Movshon and Seung had this debate in 2012. I’m more convinced by Tony’s position (wide funding spread with limited top-down organization) than Sebastian’s (more Allen-like) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q4KrhDZQ088 … Both have merits, but who’s to say current balance isn’t ideal?
-
-
Replying to @jjsakon @seanmcarroll
The current balance is still very far towards small uncoordinated efforts. Given how pleased people seem with the products of the Allen it seems clear that more efforts like that should be made. Basing beliefs about basic facts of the brain on a patchwork of indi studies is risky
4 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Riskier than putting all your eggs in one (tech-driven) basket? Hard pass, thanks.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
We are soooo far from an all-Allen research landscape that even creating 10x as many such initiatives would still leave a lot of individual labs. I'm also not sure what's aversive about a tech driven approach? Their projects are well carried out, are they not?
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @neurograce @schoppik and
If every small lab could carry out their own pet experiments with the quality of the Allen that would surely be great! The only downside is that practically that means fewer labs exploring fewer individual things. But I dont see any problem with well-executed, tech-driven studies
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @neurograce @schoppik and
another thing to consider is how incentives/advancement would work for scientists in a world with 10x more Allen Institute type organizations; it seems like the current model of everyone-needs-their-own-paper would have to change a lot
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
Replying to @neurograce @gottapatchemall and
Was proposed here as well: http://blogs.cuit.columbia.edu/rmy5/files/2017/06/brain_observatory_paper.pdf … Strong agree. I just don’t see how certain key tech can be built otherwise. Would remain 1000s of individual labs too as you say.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AdamMarblestone @neurograce and
In general in bio, I see a big gap in the funding of 20-100 M$ scale projects to develop tech or infra to collect data we want. Of which several are needed. Examples: Etruscan shrew connectome, screen all combos of aging drugs/factors, scale up sc-proteomics tech, etc
@ArtirKel1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @AdamMarblestone @neurograce and
There is no reason we should think the complexity of biological systems is magically perfectly matched to the contingent sociological happenstance of our current dominant organization of science intensive engineering and engineering intensive science!!!
3 replies 1 retweet 13 likes
(I just pinned this tweet to my timeline. This is essentially the reason for my existence.)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.