4 ms·

http://www.bioworld.com/content/computer-science-vs-biology-heart-human-brain-project-division http://www.bioworld.com/content/computer-science-vs-biology-...

http://www.bioworld.com/content/computer-science-vs-biology-heart-human-brain-project-division http://www.bioworld.com/content/computer-science-vs-biology-... I was curious why there was only neuroscientists and biologists quoted so I went looking for another source. I think this link gives a different, broader overview of the situation and doesn't only focus on personal attacks. Specifically neuroscience subproject funding was removed... This seems like angry academics that lost funding are trying to derail it through the media to my uneducated observance...

orbifold 12y ago
I think the overall problem is that traditional neuro scientists and biologists bring virtually none of the required skills to the table. Moreover while neuroscience is able to show pretty pictures of brain activity, they have made insufficient progress in understanding it. On the other hand the physicists/mathematicians that have invaded the field have a background in computational methods, simulation and hardware development. So for example a group at the University I studied had previous experience designing analog chips for feature detection in High Energy Physics, a number of years ago they re-branded themselves as a neurophysics group and recently landed a ~100 million euro+ grant in the context of the Human Brain Project. It is also much easier to learn the jargon and read some of the softer phenomenological articles than to develop a sound understanding of the underlying mathematics and physics.
- aheilbut 12y ago
  It is also much easier to conjure up some entertaining but biologically meaningless mathematical model than to spend years doing real biological experiments. I think the overall problem is that the physicists and the biologists don't have respect for each other's skills and knowledge.
  - orbifold 12y ago
    Obviously a biologist will have lots of knowledge and skills a physicist doesn't have. Mathematical models can be very useful even if they don't model the real world faithfully, as long as they capture part of the behavior to some precision. Physicists spend an extraordinary amount of time studying toy models to build up intuition, which together with an understanding how to proceed in more complicated solutions can be very useful. For example even though most real world EM problems won't have the symmetries required to come up with a closed form solution, the intuition gained from studying toy examples is still invaluable. In the case of neurons you can model the membrane of the neuron and the interior and exterior to various degrees of accuracy as an EM problem, if you wish you can even add surface defects. Since the temperature is high, all quantum effects are essentially washed out, as are the need to model individual calcium ions etc., at least to first approximation. After the dust settles you can come up with a few effective parameters that model one neuron and an ODE that models its dynamics. As it turns out the ODE indeed exhibits dynamics similar to real world neurons in response to electric stimuli. If you then couple those ODEs into larger system and try different coupling configurations (the coupling coefficients model the synapses between neurons), you have come up with a simplified model for parts of a brain.
- SlipperySlope 12y ago
  The pecking order of the sciences ... Psychologists answer only to Biologists. Biologists answer only to Chemists. Chemists answer only to Physicists. Physicists answer only to Mathematicians. Mathematicians answer only to Philosophers. I would add that Software Engineers answer only to Mathematicians.

orbifold 12y ago

I think the overall problem is that traditional neuro scientists and biologists bring virtually none of the required skills to the table. Moreover while neuroscience is able to show pretty pictures of brain activity, they have made insufficient progress in understanding it. On the other hand the physicists/mathematicians that have invaded the field have a background in computational methods, simulation and hardware development. So for example a group at the University I studied had previous experience designing analog chips for feature detection in High Energy Physics, a number of years ago they re-branded themselves as a neurophysics group and recently landed a ~100 million euro+ grant in the context of the Human Brain Project. It is also much easier to learn the jargon and read some of the softer phenomenological articles than to develop a sound understanding of the underlying mathematics and physics.

aheilbut 12y ago
It is also much easier to conjure up some entertaining but biologically meaningless mathematical model than to spend years doing real biological experiments. I think the overall problem is that the physicists and the biologists don't have respect for each other's skills and knowledge.
- orbifold 12y ago
  Obviously a biologist will have lots of knowledge and skills a physicist doesn't have. Mathematical models can be very useful even if they don't model the real world faithfully, as long as they capture part of the behavior to some precision. Physicists spend an extraordinary amount of time studying toy models to build up intuition, which together with an understanding how to proceed in more complicated solutions can be very useful. For example even though most real world EM problems won't have the symmetries required to come up with a closed form solution, the intuition gained from studying toy examples is still invaluable. In the case of neurons you can model the membrane of the neuron and the interior and exterior to various degrees of accuracy as an EM problem, if you wish you can even add surface defects. Since the temperature is high, all quantum effects are essentially washed out, as are the need to model individual calcium ions etc., at least to first approximation. After the dust settles you can come up with a few effective parameters that model one neuron and an ODE that models its dynamics. As it turns out the ODE indeed exhibits dynamics similar to real world neurons in response to electric stimuli. If you then couple those ODEs into larger system and try different coupling configurations (the coupling coefficients model the synapses between neurons), you have come up with a simplified model for parts of a brain.
SlipperySlope 12y ago
The pecking order of the sciences ... Psychologists answer only to Biologists. Biologists answer only to Chemists. Chemists answer only to Physicists. Physicists answer only to Mathematicians. Mathematicians answer only to Philosophers. I would add that Software Engineers answer only to Mathematicians.