Discussion on lecture-1

[Rex Jung]

Gerry:

I noticed in your lecture that you really place a lot of importance on
the brain. Why do you think that this is the key to the castle, so to
speak? Aren't we doing good work by looking at behavior and
thoughts? The brain is so complex, why bother? We will never crack
the neural code: it is hopeless! How do you think that combining
neuroscience and engineering will be anything more than a big
boondoggle (see "Decade of the Brain" and now "Decade of the MIND" at
http://krasnow.gmu.edu/decade.htm) for both (each) to extract money
from the various funding agencies as they have so deftly done in the
past?

Regards and salutations,

Rex

[Carl]

Maybe off topic, but if we are stepping into a discussion of how (big)
science programs that "extract money from the various funding
agencies" set the course of mankind's scientific discovery, we might
want to consider Criag Venter's perspective in his "clumsily written
autobiography" (Publisher's Weekly, as quoted on Amazon's page for _A
Life Decoded: My Genome: My Life_). The Publisher's Weekly blurb
continues..

"Venter offers his side of the story, portraying himself as the
eternal underdog, fighting for truth and attempting to make scientific
discoveries solely to help others. He is opposed in this struggle by a
cadre of scientists out to advance their own careers, by a federal
bureaucracy incapable of rationally using public funds to promote
scientific advances and by the heads of corporations willing to do
almost anything to make money. Venter accuses all of the big players--
the Human Genome Project's Frances Collins and Nobel laureate James
Watson, among many others--of outright dishonesty. Ignore the hyperbole
and be skeptical of the accusations, but there's still a terribly
depressing story about the politics of big science."

It may well be depressing, and we may not go into our labs surrounded
with the government and corporations we want, but MIND/Sandia might
just be able to juxtapose capabilities to "make scientific discoveries
[..] to help others". Lets see if we can lay out a focused plan where
a potent mix of science and engineering can make a real contribution,
and then see about getting the work off the ground. The "big picture"
may have to be a proposal to "crack the neural code", but lets not let
the impossibility of the grand challenge stand in the way of making
those scientific discoveries.

On Jan 25, 5:02 pm, Rex Jung <Rex.J...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gerry:
>
> I noticed in your lecture that you really place a lot of importance on
> the brain. Why do you think that this is the key to the castle, so to
> speak? Aren't we doing good work by looking at behavior and
> thoughts? The brain is so complex, why bother? We will never crack
> the neural code: it is hopeless! How do you think that combining
> neuroscience and engineering will be anything more than a big

> boondoggle (see "Decade of the Brain" and now "Decade of the MIND" athttp://krasnow.gmu.edu/decade.htm) for both (each) to extract money

[Rex Jung]

Carl:

Excellent point - the pursuit of funding will always swerve people off
more noble goals (unfortunately). I do think that there are some
opportunities to be found in bringing together some (un)natural allies
such as Sandia and MIND, perhaps as Venter did in his venture to
unravel the genome.

Perhaps on a related (?) note, I often read Mindhacks
(www.mindhacks.com) and they have an excellent post (Jan 26) on
"Depression, antidepressants and the 'low serotonin' myth", which
highlights the complicity of the media and the pharma industry in
foisting the "chemical imbalance" mythos to sell product. I am not an
advocate of scientology and acknowledge the incredible benefit the
many medications have had for numerous psychiatric disorders, but
can't escape the fact that, among others "for every ten people who
take an SSRI, only one or two people are truly receiving a benefit
from the medication--a fact acknowledged even by the SSRI proponents.
The obvious question is: What about the eight or nine people getting
no benefits from the medication but now put at risk for the
medication's side effects?"

If NeuroSystems Engineering could target treatment to an individual
with greater efficacy and fewer side effects (application) that seems
like a truly noble goal. It also seems like it would generate
enormous profit.

I have posted the full article, Leo & Lacasse (2008) The Media and the
Chemical Imbalance Theory of Depression, Soc, 45: 35-45, under Lecture
2 for those interested.