Blog

He argued that even if it were possible to record all impulses from all neurons at the same time, the brain does not exist in isolation: in order to connect the dots correctly, you would need to simultaneously record the external stimuli that the brain is exposed to. as well as the behavior of the organism. And he reasoned that we need to understand the brain on a macroscopic level before trying to decipher what the firing of individual neurons means.

Others had concerns about the impact of centralizing control over these fields. Cornelia Bargmann, a neuroscientist at Rockefeller University, worried that this would crowd out research led by individual researchers. (Bargmann was soon named one of the leaders of the BRAIN Initiative working group.)

There is no single consensus theory about how the brain works, and not everyone in the field agrees that creating a simulated brain was the best way to study it.

While the US initiative sought the participation of academics who could guide its direction, the EU project was clearly more top-down, led by Markram. But as Noah Hutton documents in his 2020 film In SilikoMarkram’s grand plans soon collapsed. As a neuroscience student, Hutton was assigned to read Markram’s papers and was impressed by his suggestion to model the human brain; when he started filming documentaries, he decided to chronicle his efforts. However, he soon realized that the billion-dollar enterprise is characterized by struggle and shifting goals rather than a breakthrough in science.

In Siliko shows Markram as a charismatic leader who needed to make bold claims about the future of neuroscience in order to attract funding to realize his particular vision. But right from the start, the project had a major problem: there is no single agreed-upon theory of how the brain works, and not everyone in the field agrees that creating a simulated brain was the best way to study it. These disagreements in the EU project were not long in coming.

In 2014, hundreds of experts across Europe wrote a letter expressing concerns about the oversight, funding mechanisms and transparency of the Human Brain Project. Scientists felt that Markram’s goal was premature and too narrow and ruled out funding for researchers looking for other ways to study the brain.

“What amazed me was that if he was successful, turned it on and the simulated brain worked, what did you learn?” Terry Seinowski, a computational neuroscientist at the Salk Institute on the advisory committee of the BRAIN Initiative, told me about this. “Simulation is as hard as the brain.”

The Human Brain Project’s board of directors voted to change the organization and leadership in early 2015, replacing the three-member executive committee led by Markram with a 22-member board. Christoph Ebell, a Swiss entrepreneur with a background in science diplomacy, has been named executive director. “When I came to power, the project was at a critical point,” he says. “People openly wondered if the project will develop.”

But a few years later, he also left due to “strategic differences” with the institution hosting the project. The project is currently aimed at creating a new computational research infrastructure that will help neuroscientists store, process and analyze large amounts of data (haphazard data collection has been a challenge in this area), as well as developing 3D brain atlases and simulation software.

Meanwhile, the US BRAIN Initiative has undergone its own changes. Initially, in 2014, responding to the concerns of scientists and recognizing the limits of the possible, it turned into something more pragmatic, focusing on developing technologies for brain research.

New day

These changes are finally starting to pay off – even if they weren’t what the founders of each of the big brain projects originally planned.

Last year, the Human Brain Project released a 3D digital map that combines various aspects of the organization of the human brain at the millimeter and micrometer levels. Basically, it’s Google Earth for the brain.