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
-
-
-
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 -
Replying to @AdamMarblestone @neurograce and
Interesting to think of that deficit in terms of human brain capacity. As in how a single person can only grasp what ~100 people are doing at a time. Projects getting into the $20-100m range approach that cognitive bottleneck, so real organizational (industrial) know-how needed
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @jjsakon @neurograce and
Yes! Needed. But see for instance Intel, or LIGO, or CERN
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AdamMarblestone @jjsakon and
I would like to know more about the equivalent of theoretical basis that supported LIGO/CERN type of organizations, in neuroscience.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ShahabBakht @jjsakon and
One of the biggest missing factors I think, yeah — that clarity of what to measure / test
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AdamMarblestone @ShahabBakht and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
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.