Right, and people had been playing with rockets for 30 years before the Apollo project. There is something to be said for large, concerted effort toward a singular goal. There are still enough massive gaps in our understanding of the brain to justify further research.
That said, this press speculation is just fluff and it's unclear to me whether it is possible to define such a focused goal.
As an aside, I don't quite get all the cynicism in this thread.
President: we will spend more money on science!
HN: Meh?
President: we will spend more money on science! HN: Meh?
The cynicism is that all "science" is not equal. Correct or not, cantastoria's criticism is that giving money to charlatans takes that money away from basic research. A good counterargument would outline why "mapping the brain" is possible and a good use of resources. Personally, I'm still waiting for that from someone.
Correct or not, cantastoria's criticism is that giving money to
charlatans takes that money away from basic research.
I don't understand who the supposed charlatans are. The basic scientists lauded by cantastoria for doing existing research are almost certainly going to get the lion's share of this new money.
outline why "mapping the brain" is possible and a good use of
resources.
Because that's how grant peer-review works? Who will compose the review panels for this funding? Mostly the same people who already compose the review panels for existing NIH/NINDS/etc. funding mechanisms.
I can only guess that you find this paper convincing.
The nanoprobe and "complex emergent properties" stuff at the beginning are a bit hand-wavy, but the concrete 5 and 10-year goals are sufficiently ambitious while certainly not outlandish.
It's more like if people had been already going to the moon for 30 years in this case.
There is something to be said for large, concerted effort toward a singular goal.
As I said that concerted effort has been going on for quite some time now it just hasn't been funded by a narrow project that will benefit very few scientists (and apparently Google, Microsoft and Qualcomm).
It's not cynicism, it's healthy skepticism. "More money on science" in this case looks more like a boondoggle that will benefit a few select scientists and corporations and will probably end up taking money away from a larger group of scientists already looking into these areas.
That said, this press speculation is just fluff and it's unclear to me whether it is possible to define such a focused goal.
As an aside, I don't quite get all the cynicism in this thread. President: we will spend more money on science! HN: Meh?