logo

English
                 

The Trouble with Brain Science
 
Gary Marcus, NYT, July 11, 2014

ARE we ever going to figure out how the brain works?
After decades of research, diseases like schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s still resist treatment.
Despite countless investigations into serotonin and other neurotransmitters, there is still no method to cure clinical depression.
And for all the excitement about brain-imaging techniques, the limitations of fMRI studies are, as evidenced by popular books like “Brainwashed” and “Neuromania,” by now well known.

In spite of the many remarkable advances in neuroscience, you might get the sinking feeling that we are not always going about brain science in the best possible way.
This feeling was given prominent public expression on Monday, when hundreds of neuroscientists from all over the world issued an indignant open letter to the European Commission, which is funding the Human Brain Project, an approximately $1.6 billion effort that aims to build a complete computer simulation of the human brain.

The letter charges that the project is “overly narrow” in approach and not “well conceived.”
While no neuroscientist doubts that a faithful-to-life brain simulation would ultimately be tremendously useful, some have called the project “radically premature.”
The controversy serves as a reminder that we scientists are not only far from a comprehensive explanation of how the brain works; we’re also not even in agreement about the best way to study it, or what questions we should be asking.

The European Commission, like the Obama administration, which is promoting a large-scale research enterprise called the Brain Initiative, is investing heavily in neuroscience, and rightly so.
(A set of new tools such as optogenetics, which allows neuroscientists to control the activity of individual neurons, gives considerable reason for optimism.)
But neither project has grappled sufficiently with a critical question that is too often ignored in the field: What would a good theory of the brain actually look like?

Different kinds of sciences call for different kinds of theories.
Physicists, for example, are searching for a “grand unified theory” that integrates gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces into a neat package of equations.
Whether or not they will get there, they have made considerable progress, in part because they know what they are looking for.

Biologists — neuroscientists included — can’t hope for that kind of theory.
Biology isn’t elegant the way physics appears to be.
The living world is bursting with variety and unpredictable complexity, because biology is the product of historical accidents, with species solving problems based on happenstance that leads them down one evolutionary road rather than another.
No overarching theory of neuroscience could predict, for example, that the cerebellum (which is involved in timing and motor control) would have vastly more neurons than the prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain most associated with our advanced intelligence).

But biological complexity is only part of the challenge in figuring out what kind of theory of the brain we’re seeking.
What we are really looking for is a bridge, some way of connecting two separate scientific languages — those of neuroscience and psychology.
Such bridges don’t come easily or often, maybe once in a generation, but when they do arrive, they can change everything.

An example is the discovery of DNA, which allowed us to understand how genetic information could be represented and replicated in a physical structure. In one stroke, this bridge transformed biology from a mystery — in which the physical basis of life was almost entirely unknown — into a tractable if challenging set of problems, such as sequencing genes, working out the proteins that they encode and discerning the circumstances that govern their distribution in the body.

Neuroscience awaits a similar breakthrough.
We know that there must be some lawful relation between assemblies of neurons and the elements of thought, but we are currently at a loss to describe those laws.
We don’t know, for example, whether our memories for individual words inhere in individual neurons or in sets of neurons, or in what way sets of neurons might underwrite our memories for words, if in fact they do.

The problem with both of the big brain projects is that too few of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent are devoted to spanning this conceptual chasm.

Both projects are making important contributions:
the European effort is helping build infrastructure for data integration;
the American project is emphasizing the development of state-of-the-art tools for collecting new kinds of data.

But as anyone in a field richer in data than theory (like weather forecasting) can tell you, amassing data is only a start. The success of both the Human Brain Project and the Brain Initiative will ultimately rest not just on the data to be collected but also on what can be done with those data once they are collected. On that, too little has been said.
Gary Marcus, a professor of psychology at New York University, is an editor of the forthcoming book
“The Future of the Brain: Essays by the World’s Leading Neuroscientists.”

No. Subject Date Author Last Update Views
Notice How to write your comments onto a webpage [2] 2016.07.06 운영자 2016.11.20 17771
Notice How to Upload Pictures in webpages 2016.07.06 운영자 2018.10.19 31855
Notice How to use Rich Text Editor [3] 2016.06.28 운영자 2018.10.19 5498
Notice How to Write a Webpage 2016.06.28 운영자 2020.12.23 43427
83 허준이 수학 필즈상 수상 [1] 2022.07.05 온기철*71 2022.07.08 79
82 Joe Biden이 한국을 처음으로 방문, 삼성전자를 찾은 이유? [2] 2022.05.31 운영자 2022.06.01 61
81 Trump's Evil Power is waning in Georgia !! [1] 2022.05.25 운영자 2022.05.27 84
80 Will H replace C? [2] 2022.04.22 온기철*71 2022.04.23 90
79 Can white paint save the earth from global warming? [1] 2021.10.18 온기철*71 2021.10.31 167
78 Lecture on COVID-19 Vaccine Making & Current Issues, etc. by CY Kang [8] 2021.06.23 이한중*65 2021.06.28 1229
77 코로나 실험실에서 만들어 졌다. [7] 2021.05.30 온기철*71 2021.06.01 107
76 Neutrophils may lead to cell aging [3] 2021.04.11 이한중*65 2021.04.11 197
75 mRNA, Next Frontier of Medicine [2] 2021.02.11 이한중*65 2021.02.12 111
74 한국의 근현대 천문학자 [2] file 2021.01.16 최광택*70 2021.01.20 136
73 엔셀라두스 와 유로파 (바다가 있다) [1] 2020.12.26 최광택*70 2020.12.27 82
72 목성과 토성 [5] file 2020.12.23 최광택*70 2020.12.27 284
71 Einstein’s Quantum Riddle 2020.12.20 온기철*71 2020.12.20 79
70 For the first time Nutrinos detected 2020.11.25 이한중*65 2020.11.25 98
69 What Did Newton Actuality Discover in Quarantine? [2] 2020.10.18 이한중*65 2020.10.19 3737
68 The Nobel Prize in Physics 2020 [3] 2020.10.06 이한중*65 2020.10.06 57
67 Dark Matter Questions [5] 2020.06.23 이한중*65 2020.06.25 367
66 What is the Big Bang? [1] 2020.06.12 이한중*65 2020.06.13 151
65 핵폭탄, 핵잠수함 - 놀랍게 가까운 한국의 기술-능력 [4] 2020.05.25 운영자 2020.05.26 614
64 Square Kilometre Array [3] 2020.05.20 이한중*65 2020.05.21 108