The Administration of Drugs Using Liposomes and Magnetic Particles
Alicia Whye
November, 2019
The methods of administering drugs are generally limited to injections or ingestion. The downfall of these two methods are the time required for the body to react to the drug and the spread of the drug to other regions in the body for which the drug is not intended. However, a new form of administration has recently been created which involves the use of a liposome — a lipid bubble filled with small magnetic particles, a given drug and water. Researchers at MIT have developed a technique by applying a weak magnetic field to the liposome which then heats the fatty bubble and changes its state from solid to liquid, therefore allowing the drug to seep into surrounding areas. Turning off the magnetic field causes the lipid to return back to its solid state and inhibiting further release of the drug. This type of administration could prove to be very effective for diseases such as Parkinson’s or epilepsy, where the cause stems from either too much or too little neuronal activity. Administering a drug using a liposome and magnetic field would allow doctors to inject the magnetic particles into the desired location, such as a certain region of neurons, and activate the drug at a specific time, one being at the onset of symptoms. With the development of new treatments always comes the question of who will have access to these advancements. As liposomes are not difficult to produce, it will be interesting to follow the evolution of this magnetic particle administration of drugs and its efficacy and popularity compared to existing forms of administration.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————--
BRAINPRINT: The Next Frontier of Password Security
Nicholas Manfred
November, 2019
In 2015, a group of researchers at Binghamton University conducted a study in which 45 subjects’ centro-parietal lobe brainwaves were electroencephalographically charted in response to a series of 75 acronyms. Each subject’s brain activity in response to these stimuli is characterized by the N400 component, which is the potential resulting from semantic stimulation in this part of the brain.
What these researchers found is that each individual response to a linguistic stimulus is discernibly unique, much like a fingerprint. Perhaps the biggest implication of this finding is the potential utilization of brainwave technology for security purposes, brainprinting. With this technology’s continuously increasing trends toward higher accuracy, greater facility of operation, and longer duration of usage, the pros of brainprinting are evident. Proponents argue that it is more effective than fingerprinting and, unlike fingerprinting, can be reset in the case of a breach.
However, the use of brainprinting also poses several ethical dilemmas—namely a potential infringement on privacy via cognitive biometrics. The use of brainprint has already been used to convict and assess the thoughts of terrorists. On the other hand, the potential usage of brainprinting as a mechanism of surveillance has been implicated, which could ensure safety at the price of privacy of thought. Brainprint appears to be well-intended, but also Orwellian to some degree. Thus, its role in both the legal system and in everyday life are currently subject to debate.
—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--———--
How Our Brain Perceives Jokes
John Wang
November, 2019
Everyone enjoys a good laugh at times your friends crack a joke or you read a funny post on the internet. But have you ever wondered how funniess is perceived in the brain, and why are laughters elicited upon hearing funny jokes?
A group of Dartmouth researchers poked at this question by asking volunteers to watch episodes of “The Simpsons” and “Seinfeld” while having their brain activity traced using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The results of the study point at two distinct neural mechanisms -- one is responsible for joke detection and the other for joke appreciation. The researchers reported that ““joke detection occurred in the left inferior frontal and posterior temporal cortices on the left side of the brain. The left side of the brain helps us sort through novel or unexpected information and cross-reference it to information already stored in our memories.”
The notion of novelty and surprise seems to underpin humor perception. Indeed, successful jokes are those that are best at distorting our assumptions -- or our “hypotheses about the world and how it works based on our previous life experiences” as Dr. Richard Restak put it. He further explains that humor perception relies on neural mechanisms that may be unique to humans: “it is the brain’s frontal lobes that make sense of the discrepancy between the script and the situation described by the joke or illustrated by the cartoon. This ability is unique to our species … We are the only creatures that possess a highly evolved working memory, which by creating and storing scripts allows us to appreciate sophisticated and subtle forms of humor.”
Once a joke is recognized as “funny”, we follow up with a burst of joyful emotions. But why is laughter the universal response? Apparently the explanation may lie in the times when we were all cute babies. According to Dr. Caspar Addyman who conducted numerous studies on baby development and learning, laughter is mainly driven by social reasons. Many times we find a baby smiles and laughs along with a caregiver in a classic “peekaboo” game or a cheerful tickle. The actual physical sensation from tickling is not enough to cause a baby to laugh, explained by Addyman; however, the baby is laughing at the fact that there is a sociable being tickling him or her. In fact, laughing is a developed response to express a sense of joy, often times learned from the caregivers. Therefore, laughter could be recognized as a hallmark for children’s cognitive development as well.
Nonetheless, whether you’re a fan of sitcom comedy or you prefer cheeky word play, your brain’s ability to detect (“get it”) — and appreciate (laugh at) a joke — are highly evolved and incredibly intricate.
—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--———--
Researchers Found Hypothalamic NSCs Delay Ageing and Increase Longevity in Mice.
Zhi Lin
February, 2019
Wouldn’t it be remarkable if we can double our lifespan, or even better, live forever? If we can find out how the ageing process is programmed by our brain, we can manipulate it to our benefit, such as delay the process to prevent ageing-related physiological changes and increase longevity. This may sound like something coming straight out of a sci-fi movie, but in a recent study conducted by a team of scientists at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, published in Nature, researchers have done just that—although in mice. Their work nonetheless brought us closer to understanding how the ageing process is regulated by the hypothalamus at a mechanistic level and proposes potential methods through which we can delay ageing in humans in the future.
More specifically, the research team explored the role of hypothalamic NSCs (adult neural stem/progenitor cells) in ageing in mice. They first killed hypothalamic NSCs in mid-aged mice by injecting them with lentiviruses. Compared to control mice receiving sham injections, the experimental mice showed poorer treadmill performance, coordination, and muscle endurance, all of which are telltale signs of advanced ageing. Furthermore, they died 100 days earlier than the controls. When the researchers implanted NSC cells in mid-aged mice, the injected mid-aged mice outperformed sham controls in every behavioral test. Most importantly, they lived nearly 200 days longer than the controls, providing strong evidence for NSC cells’ role in delaying ageing. Finally, in an effort to understand the mechanism through which hypothalamic NSCs regulate the ageing process, Zhang et al. hypothesized NSCs regulate ageing processes by secreting exosomal miRNAs. They injected both mid-aged mice that had previously received viral injections to destroy NSCs and control mice receiving sham injections with exosomes containing exosomal miRNAs. In both groups, mice that received the exosome injections demonstrated improved performance from before, suggesting exosomal miRNAs has a role in delaying ageing-associated defects.
The study conducted by the Albert Einstein research team was remarkable, not only because it was able to demonstrate how hypothalamic NSCs accelerate and decelerate ageing in mice for the first time, but also because it provides a mechanistic model through which NSCs regulate ageing. Pinpointing a precise pathway opens the door for other researchers to further study this work. More importantly, it allows scientists to design therapies that target specific elements of this pathway, such as drugs that increase the production of endogenous exosomal miRNAs, to tackle age-associated defects.
—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--———--
Beauty and the Brain: Theory and Research
Katie Tsui
February, 2019
Neuroaesthetics is a growing and intriguing discipline centered on understanding why and how certain works of art are perceived to be more aesthetically pleasing than others. A relatively new interdisciplinary field that was formally defined in 2002, neuroaesthetics relies on neuroscience and scientific approaches to better understand aesthetic experiences within the brain.
Professor Semir Zeki, an expert in neuroaesthetics at the University College of London had once stated that “the artist is in a sense, a neuroscientist, exploring the potentials and capacities of the brain, though with different tools.” By this, Zeki suggests that artists create art to explore what is beautiful or not to the brain.
Vilayanur Ramachandran, a neuroscientist perhaps best known for his theories on how phantom limbs come to be, developed a theory of human artistic experience centered around eight principles: peak shift principle, isolation, grouping, contrast, perceptual problem solving, generic viewpoint, visual metaphors, and symmetry. Each law is explained below.
1. Peak Shift: Artwork highlights essential features and disregards irrelevant information. Differences, therefore, get emphasizes and exaggerated much like a caricature, or a super stimulus.
2. Isolation: Removal of a color, form, motion, or source allows us to direct attention to certain areas of the artwork, thereby amplifying the differences established by peak shifts.
3. Grouping: We prefer to group objects that are similar to each other. Evolutionarily, this skill allowed humans to defeat camouflage by putting together seemingly random splotches into meaningful images.
4. Contrast: Contrasts tend to be pleasing as attention because it is fundamental to the development of forms.
5. Perceptual problem solving: This concept refers to how artwork becomes more pleasing when the viewer has to do more work to uncover it. For this reason, we enjoy illusions.
6. Generic viewpoint: We prefer interpretations where there is an infinite set of viewpoints rather than a unique one.
7. Visual metaphors: Similar to the perceptual problem solving, we tend to prefer
8. Symmetry: Theory states that humans are more attracted to symmetrical objects and beings because they suggest better, healthier mates. Deviations from symmetry in art, however, are often considered beautiful. This suggests that symmetry cannot fully explain why some art is perceived to be more beautiful than others.
While these eight “laws” are interesting, they have all been theory and Ramachandran has been met with as much criticism over his conclusions as praise. More concrete research has not been able to prove or disprove these theories, but some work has honed in on specific brain regions that might be critical to understanding neuroaesthetics.
One particularly important area is the prefrontal cortex, which is associated with color perception, decision-making, memory, and overall executive functioning. One study found that the orbito-frontal cortex (OFC) is involved in the judgment of whether a painting is beautiful or not, as there is higher activation in this brain region when a person views paints they consider beautiful. Similarly, lower activation in the OFC was associated with decreased beauty. Given our current understanding that the OFC is also associated with specific interpretation of values of gustatory, olfactory, and visual stimuli, it is believed that the OFC may be critical in assigning value to stimuli.
In a similar vein, research into the prefrontal dorsolateral cortex (PDC) has implicated this brain region in aesthetics as well. While the OFC is activated in both attractive and unattractive stimuli, the PC appears to be selectively activated only by stimuli perceived to be beautiful. This is thought to be a top-down process.
Brain damage provides us with an interesting window in better understanding the neurological origins of aesthetics. Trauma can dramatically alter artistic abilities, but it is important to note that there is not one single area of the brain associated with art. Artists with damage to the left side of their brains have been found to introduce more vivid colors and convert to abstract styles. On the other hand, damage to the right side of the brain has led to artists producing works with omission of the left hand side of the image, a condition known as hemispatial neglect.
Ultimately, while theoretical laws and neuroscience research have highlighted interesting phenomenon about neuroaesthetics and the production and appreciation of the arts, we are still a long way from fully understanding true perception of beauty. While the field of neuroaesthetics will not cure disease or stop dementia, uncovering the origins of aesthetics and beauty is critical to better understanding the complexities of being human and the basis of culture.
—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--———--
Google Maps for the Brain
Yasmine Ayman
December, 2018
Scientists at the University of Chicago think that mapping the human brain could be one of the biggest scientific efforts we have ever undertaken, but also one of the most difficult one. It seems almost paradoxical that one could fully fathom the complexity of the human brain using the human brain itself. The journey to this incredible feat could reveal novel insights to the most elusive questions we have such as what it means to be human, or what exactly happens in the brain in the context of various diseases.
A neuroscience 101 class would tell you that we think there are nearly 100 billion neurons in the brain, and each of these neurons can make myriad more connections with the other cells around it. . A complete map of these connections is sometimes called a connectome, and would most likely comprise the largest dataset ever created. This endeavor is only surmountable through powerful tools and infrastructure that are supplied through a partnership with Argonne, a U.S. Department of Energy multidisciplinary science and engineering research center- the only limiting factor becomes our brain's capacity to understand itself. The data generated through the supercomputers and the Advanced Photon Source, the most powerful X-Ray in the world, is unmatched by any other institution. Think about it, this project entails mapping every connection between every cell in at least a limited region of the brain which contains information about each one of us and our personalities.
Narayanan Kasthuri, assistant professor of neurobiology at the university and neuroscience researcher at Argonne, was recruited to use his experience with automated methods to develop a way to efficiently map the brain. Starting small, Kasthuri is first comparing young brains to old brains, animal brains to human brains, and “normal” brains to brains of people with mental disorders, hoping it will help him inch towards what makes our brains unique in the first place. One such study is looking at octopus brains to better understand visual processing, another is examining how children can acquire new skills or assimilate culturally with greater ease than adults.
The wide-ranging implications of the human connectome are even more exciting- from the energy crisis, where modelling energy circuits and power plants after the efficient circuitry of the brain would be a promising solution, to getting at the core of the mental health crisis or the tragic neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease. It seems as if the Zuckerman Institute has a new neuro-competitor -- no, collaborator -- the University of Chicago.
The main question this project raises for me personally is maybe more of an epistemological one: If we were to map the entire human brain, would we be able to predict human behavior? That is, would I be able to look at someone’s human brain map and compute their responses to any stimuli? If we accept the premise that our behavior, our consciousness and the sum product of who we are, emerges from the very connections the connectome would map, this idea seems plausible. So if completing this journey means no more neuroscientific ambiguity, what really separates us from a machine?
Alicia Whye
November, 2019
The methods of administering drugs are generally limited to injections or ingestion. The downfall of these two methods are the time required for the body to react to the drug and the spread of the drug to other regions in the body for which the drug is not intended. However, a new form of administration has recently been created which involves the use of a liposome — a lipid bubble filled with small magnetic particles, a given drug and water. Researchers at MIT have developed a technique by applying a weak magnetic field to the liposome which then heats the fatty bubble and changes its state from solid to liquid, therefore allowing the drug to seep into surrounding areas. Turning off the magnetic field causes the lipid to return back to its solid state and inhibiting further release of the drug. This type of administration could prove to be very effective for diseases such as Parkinson’s or epilepsy, where the cause stems from either too much or too little neuronal activity. Administering a drug using a liposome and magnetic field would allow doctors to inject the magnetic particles into the desired location, such as a certain region of neurons, and activate the drug at a specific time, one being at the onset of symptoms. With the development of new treatments always comes the question of who will have access to these advancements. As liposomes are not difficult to produce, it will be interesting to follow the evolution of this magnetic particle administration of drugs and its efficacy and popularity compared to existing forms of administration.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————--
BRAINPRINT: The Next Frontier of Password Security
Nicholas Manfred
November, 2019
In 2015, a group of researchers at Binghamton University conducted a study in which 45 subjects’ centro-parietal lobe brainwaves were electroencephalographically charted in response to a series of 75 acronyms. Each subject’s brain activity in response to these stimuli is characterized by the N400 component, which is the potential resulting from semantic stimulation in this part of the brain.
What these researchers found is that each individual response to a linguistic stimulus is discernibly unique, much like a fingerprint. Perhaps the biggest implication of this finding is the potential utilization of brainwave technology for security purposes, brainprinting. With this technology’s continuously increasing trends toward higher accuracy, greater facility of operation, and longer duration of usage, the pros of brainprinting are evident. Proponents argue that it is more effective than fingerprinting and, unlike fingerprinting, can be reset in the case of a breach.
However, the use of brainprinting also poses several ethical dilemmas—namely a potential infringement on privacy via cognitive biometrics. The use of brainprint has already been used to convict and assess the thoughts of terrorists. On the other hand, the potential usage of brainprinting as a mechanism of surveillance has been implicated, which could ensure safety at the price of privacy of thought. Brainprint appears to be well-intended, but also Orwellian to some degree. Thus, its role in both the legal system and in everyday life are currently subject to debate.
—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--———--
How Our Brain Perceives Jokes
John Wang
November, 2019
Everyone enjoys a good laugh at times your friends crack a joke or you read a funny post on the internet. But have you ever wondered how funniess is perceived in the brain, and why are laughters elicited upon hearing funny jokes?
A group of Dartmouth researchers poked at this question by asking volunteers to watch episodes of “The Simpsons” and “Seinfeld” while having their brain activity traced using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The results of the study point at two distinct neural mechanisms -- one is responsible for joke detection and the other for joke appreciation. The researchers reported that ““joke detection occurred in the left inferior frontal and posterior temporal cortices on the left side of the brain. The left side of the brain helps us sort through novel or unexpected information and cross-reference it to information already stored in our memories.”
The notion of novelty and surprise seems to underpin humor perception. Indeed, successful jokes are those that are best at distorting our assumptions -- or our “hypotheses about the world and how it works based on our previous life experiences” as Dr. Richard Restak put it. He further explains that humor perception relies on neural mechanisms that may be unique to humans: “it is the brain’s frontal lobes that make sense of the discrepancy between the script and the situation described by the joke or illustrated by the cartoon. This ability is unique to our species … We are the only creatures that possess a highly evolved working memory, which by creating and storing scripts allows us to appreciate sophisticated and subtle forms of humor.”
Once a joke is recognized as “funny”, we follow up with a burst of joyful emotions. But why is laughter the universal response? Apparently the explanation may lie in the times when we were all cute babies. According to Dr. Caspar Addyman who conducted numerous studies on baby development and learning, laughter is mainly driven by social reasons. Many times we find a baby smiles and laughs along with a caregiver in a classic “peekaboo” game or a cheerful tickle. The actual physical sensation from tickling is not enough to cause a baby to laugh, explained by Addyman; however, the baby is laughing at the fact that there is a sociable being tickling him or her. In fact, laughing is a developed response to express a sense of joy, often times learned from the caregivers. Therefore, laughter could be recognized as a hallmark for children’s cognitive development as well.
Nonetheless, whether you’re a fan of sitcom comedy or you prefer cheeky word play, your brain’s ability to detect (“get it”) — and appreciate (laugh at) a joke — are highly evolved and incredibly intricate.
—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--———--
Researchers Found Hypothalamic NSCs Delay Ageing and Increase Longevity in Mice.
Zhi Lin
February, 2019
Wouldn’t it be remarkable if we can double our lifespan, or even better, live forever? If we can find out how the ageing process is programmed by our brain, we can manipulate it to our benefit, such as delay the process to prevent ageing-related physiological changes and increase longevity. This may sound like something coming straight out of a sci-fi movie, but in a recent study conducted by a team of scientists at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, published in Nature, researchers have done just that—although in mice. Their work nonetheless brought us closer to understanding how the ageing process is regulated by the hypothalamus at a mechanistic level and proposes potential methods through which we can delay ageing in humans in the future.
More specifically, the research team explored the role of hypothalamic NSCs (adult neural stem/progenitor cells) in ageing in mice. They first killed hypothalamic NSCs in mid-aged mice by injecting them with lentiviruses. Compared to control mice receiving sham injections, the experimental mice showed poorer treadmill performance, coordination, and muscle endurance, all of which are telltale signs of advanced ageing. Furthermore, they died 100 days earlier than the controls. When the researchers implanted NSC cells in mid-aged mice, the injected mid-aged mice outperformed sham controls in every behavioral test. Most importantly, they lived nearly 200 days longer than the controls, providing strong evidence for NSC cells’ role in delaying ageing. Finally, in an effort to understand the mechanism through which hypothalamic NSCs regulate the ageing process, Zhang et al. hypothesized NSCs regulate ageing processes by secreting exosomal miRNAs. They injected both mid-aged mice that had previously received viral injections to destroy NSCs and control mice receiving sham injections with exosomes containing exosomal miRNAs. In both groups, mice that received the exosome injections demonstrated improved performance from before, suggesting exosomal miRNAs has a role in delaying ageing-associated defects.
The study conducted by the Albert Einstein research team was remarkable, not only because it was able to demonstrate how hypothalamic NSCs accelerate and decelerate ageing in mice for the first time, but also because it provides a mechanistic model through which NSCs regulate ageing. Pinpointing a precise pathway opens the door for other researchers to further study this work. More importantly, it allows scientists to design therapies that target specific elements of this pathway, such as drugs that increase the production of endogenous exosomal miRNAs, to tackle age-associated defects.
—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--———--
Beauty and the Brain: Theory and Research
Katie Tsui
February, 2019
Neuroaesthetics is a growing and intriguing discipline centered on understanding why and how certain works of art are perceived to be more aesthetically pleasing than others. A relatively new interdisciplinary field that was formally defined in 2002, neuroaesthetics relies on neuroscience and scientific approaches to better understand aesthetic experiences within the brain.
Professor Semir Zeki, an expert in neuroaesthetics at the University College of London had once stated that “the artist is in a sense, a neuroscientist, exploring the potentials and capacities of the brain, though with different tools.” By this, Zeki suggests that artists create art to explore what is beautiful or not to the brain.
Vilayanur Ramachandran, a neuroscientist perhaps best known for his theories on how phantom limbs come to be, developed a theory of human artistic experience centered around eight principles: peak shift principle, isolation, grouping, contrast, perceptual problem solving, generic viewpoint, visual metaphors, and symmetry. Each law is explained below.
1. Peak Shift: Artwork highlights essential features and disregards irrelevant information. Differences, therefore, get emphasizes and exaggerated much like a caricature, or a super stimulus.
2. Isolation: Removal of a color, form, motion, or source allows us to direct attention to certain areas of the artwork, thereby amplifying the differences established by peak shifts.
3. Grouping: We prefer to group objects that are similar to each other. Evolutionarily, this skill allowed humans to defeat camouflage by putting together seemingly random splotches into meaningful images.
4. Contrast: Contrasts tend to be pleasing as attention because it is fundamental to the development of forms.
5. Perceptual problem solving: This concept refers to how artwork becomes more pleasing when the viewer has to do more work to uncover it. For this reason, we enjoy illusions.
6. Generic viewpoint: We prefer interpretations where there is an infinite set of viewpoints rather than a unique one.
7. Visual metaphors: Similar to the perceptual problem solving, we tend to prefer
8. Symmetry: Theory states that humans are more attracted to symmetrical objects and beings because they suggest better, healthier mates. Deviations from symmetry in art, however, are often considered beautiful. This suggests that symmetry cannot fully explain why some art is perceived to be more beautiful than others.
While these eight “laws” are interesting, they have all been theory and Ramachandran has been met with as much criticism over his conclusions as praise. More concrete research has not been able to prove or disprove these theories, but some work has honed in on specific brain regions that might be critical to understanding neuroaesthetics.
One particularly important area is the prefrontal cortex, which is associated with color perception, decision-making, memory, and overall executive functioning. One study found that the orbito-frontal cortex (OFC) is involved in the judgment of whether a painting is beautiful or not, as there is higher activation in this brain region when a person views paints they consider beautiful. Similarly, lower activation in the OFC was associated with decreased beauty. Given our current understanding that the OFC is also associated with specific interpretation of values of gustatory, olfactory, and visual stimuli, it is believed that the OFC may be critical in assigning value to stimuli.
In a similar vein, research into the prefrontal dorsolateral cortex (PDC) has implicated this brain region in aesthetics as well. While the OFC is activated in both attractive and unattractive stimuli, the PC appears to be selectively activated only by stimuli perceived to be beautiful. This is thought to be a top-down process.
Brain damage provides us with an interesting window in better understanding the neurological origins of aesthetics. Trauma can dramatically alter artistic abilities, but it is important to note that there is not one single area of the brain associated with art. Artists with damage to the left side of their brains have been found to introduce more vivid colors and convert to abstract styles. On the other hand, damage to the right side of the brain has led to artists producing works with omission of the left hand side of the image, a condition known as hemispatial neglect.
Ultimately, while theoretical laws and neuroscience research have highlighted interesting phenomenon about neuroaesthetics and the production and appreciation of the arts, we are still a long way from fully understanding true perception of beauty. While the field of neuroaesthetics will not cure disease or stop dementia, uncovering the origins of aesthetics and beauty is critical to better understanding the complexities of being human and the basis of culture.
—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--—————--———--
Google Maps for the Brain
Yasmine Ayman
December, 2018
Scientists at the University of Chicago think that mapping the human brain could be one of the biggest scientific efforts we have ever undertaken, but also one of the most difficult one. It seems almost paradoxical that one could fully fathom the complexity of the human brain using the human brain itself. The journey to this incredible feat could reveal novel insights to the most elusive questions we have such as what it means to be human, or what exactly happens in the brain in the context of various diseases.
A neuroscience 101 class would tell you that we think there are nearly 100 billion neurons in the brain, and each of these neurons can make myriad more connections with the other cells around it. . A complete map of these connections is sometimes called a connectome, and would most likely comprise the largest dataset ever created. This endeavor is only surmountable through powerful tools and infrastructure that are supplied through a partnership with Argonne, a U.S. Department of Energy multidisciplinary science and engineering research center- the only limiting factor becomes our brain's capacity to understand itself. The data generated through the supercomputers and the Advanced Photon Source, the most powerful X-Ray in the world, is unmatched by any other institution. Think about it, this project entails mapping every connection between every cell in at least a limited region of the brain which contains information about each one of us and our personalities.
Narayanan Kasthuri, assistant professor of neurobiology at the university and neuroscience researcher at Argonne, was recruited to use his experience with automated methods to develop a way to efficiently map the brain. Starting small, Kasthuri is first comparing young brains to old brains, animal brains to human brains, and “normal” brains to brains of people with mental disorders, hoping it will help him inch towards what makes our brains unique in the first place. One such study is looking at octopus brains to better understand visual processing, another is examining how children can acquire new skills or assimilate culturally with greater ease than adults.
The wide-ranging implications of the human connectome are even more exciting- from the energy crisis, where modelling energy circuits and power plants after the efficient circuitry of the brain would be a promising solution, to getting at the core of the mental health crisis or the tragic neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease. It seems as if the Zuckerman Institute has a new neuro-competitor -- no, collaborator -- the University of Chicago.
The main question this project raises for me personally is maybe more of an epistemological one: If we were to map the entire human brain, would we be able to predict human behavior? That is, would I be able to look at someone’s human brain map and compute their responses to any stimuli? If we accept the premise that our behavior, our consciousness and the sum product of who we are, emerges from the very connections the connectome would map, this idea seems plausible. So if completing this journey means no more neuroscientific ambiguity, what really separates us from a machine?
