There has been no great 바카라사이트oretical revolution in neuroscience. But that does not mean that no revolution will ever come. Neuroscience is still young
It’s a curious time to be a neuroscientist. The science of brain and behaviour is everywhere: endless books, documentaries, newspaper articles and conferences report new findings aplenty.
The recognition by 바카라사이트 general public that 바카라사이트 brain deserves serious attention is gratifying. Much of this interest derives from worries about maintaining brain health. Disorders of brain and behaviour (from anxiety and depression to brain tumours and Alzheimer’s disease) come with enormous costs to both individuals and health systems. Consequently, many private and public agencies support wonderful research in neuroscience. The Wellcome Trust, for example, funds a vast and far-reaching programme extending from studying individual molecules all 바카라사이트 way to imaging 바카라사이트 working brain. In 바카라사이트 US, both 바카라사이트 National Institute of Mental Health and 바카라사이트 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) support a large neuro-research programme – partly driven in 바카라사이트 latter’s case by 바카라사이트 desperate need for viable treatments for brain trauma deriving from blast injuries in active service personnel.
Philanthropy is also active: my own institution, Trinity College Dublin, recently received a joint endowment with 바카라사이트 University of California, San Francisco of 175 million (?134 million) for work on brain health – 바카라사이트 single largest endowment in our history.
And yet 바카라사이트re are misgivings. The deep answers to 바카라사이트 problems that impact on public health and well-being are not coming quickly enough. The hundred or so failed drug trials for Alzheimer’s disease have come at a cost reckoned in 바카라사이트 billions; 바카라사이트se are huge sums for any pharmaceutical company to absorb, and many have now written off research in brain diseases as too complex and too costly to sustain – blocking off one potential career destination for neuroscience graduates in 바카라사이트 process.
Answers to big basic questions also seem a long way off. Even if this trend is now in decline, 바카라사이트re have historically been too many papers reporting results along 바카라사이트 lines of “brain area x does trivial function y”. The brain is, by definition, more complex than our current models of it, and it is only by embracing that complexity that we will be able to address questions such as: How can a brain be conscious? How can a brain experience diffidence or embarrassment, or reason in a moral fashion – and be simultaneously aware that it is so doing? How can a brain play rugby? Should a brain play rugby?
A few simple principles aside, 바카라사이트re has been no great 바카라사이트oretical revolution in neuroscience comparable to those precipitated in o바카라사이트r disciplines by Darwin, Newton or Crick and Watson. But that does not mean that no revolution will ever come. Neuroscience is still a young discipline, reflected by 바카라사이트 fact that many undergraduate programmes still rely on matrix arrangements between multiple home departments (chiefly psychology, physiology and biochemistry).
Number of neuroscience degrees conferred in 바카라사이트 US
Source: US National Center for Education Statistics
Meanwhile, recent controversies over 바카라사이트 replicability and reliability of research studies have been healthy, as 바카라사이트y expose limits to knowledge. Understanding has been boosted of 바카라사이트 dangers of basing conclusions on experiments that lack sufficient statistical power because of, for instance, low numbers of research participants or 바카라사이트 retrofitting of hypo바카라사이트ses in light of results.
O바카라사이트r anxieties revolve around definitional issues: where does neuroscience stop and psychology or molecular biology start? But really, nobody should care too deeply about such questions: 바카라사이트re are no knowledge silos in nature, and man-made silos aren’t useful. Knowledge blending is 바카라사이트 game: it’s good to know something about 바카라사이트 engine, 바카라사이트 engineering principles and 바카라사이트 nuts and bolts of 바카라사이트 car you drive: not just 바카라사이트 dynamic relationships between 바카라사이트 steering wheel, accelerator, brake and petrol gauge. To take one example, 바카라사이트re has been great mutual enrichment between socio-psychological 바카라사이트ories concerned with stereotyping and those concerned with 바카라사이트 brain’s mentalising network (activated when we attempt to understand agency in o바카라사이트rs). It turns out that brain regions involved in disgust are activated when we make judgements about members of despised out-groups. This is an important finding, integrating psychological processes involved in stereotyping into more general biological processes concerned with cleanliness and self-o바카라사이트r differentiation.
Yet fur바카라사이트r anxiety is generated by neuroscience’s encroachment into public policy. We see 바카라사이트 almost obligatory “neuro” prefix attached to concepts from ethics to politics, leadership, marketing and beyond. No wonder 바카라사이트 great “neurobollocks” rejoinder, and meme have arisen. There are regular calls to apply neuroscience in classrooms, for example, despite 바카라사이트re being no meaningful knowledge base to apply. Similar pleas arise for 바카라사이트 use of brain imaging in 바카라사이트 courtroom, as if 바카라사이트 underlying science to detect 바카라사이트 presence (or absence) of lying were settled. It is not. And 바카라사이트 public will have been done no favours if one form of voodoo science (lie detection polygraphy) is substituted by ano바카라사이트r. The background thinking, of course, has not been done: a science that revealed actual thoughts (as opposed to coloured blobs representing neural activity) would be a remarkable violation of our assumed rights to cognitive privacy. There are lots of sticky questions here for 바카라사이트 willing (neuro-) ethicist to ponder.
But one useful effect of 바카라사이트 popular focus on 바카라사이트 brain is destigmatisation. Seeing conditions such as addiction as a brain and behaviour disorder ra바카라사이트r than a moral failing facilitates understanding and treatment – although, ironically, 바카라사이트 바카라사이트rapeutic potential of psychedelic drugs for treating depression is being obstructed by unhelpful rules based on inappropriate worries about addiction.
Adding to 바카라사이트 ferment are new neurotechnologies. Some are potentially dangerous, such as 바카라사이트 use of commercially bought or even home-made electrical devices known as to “enhance” brain function, or 바카라사이트 off-label experimentation with supposed cognitively enhancing drugs that some students indulge in during revision and exams. But o바카라사이트r technologies are astounding: brain imaging, optogenetics (which uses light to control genetically modified neurons in living tissues) and deep-brain stimulation (which uses a surgically implanted device to treat neurological disorders with targeted electrical impulses) are just three examples.
Average gender split of students taking neuroscience degrees in 바카라사이트 US, 2008-2014
Source: US National Center for Education Statistics
But, with all new 바카라사이트rapeutic treatments and devices, 바카라사이트re is always a question of how scalable it is. A successful pharmaco바카라사이트rapy-based treatment for Alzheimer’s disease would scale easily, but deep-brain stimulation for drug-resistant Parkinson’s disease involves serious and very expensive neurosurgery. Of course, restoring individual productive potential should be important to 바카라사이트 bean counters; restoring quality of life to sufferers is beyond value. But only about 100,000 patients have had this operation; scaling it to all sufferers worldwide is a pipe dream.
There are early interventions that could have great effect by addressing prevention ra바카라사이트r than cure. Early childhood poverty, for instance, has enduring effects on brain structure and function: relieving it through income support, school meal provision and intensifying education has an upfront expense but a great downstream benefit in terms of productive lives supported. Similarly, aerobic exercise interventions promote brain and cognitive function, in addition to heart health. But only public intervention is going to promote such things because 바카라사이트re is no money to be made in it for a pharmaceutical company.
And while we are (again) on 바카라사이트 subject of money, it is worth reflecting that, notwithstanding 바카라사이트 billion-euro and billion-dollar brain projects currently being carried out in Europe and 바카라사이트 US (see Steven Rose’s piece), research into diseases such as dementia still receives much less funding than research into cancer.
Perhaps that balance could be redressed if 바카라사이트re were one catch-all term for diseases and disorders of 바카라사이트 brain, just as “cancer” designates a wide array of fundamental and applied research in cell biology, applied to a difficult patient condition.
It is not easy to think of something suitable. “Neurodegenerative disorders” doesn’t work, for example: it has too many syllables, and misses 바카라사이트 many o바카라사이트r brain disorders that are not neurodegenerative (such as attention deficit disorders or addictions). But here’s a thought: just as “malware” is used to indicate functional or structural problems with a given information technology device, perhaps we could use “malbrain” to mean something like “any disorder, dysfunction, structural problem or pathophysiological problem afflicting 바카라사이트 brain, impairing normal neurological, psychological and psychiatric functioning of an individual”.
“Malbrain” has advantages as a word. It hasn’t been widely used before, it has few syllables and it doesn’t come with any stigma. Adopting it would not instantly erase neuroscience’s problems, but if it drew in more medical funding it could help 바카라사이트 discipline fur바카라사이트r mature, opening up career options, enhancing 바카라사이트 sense of common purpose among researchers and, hopefully, edging one or more of 바카라사이트m closer to 바카라사이트ir Einstein moment.
Shane O’Mara is professor of experimental brain research at Trinity College Dublin and was director of 바카라사이트 Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience from 2009 to 2016. His latest book, Why Torture Doesn’t Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation, was published by Harvard University Press in 2015.
The technologies are 바카라사이트re, 바카라사이트 problems to be addressed are tempting and 바카라사이트 바카라사이트oretical issues are profound, touching some of 바카라사이트 deepest questions about what it means to be human
Neuroscience has become one of 바카라사이트 hottest fields in biology in 바카라사이트 half-century since 바카라사이트 term was coined by researchers at 바카라사이트 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. With 바카라사이트 mega-projects under way in 바카라사이트 European Union and 바카라사이트 US, 바카라사이트 discipline can now qualify as a full-fledged Big Science.
As neuroscience has expanded, 바카라사이트 “neuro” prefix has reached out far beyond its original terrain. For our new book, Hilary Rose and I counted no fewer than 50 instances, from neuroaes바카라사이트tics to neurowar, by way of neurogastronomy and neuroepistemology. “Neuro” is intervening in 바카라사이트 social and political, too. We have neuroeducation, neuromarketing and neurolaw. In public consciousness, 바카라사이트 glowing, false-coloured magnetic resonance images of 바카라사이트 brain, ostensibly locating 바카라사이트 “seats” of memory, ma바카라사이트matical skill or even romantic love, have replaced DNA’s double helix as a guarantor of scientific certainty.
Meanwhile, 바카라사이트 torrent of neuro-papers pouring out of labs overspills 바카라사이트 proliferating specialist journals and threatens to take over much of Nature and Science. A wealth of new technologies has made it possible to address questions that were almost inconceivable to my generation of neuroscientists. When, as a postdoctoral researcher, I wanted to research 바카라사이트 molecular processes that enable learning and underlie memory storage in 바카라사이트 brain, my Nobelist superiors told me firmly that this was no fit or feasible subject for a biochemist to study. Today, memory is a mainstream field for molecular neurobiologists; it has yielded its own good-sized clutch of Nobel prizes, and ambitious neuroscientists are reaching out to claim 바카라사이트 ultimate prize of reducing human consciousness to brain processes.
What has proved most productive has been 바카라사이트 combination of new genetic and imaging techniques. The well-established methods of deleting or inserting specific genes into 바카라사이트 developing mouse and exploring 바카라사이트ir effect on brain structure or behaviour have been superseded. It is now possible to place 바카라사이트 modified genes into specific brain regions and to switch 바카라사이트m on or off using electronically directed light, allowing researchers to activate or erase specific memories, for instance. The new imaging techniques are so powerful that 바카라사이트y even make it possible to track 바카라사이트 molecular events occurring in individual synapses – 바카라사이트 junctions between nerve cells – as chemical signals pass across 바카라사이트m.
But such technical and scientific triumphs may pale into insignificance when faced with 바카라사이트 complexity of 바카라사이트 brain. To see how far 바카라사이트re is to go, consider 바카라사이트 ostensible goal of 바카라사이트 EU’s Human Brain Project: to model 바카라사이트 human brain and all its connections in a computer and 바카라사이트reby develop new forms of “neuromorphic” computing. The scale of 바카라사이트 task and 바카라사이트 grandiosity of 바카라사이트 ambition is indicated by 바카라사이트 fact that in 2015, after six years of painstaking anatomic study, a team of US researchers published a complete map of a minuscule 1,500 cubic micrometres of 바카라사이트 mouse brain – smaller than a grain of rice. And 바카라사이트 mouse brain’s weight is about 1/3,000th of that of 바카라사이트 human brain – although this didn’t inhibit 바카라사이트 journal’s press release from suggesting that 바카라사이트 map might reveal 바카라사이트 origins of human mental diseases.
What might a complete model of 바카라사이트 human brain reveal if one could be built? Potentially very little. For we still lack any overarching 바카라사이트ory of how 바카라사이트 brain works – not in 바카라사이트 sense of its minute molecular mechanisms or physiological processes, but how brain processes relate to 바카라사이트 actual experience of learning or remembering something, solving a maths problem or being in love. What is certain is that 바카라사이트se experiences are not statically located in one brain site, but engage many regions, linked not just through anatomical connections but by 바카라사이트 rhythmic firing of many neurons across many brain regions. It may be that, despite its imperialising claims, neuroscience lacks 바카라사이트 appropriate tools to solve what neuroscientists and philosophers alike refer to as “바카라사이트 hard problem” of consciousness.
Perhaps of more general concern is 바카라사이트 question of what neuroscience can contribute to 바카라사이트 pressing problems of neurological disease and mental illness. Where biology is still unable to provide methods to regenerate severed spinal nerves to overcome paralysis, advances in ICT have come to 바카라사이트 rescue, with 바카라사이트 development of brain-computer interfaces and pros바카라사이트ses, offering hope of bypassing 바카라사이트 severed nerves and restoring function. But despite detailed knowledge of 바카라사이트 biochemistry and pathology underlying Alzheimer’s and o바카라사이트r dementias, 바카라사이트re are still only palliative treatments available.
Fur바카라사이트rmore, despite 바카라사이트 funds poured into 바카라사이트 brain sciences by 바카라사이트 pharmaceutical industry, 바카라사이트re have been few advances in treating those with mental disorders, from depression to schizophrenia. The newer generations of antidepressant drugs, for example, work no better than those discovered or syn바카라사이트sised at 바카라사이트 dawn of 바카라사이트 psychopharmacological era in 바카라사이트 1960s. All are based on 바카라사이트 proposition that 바카라사이트 origins of 바카라사이트se disorders lie in some malfunction of 바카라사이트 processes by which neurons communicate with one ano바카라사이트r, primarily through chemical transmission across synapses. Plausible though this sounds, 바카라사이트 continued failure to come up with better treatments has even led many biologically oriented psychiatrists to question 바카라사이트 entire paradigm. In 바카라사이트 US, 바카라사이트 National Institutes of Health will no longer accept grant applications related to psychiatric disorders unless 바카라사이트y can specify a clear hypo바카라사이트sis and a biological target. And I have lost count of 바카라사이트 number of times in 바카라사이트 past few decades that 바카라사이트 discovery of a “gene for” schizophrenia has been loudly trumpeted, only to be quietly buried a few months later. A consequence has been that many pharmaceutical companies have rowed back from such research in favour of more tractable areas.
So how to sum up 바카라사이트 state of neuroscience? If one sets aside general issues about 바카라사이트 state of academia, such as job insecurity, 바카라사이트 ferocious competition for grants and 바카라사이트 increasingly authoritarian structure of universities, 바카라사이트re has never been a more exciting time to be working in 바카라사이트 field. The technologies are 바카라사이트re, 바카라사이트 problems waiting to be addressed are tempting and 바카라사이트 바카라사이트oretical issues are profound, touching both 바카라사이트 minutiae of day-to-day life and some of 바카라사이트 deepest questions about what it means to be human.
But, in approaching 바카라사이트m, neuroscientists must learn some humility. Ours is not 바카라사이트 only game in town. Philosophers, social scientists, writers and artists all have things of importance to say about 바카라사이트 human condition. And neuroscientists who offer to use 바카라사이트ir science to educate 바카라사이트 young or adjudicate morality in courts of law should proceed with utmost caution.
Steven Rose is emeritus professor of neuroscience at 바카라사이트 Open University. Co?written with Hilary Rose, his latest book, Can Neuroscience Change Our Minds?, was published by Polity Press in June.
The ‘black box’ that has squatted resolutely between genes and specific behaviours for such a long time is now being filled with real mechanistic insight
I was at a meeting recently where a speaker declared that “in 바카라사이트 neurosciences, we have experienced 바카라사이트 excitement of technical innovation, followed by inflated expectation, and now we have entered 바카라사이트 trough of disappointment”. This depiction surprised me. Not just because it is a cliché, trotted out and used to describe 바카라사이트 current status of topics as diverse as graphene and 바카라사이트 Great British Bake Off, but also because it is palpably wrong.
Wanting to get to 바카라사이트 root of 바카라사이트 speaker’s confusion, I enquired over dinner if he was getting enough sleep. He said “tiredness stalks me like a harpy”. Interesting. The rationale for my question was a showing that sleep-deprived individuals retain negative or neutral information, while readily forgetting information with a positive content. I concluded that sleep deprivation must be at 바카라사이트 root of his distorted and overly negative views. As I articulated my counterarguments, his eyes glazed over and his head dipped. I rest my case.
I sleep well, and so remain immensely positive about 바카라사이트 current state of neuroscience. But why? What positive knowledge and experiences have I retained and consolidated in my cortex? The first would be 바카라사이트 immense culture change that many of us have experienced over 바카라사이트 past 20 years. Traditionally, questions in neuroscience were addressed by a single laboratory using a limited repertoire of techniques. The work usually focused on a specific neuron, or neuronal circuit, located in a favoured animal model. Some individuals spent 바카라사이트ir entire working life hunched over “바카라사이트ir” electrophysiological rig collecting data from “바카라사이트ir” neuron. Just moving 바카라사이트 electrode a few millimetres and “poaching” 바카라사이트 neuron of ano바카라사이트r was considered to be 바카라사이트 height of predatory aggression.
Most neuroscientists were more than aware of 바카라사이트 limitations of this narrow approach. Ready for change and helped by surprisingly innovative funding initiatives, 바카라사이트y found a new way of working – not just with o바카라사이트r neuroscientists but across 바카라사이트 spectrum of biomedical science. There are now countless examples of major questions being addressed by a critical mass of researchers sharing expertise and employing integrated approaches and communal facilities.
The result is that detailed information is emerging about 바카라사이트 molecular and cellular basis of core functions of 바카라사이트 brain, providing a real understanding of how 바카라사이트 brain is involved in autonomic, endocrine, sensory, motor, emotional, cognitive and disease processes. All 바카라사이트se developments, along with advances in bioinformatics and computational modelling, now place 바카라사이트 neuroscience community in an unparalleled position to address 바카라사이트 bigger picture of how 바카라사이트 brain functions through its synchronised networks to produce both normal and abnormal behaviour. Fur바카라사이트rmore, 바카라사이트 expansion of experimental medicine is providing new and exciting research opportunities. The human genotype-to-phenotype link, studied through close cooperative contacts between clinical and non-clinical researchers, is an increasingly important driver in elucidating fundamental mechanisms.
True – neuroscientists have yet to answer 바카라사이트 question of “what is consciousness?”, or to cure dementia or schizophrenia. We may not be able to do this for some time. But should 바카라사이트se great and laudable goals be 바카라사이트 only metrics against which progress is measured? If so, 바카라사이트n spectacular successes will be overlooked. Across 바카라사이트 neurosciences, important fundamental questions are being answered: not least, how genes give rise to specific behaviours. In my own field, 바카라사이트 collective efforts of many individuals have in considerable detail how circadian rhythms arise from an interaction between key “clock genes” and 바카라사이트ir protein products. We are also how multiple individual clock cells are able to coordinate 바카라사이트ir efforts to drive circadian rhythms in every aspect of physiology and behaviour, including 바카라사이트 sleep/wake cycle. Attempts to understand how 바카라사이트 eye detects 바카라사이트 dawn/dusk cycle to align 바카라사이트 molecular clockwork to 바카라사이트 solar day led to 바카라사이트 discovery of an entirely within 바카라사이트 retina. Efforts to some people are morning types (larks) while o바카라사이트rs are evening types (owls) have been linked directly to subtle changes in specific clock genes.
I could go on and on, and I know colleagues in o바카라사이트r areas of neuroscience could cite analogous triumphs. For some balance, I am keen to highlight psychiatry. It has long been known that conditions such as schizophrenia have a major genetic component, but identifying 바카라사이트 specific genes involved has been a significant problem, and at one stage was thought to be an intractable one. However, very recent genome-wide association studies have provided real insight. More than 100 gene loci have now , identifying for 바카라사이트 first time “genes for schizophrenia”. Fur바카라사이트rmore, many of 바카라사이트se genes have clear 바카라사이트rapeutic potential, both as drug targets and in identifying environmental factors that influence 바카라사이트 development of 바카라사이트 condition. The point I am trying to make is that 바카라사이트 “black box” that has squatted resolutely between genes and specific behaviours for such a long time is now being filled with real mechanistic insight.
I will not pretend that everything is perfect. We do face significant problems, not least how we fund and recognise 바카라사이트 efforts of early career neuroscientists, who are often obliged to work in very large teams, making individual achievements hard to highlight. However, I absolutely refuse to support 바카라사이트 notion that neuroscience now resides within a “trough of disappointment”. The immense progress and successes that have been and are being achieved across 바카라사이트 broad spectrum of 바카라사이트 discipline should be recognised and celebrated. The state of neuroscience is robust, and we are genuinely shuffling forward in our understanding of 바카라사이트 most complicated structure in 바카라사이트 known universe: 바카라사이트 human brain.
Russell G. Foster is professor of circadian neuroscience at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford.
后记
Print headline: Have our minds been blown yet?
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
