we see is highly illusionary and filled with intent to sell us on products, services, public figures and political agendas. Emotive language is carefully measured to give us emotional responses. Our vision is saturated with stimulating images, while our minds are chemically suppressed with addictive drugs, from over the counter medicines to our favorite soda pop. The goal of these mind control mechanisms is an automated society that consumes and responds favorably to commercialized propaganda, without question, without analysis, without receiving all the correct information. "
If you read the attached link, you would see that No. 1 is The New York Times title to the article they wrote & I posted. The story and it's title is thiers, not mine. No. 2 was of my own making, and was a comedic parody of all the conspiracy theories regarding everything Obama, and I am quite sure I made that very obvious (i.e. "All Your Minds Are Belong To Us!").
The question is, how come you don't call others out & accuse them of trying to cause political discourse when they post ridiculous Obama stuff?
Perhaps because "most" others aren't as intentionally as vague as you seem to be? Do (you) see many others having these type problems? Have you figured out why yet?
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-19-2013).]
IP: Logged
04:09 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Perhaps because "most" others aren't as intentionally as vague as you seem to be? Do (you) see many others having these type problems? Have you figured out why yet?
Ummmm, I post an article and the link to the article. And wrote my own thread title. Why do those things require an explaination? They don't.
So, exactly what was I "intentionally vague" about? Can you answer that question?
I mean, because I didn't post anything other then the article & the link. Those are the only 2 things I posted. I made no personal commentary at all. So I ask again, what was I intentionally vague about?
Listen, we all know the only ones who have problems like this with what I post are just the same old instigators. Any little thing they can find, no mater how silly, to needle, poke, & jab. With no real proof of anything other then their silly claim that "I don't stand for anything", which they think somehow entitles them to assign me a "stand".
But it's easy to see their true intent. When they take it upon themselves to assign me a side, they never assign me to their side. It's ALWAYS the opposing side. I wonder why that is?
And to prove it, I don't see anyone else taking flack for their absolutely ridiculous Obama titles. Because THAT'S what this is about, right? My title? It has to be, because it's the only thing in that post that are my own words.
And anyone that could not see that my thread title (not the article title, as that was not mine) was in humor, has bigger problems then my thread title. But we already knew that, didn't we?
IP: Logged
04:59 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43231 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
..Listen, we all know the only ones who have problems like this with what I post are just the same old instigators. ..
I dont see it this way, but it could be seen this way: Perhaps your post could be seen as instigating something, yet yourself sitting outside the fire. Some people may resent that, or maybe resent isnt the right word. But it could be likened to stirring the pot maybe? LIke stirring it and then disappearing into the bushes to watch, then maybe poking the fire below the pot every once in a while. Possibly making fun of certain opinions. Again it could be seen this way, I am not saying you are doing this, intentionally or not.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 02-19-2013).]
IP: Logged
05:25 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
I dont see it this way, but it could be seen this way: Perhaps your post could be seen as instigating something, yet yourself sitting outside the fire. Some people may resent that, or maybe resent isnt the right word. But it could be likened to stirring the pot maybe? LIke stirring it and then disappearing into the bushes to watch, then maybe poking the fire below the pot every once in a while. Possibly making fun of certain opinions. Again it could be seen this way, I am not saying you are doing this, intentionally or not.
Well, atleast that accusation would make some sense. Although, forcing others to respond would seem to be the flaw in that reasoning, as I am not asking a question or making accusations. Or even asking for any comment from anyone at all. It would seem the solution to what you suggest would be as simple as not opening ANYTHING started by "Boondawg".
In the past I have also been asked if my threads were designed to entice others into exposing their hypocracy. Or just traps to expose how simple minded, biggoted, or racist they are.
And although all of those results have unintentionaly happened, those people give my mental ability WAY more credit then it deserves. I am not that complicated, forward-thinking, or clandestine at all.
I cannot help what people CHOOSE to read INTO my posts. I say choose, because they never read anything good into it, do they? It's always interpeted in a way that creates a target for them to aim at.
Which just goes to show they are no more complicated then I am.
IP: Logged
06:04 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 23638 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Well, atleast that accusation would make some sense. Although, forcing others to respond would seem to be the flaw in that reasoning, as I am not asking a question or making accusations. Or even asking for any comment from anyone at all. It would seem the solution to what you suggest would be as simple as not opening ANYTHING started by "Boondawg".
In the past I have also been asked if my threads were designed to entice others into exposing their hypocracy. Or just traps to expose how simple minded, biggoted, or racist they are.
And although all of those results have unintentionaly happened, those people give my mental ability WAY more credit then it deserves. I am not that complicated, forward-thinking, or clandestine at all.
I cannot help what people CHOOSE to read INTO my posts. I say choose, because they never read anything good into it, do they? It's always interpeted in a way that creates a target for them to aim at.
Which just goes to show they are no more complicated then I am.
In the past I have also been asked if my threads were designed to entice others into exposing their hypocracy. Or just traps to expose how simple minded, biggoted, or racist they are.
And although all of those results have unintentionaly happened, those people give my mental ability WAY more credit then it deserves..
Yeah you have a way of "flushing the chumps" every time you post... oh.. maybe I should not have said anything, that makes me a... D'OH!
On a serious note, it is nice to see someone, anyone, out there who can look at a situation from more than one point of view and voice opinions about it after examining it that way. No, you are no rocket-scientist, but you are thoughtful.
IP: Logged
06:11 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
I don't go looking for them, they come looking for me. But it was nice of you to give an example of exactly what I was talking about.
Maybe you can explaine to everyone why you felt it nessisary to call me a bastard?
I thought it was a condescending term that meant "poor" like "Poor Boonie.." I mean, its STILL condescension, which you should expect.. but I don't think it describes your parents as not being married when you were conceived.
IP: Logged
06:31 PM
PFF
System Bot
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 23638 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
I don't go looking for them, they come looking for me. But it was nice of you to give an example of exactly what I was talking about.
Maybe you can explaine to everyone why you felt it nessisary to call me a bastard?
Hahahaha....
It means "poor little thing" (masculine). I debated whether or not to use the feminine, but I wasn't trying to be too mean.
You're thread just read like "woa is me, I'm misunderstood..." so I said "Pobrecito."
Hahahah... "bastard"
and TBone, I used it in a condescending way, but the word is not inherently condescending by nature. It literally means "poor little thing"... it's something a grandma says to her grandchild when he skins his knee...
IP: Logged
06:50 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
I thought it was a condescending term that meant "poor" like "Poor Boonie.." I mean, its STILL condescension, which you should expect.. but I don't think it describes your parents as not being married when you were conceived.
The definition I saw was "poor little bastard". And I still question his intent. Was I condescending to him, or did I call him a name?
Not asking you, ofcourse, just wondering what I'm missing here....
IP: Logged
08:41 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
