Markoff,
John. “Connecting the Neural Dots.” The
New York Times. The New York Times. 25 February 2013. Web. 25 February 2013.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/science/proposed-brain-mapping-project-faces-significant-hurdles.html?hp&_r=1&>
The United States
government is on the cusp of announcing a major project: the President plans on
funding research that would, in the next decade, map the active human brain. As
explained by John Markoff in the article “Connecting the Neural Dots,” this is
not as easy as it sounds. Scientists say that they are far from being able to
fulfill such a mammoth goal – not only have such projects not actually been
undertaken and finished before, but they do not have the tools themselves to
map the brain. The only exception to this has been the worm C. elegans, which
is the only animal for which there is a connectome, or complete static map of
brain activity. A paper published in Neuron, a professional scientific journal,
stated that the Drosophila, or fruit fly, should be next, followed by several
other organisms, before the mapping of the human brain is attempted. The issue
is how to achieve such goals – some feel that the entire scientific paradigm
needs to be changed before anything can happen. The shift in scientific
thinking seems, so far, to have targeted systems biology, in that scientists
want to map the simultaneous activity of millions of neurons. The technologies available
today are crude by many standards, but even small steps create a huge
difference. The proposed project, to be funded by the government, will involve
computer scientists, neuroscientists, and nanoscientists in the creation of a
map of human brain activity.
This project, if
carried through, could have a significant impact upon our world. Not only would
it affect science, but it would also change medicine, psychology, and many
other fields. It could give people with medical problems new opportunities, as
shown by a group from University of California, who aim to find out how the
brain controls the larynx, tongue, jaw, lips, and face, in order to be able to
give the ability of speech back to those who have been affected by paralysis
and/or stroke. Such prosthetics are simply the beginning, but it is important
to note that many ethical questions are aroused by these same potential
advances. For example, could mind control become a reality? How far should
science go? Such heavy topics are sure to permeate discussion as these projects
progress.
Overall, I found this
article to be well-written, concise, and interesting. My only qualm is that it
skips around and veers from the point, so that though it does present
interesting and enlightening information, the political connection is barely
ever mentioned. I would have liked to have read why the government chose to
undergo with such a project and what its political effects are. Despite this, I
feel that I have learned a lot from reading this article and look forward to
seeing new developments in the field of neurobiology.
Gina’s review of “Connecting the Neural Dots” provided an interesting take on a fascinating New York Time’s article. I felt it was good that she emphasized that there is a journey to mapping the human brain by explaining that the worm C. elegans is the only animal we have a static map of brain activity for to date. She then proceeded to explain the logical order in which we would one day reach the human brain (going to Drosophila and working our way), as suggested by the scientists in the article. In addition, it was good that she repeated what the article said; that the main issue at hand is how to achieve the goals of this project, as that was the main point of the article. Finally, I like how she mentioned the impact this project could have on the world and I particularly liked how she included the example of prosthetics.
ReplyDeleteOne part of the article that she did not include in her view was about the three human test subjects that had epileptic seizures that were implanted with electrodes in their brain. This was another part that I wish the article itself had gone into further- will we need volunteers of all types to walk around with electrodes in their head to make this a reality? In addition (the article did not directly discuss this so Gina is not at fault), I was left wondering how much the budget is for this endeavor. Also, the article mentioned a timeline but never mentioned what that would specifically be.
I found this article to be very interesting and very current. I was especially intrigued by the potential of being able to make prosthetics for paralyzed people to be able to speak. That is an incredible thing to think about! In conclusion, I was left wondering about a few things after reading this article but I think the main point was clearly made.
Gina did a very good job reviewing the New York Times article, “Reviewing the Neural Dots”, but John Markoff. Her summary of the article was very informative, for she touched on almost all of the major topics discussed in the original work. She also did a very nice job connecting this article to the outside world. Although many of the questions she asked had already been stated in the original article, ideas such as the possibility of mind control truly are intriguing. Finally, I had similar problems with Mr. Markoff’s piece. The author often skipped around a lot to different points. He had many examples for why scientists find this new proposal daunting, but rather than group them together in a concise way, he scattered them about, which made jumping from topic to topic difficult. It also would have been nice to learn the government’s reasons for wanting to take on this project.
ReplyDeleteGina’s review was very well written and had many great facts, but there were a few things that she could have done to make it even better. First off, she should have added in more quotes. Science articles’ topics are often very complex, so it is helpful to have direct quotes from the article, to ensure that the reader is able to fully comprehend the information. Also, I felt that Gina should have delved more into the lack of available technologies to perform the brain investigation. This is the greatest hurdle for scientists, so it is the most important to mention. The brain is a difficult subject to work with, for it is highly sensitive and any damage to it would be detrimental. Without the proper tools, there is no way this project will be able to succeed.
This article was, overall, extremely interesting. Although scientists are concerned with the challenges they will face in this project, it is a very exciting development in the world of science. If the teams are able to fully map out the brain that could be a huge leap in our understanding of the brains abilities and functions. The Human Genome project was ahead of its time, and this appears to be our next big step with understanding life.