Obama's Mapping the Brain Project

President Obama has proposed a 100 billion dollar effort to map the brain.  It makes me grind my teeth.

It is not that mapping the brain is a bad idea.  It probably would result in valuable basic research.  What makes me grind my teeth is that it will probably slow down the evolution of our understanding on how our brain really works, because it ignores the half of our brain function that we know the least about to push a big pile of money into learning more about the half we already know quite a bit about.

I heard a program about the project this morning on the radio*.  A brain research guy from Stanford made comments that, to me, epitomized the problem.  He was talking about the brain as this machine - like all brain researchers needs to do to make big strides in human understanding is to map the connections where all these electrical events occur.   He speaks of the brain like it is sort of a big 3-D motherboard.  He (and all the other experts) all qualified their comments to downplay expectations - they clearly realize there is much they don't understand about the brain, but every single one of them spoke of the brain as if it were a machine communicating by electrical impulses.  It is a half truth, and this proposal is following a long tradition of brain research ignoring the other half.

When was in college I took some brain classes in 1973-74.  Brain science at that time also saw the brain as a machine.  In class we cut open heads (of animals - not each other) and cut out parts of the brain to see what happened to the animal when it recovered.  Or inserted electrodes into particular parts of the brain, then zapping a little electricity into the brain to see what part twitched.  

Even at that time many in brain research had begun to realize that decades of cutting open the heads of animals produced some useful information, but didn't begin to explain how the brain works.  But, at that time it was what brain researcher's did, so they kept doing it because they didn't have any better ideas.  

Far more intriguing to me at the time was a line of research that went back as the late 1800's (mostly for veterinary purposes - understanding livestock) that showed the chemical make-up (neurotransmitters) of mammalian brains varied greatly over the course of a day, a month, a year and the variations were both predictable and reflected in behavior (think of the studies on crime and the full moon for example).   This suggested a new way of looking at the brain - even if our brains were largely stamped out of the same genetic mold, variations in our brain chemistry individual to each of us could be the factor that makes each of us unique individuals.  It is both a machine and an ongoing chemical process that modifies how the machine functions.  

Even though my career went a different direction I followed brain research pretty closely for the next couple years, and saw evidence other people were also starting to think of the neurotransmitter data as providing a new way to look at the brain - as a chemical process.  The particular balance of chemicals at the start of the process (at conception and in the early years of brain development) influences how the reaction proceeds and the relative influence of different systems using different neurotransmitters.   At one point, perhaps about 1976 or 1977, I read a quote from a researcher from the National Institute of Health about some neurotransmitter related research saying the study results sounded a little bit like astrology.  The statement was qualified quickly (the next sentence as I recall) by a comment to the effect that he wasn't seriously suggesting astrology was related to neurotransmitters.

Then by the early 1980's reported research relating to neurotransmitter variations had dropped off the research map.  I think part of it was astrology.  Although people today don't have a "moral" problem with astrology, in the 1970's astrology was viewed by the public - and hence by science - rather like Islamist's today view western culture - something to be shunned at best   Thirty years ago no one who wanted to have a career in brain science could say anything that sounded remotely like they wanted to do research on when and where people were born and how that affected their personality - since that was the province of astrology.  

I also think part of it was the daunting nature of trying to do research.  The only way to approach finding out if brain chemistry differs between people born in different circumstances was by finding objective physical or behavioral markers and developing a massive statistical database.  It would have required decades to compile the data.  A young scientist's career would be decades old before he would have the data to start testing theories (and more important - publishing).

But I think the biggest problem was the arrival of digital imaging.  Why embark on a career that requires spending decades gathering a massive statistical data base when you can play with electronic toys that can look inside the brain.  Surely once we can look inside a working head knowledge will gush forth?

Thirty years later I have seen ton's of reports on brain research based on digital imaging.  We have learned some things.  But from what I can see we are no closer to understanding why people have different personalities, or why some people seem to have no empathy or feeling for others.

Now we are going to spend $100 billion dollars on more research based on the notion the brain is a machine.   It won't be wasted money - we will get some useful information out of it.  But the opportunity cost is huge.  It is sort of like spending $100,000 to buy a minivan.  You will get some utility out of the vehicle - but you paid way to much and that is $70,000 you won't have to put to other purposes.

Here are some things I am very confident about:

1.  This brain mapping project won't do a whole lot to help us understand why people are different.  We won't make much headway in learning what it was in the brain of a 20 year old that led him to walk into a school and kill 26 people.

2.  The chemistry of our brain is linked directly to the chemistry of our body.  The chemical signature of our brain reflects what is happening in our body.  This brain mapping project won't get us much closer to personalized medicine - the ability of Doctors to look at you as a particular combination of chemical processes and prescribe treatments or medicines, or diagnose problems specific to you - instead of what is considered appropriate for the "average" person.  Knowing the wiring of our brain will tell us little or nothing about this, knowing the chemical mix in our brain might. (for more discussion on this point see the link below)

In short, I see this brain mapping project as Obama's lets send someone to the moon moment.  It is dramatic, but it is far from the best use of the money, and will suck resources away from other lines of inquiry that could produce really tangible results that would help solve a lot of basic human issues much sooner.

For a related discussion see:  http://motrvoter.blogspot.com/2012/05/big-surprise-genetics-is-of-little-use.html

*The program - NPR's forum on KQED, broadcast at 9:00 AM, 4.3.13 here in California