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?
-
-
I agree neuro doesnt have the guiding theories that physics did when it really pivoted to big projects. But I think biology---unlike physics---actually needs the largescale efforts even in its pre-theoretic phase.
-
Because of how messy biology is, to simply firmly establish a fact in neuroscience requires large N, well-controlled studies. So in order to build theories based on facts, I think we need a little more effort in solidly establishing these facts.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah, people often make point that physics is centuries old, while neuroscience is really only at decades. So if we don’t know what basket to throw our eggs in, at least not nearly as well as physics (hence Blue Brain disaster), the many small labs exploratory model makes sense
-
Those aren’t mutually exclusive, though, and many good projects can take the form of measure ~everything at some level, or at least make tools to do so — HBP did not fall in this category, and was much more $/basket than focused technology centers as well
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.