Is $100 Million Per Year Too Little For The Brain Map Initiative? 190
waderoush writes "At a time of sequesters and shrinking R&D spending, critics are attacking President Obama's proposed Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative, which would have a $100 million budget starting in 2014. But in fact, the project 'runs the risk of becoming a casualty of small-bore thinking in science business, and politics,' argues Xconomy national life sciences editor Luke Timmerman. The goal of the BRAIN initiative is to develop technologies for exploring the trillions of synapses between neurons in the human brain. If the $3 billion Human Genome Project and its even more productive sequel, the $300-million-per-year Advanced Sequencing Technologies program, are any guide, the initiative could lead to huge advances in our understanding of Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, and consciousness itself. Only government can afford to think this big, argues Timmerman. 'Even though $100 million a year is small change by federal government standards,' Timmerman writes, 'it is enough to create a small market that gives for-profit companies assurance that if they build such tools, someone will buy them. We ought to be talking about how we can free up more money to achieve our neuroscience goals faster, rather than talking about whether we can afford this puny appropriation at all.'"
More ways to sped (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:More ways to sped (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many potential projects, so we should spend LESS?
Ignore the Critics, Research is Necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Main Expenses (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's too much (Score:2, Insightful)
I assume the Human Genome Project was a waste too? And nearly all space travel?
Re:Far enough along to throw money at it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh we know what we want to do. More basic research.
This, OTOH is just a typical presidential PR stunt [npr.org]. A 'dream team' approach. Well, that doesn't even work so well in sports and science isn't a basketball game.
It's just a way to 1) make noise 2) make some more noise and 3) toss some money to some politically connected friends.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Re:Ignore the Critics, Research is Necessary (Score:4, Insightful)
The big question isn't so much whether brain research is good and needed (I think it is), but whether handing out wads of cash to private profiteers is actually the most effective way to do research. There are plenty of highly qualified, smart, and innovative academic researchers who would be glad to get grants without tacking on a fat profit bonus for investors. Private business is great at self-promotion and sucking up cash from public coffers into private pockets, but it's doubtful whether those massive added inefficiencies are balanced by equal or greater gains in quality of results over publicly-funded non-profit research.
Re:Ignore the Critics, Research is Necessary (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, you can't just throw money at anyone who talks pretty about brains. That opens the door for scammers and frauds to come in and steal a lot of money.
The guys in the article don't really seem to have a clear plan, they just want investments in things like nano-diamonds. Also their idea is to take the money away from cancer research, which is weird. I'd like to see ideas that are at least a little more concrete than that before supporting a billion dollar commitment on the topic.
Way too little. (Score:5, Insightful)
The US defense budget is 700,000 million. If we reduced the defense budget by .1% (iow, by a factor of .001), we could get another 700 million for this project. If you're concerned about the national security consequences, don't be. We could reduce the defense budget by 50% and still outspend China by more than 2:1.
Re:More ways to sped (Score:4, Insightful)
The government should be a major source of funding for research, the government doesn't have to worry about being profitable in any given quarter, so long as the research leads to prosperity that's all well and good.
As the AC asked, the solution to many potential projects is less funding? In what way does that make any sense at all?
What's more you wouldn't be typing that without US government money for things like the internet and laptops would probably not exist either as battery research was primarily driven by space exploration related needs.
When all is said and done this sort of "thinking" is what's threatening the US, get the government out of it and hope your cause is sufficiently sexy to attract philanthropists.
Re:More ways to sped (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, sometimes more, sometimes less, that's how prioritization works.
Although learning more about how the brain works is a worthy goal, it is not necessarily the *most* worthy goal, and it may actually be better to have the government spend less on it (so more can be spent on other things).
If we solved all the other problems in the world except demystifying the brain (even if it wasn't that important), then we should absolutely spend all our research money on that. This is an example of having less potential projects causing the best option to be to spend more on brain research.
Re:It's too much (Score:4, Insightful)
A large capital intensive project that yields information that cannot be patented. Why would private investors spend money on it?
The Brain map will discover information, that information cannot be suppressed or even hidden (somebody is bound to leak it for free). Therefore it makes no sense for private investors to pour money into it, since they won't be able to get a return.
On the other hand, the value to society is immense .. therefore government should do it.