Neuroscience — Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going?

[RingerBell]

What would monsieur Fourier have said if someone would have told him that 200 years later his ideas could be used in the process of imaging brains of a living human?

Information technology has been really changing many areas of science in the past 50 years. Computers combined with existing knowledge of, for example mathemathics, physics, chemistry and biology have led to discovery of various imaging and measuring technologies, like MRI and EIT. Growing computational capacity enables researchers to do even more accurate simulations and use bioinformatics for genome analysis.

So given that, many of the techniques used in the neurosciences, like brain imaging, computational neuroscience, and all other various ways to study and measure brain activity, have evolved quite rapidly in the recent decades.

So the question is: Where is neuroscience and neurology today? Will the future bring big advances in understanding the human brain and the nervous system. Will there be more treatments for neurological conditions? Or will the rate of new discoveries decay? What do you think?

 

[Samir]

You may be interested in reading such posts as:
https://www.tinnitustalk.com/thread...be-we-can-know-more.3131/page-123#post-340286

Or how prof. Zhang is creating biomaterials from human hair:
https://www.tinnitustalk.com/thread...be-we-can-know-more.3131/page-123#post-340290

Or see what prof. Hudspeth has been doing for the past 50 years:
https://www.tinnitustalk.com/thread...be-we-can-know-more.3131/page-123#post-340293

Or how Sven Vanneste, Jae-Jin Song and Dirk De Ridder use artificial intelligence to computationally set diagnosis and prove the existence of Thalamocortical Dysrhythmia (TCD):
https://www.tinnitustalk.com/thread...r-tinnitus-thalamocortical-dysrhythmia.29250/

There is really too much to cover in this one post.

 

[RingerBell]

You may be interested in reading such posts as:
https://www.tinnitustalk.com/threads/inner-ear-hair-cell-regeneration-—-maybe-we-can-know-more.3131/page-123#post-340286

Or how prof. Zhang is creating biomaterials from human hair:
https://www.tinnitustalk.com/threads/inner-ear-hair-cell-regeneration-—-maybe-we-can-know-more.3131/page-123#post-340290

Or see what prof. Hudspeth has been doing for the past 50 years:
https://www.tinnitustalk.com/threads/inner-ear-hair-cell-regeneration-—-maybe-we-can-know-more.3131/page-123#post-340293

Or how Sven Vanneste, Jae-Jin Song and Dirk De Ridder use artificial intelligence to computationally set diagnosis and prove the existence of Thalamocortical Dysrhythmia (TCD):
https://www.tinnitustalk.com/thread...r-tinnitus-thalamocortical-dysrhythmia.29250/

There is really too much to cover in this one post.

Hi @Samir, thank for your post. I follow the research news closely and think it's a great source of information, and with all the references to the articles provided.

I've seen quite often some short news about neurolocigal conditions getting some possible new treatmeants in the local newspapers. And I usually of course read those. So I intentionally left the word "tinnitus" out from my post and posted this under health chat. It was meant to more of general opening of discussion, if the neuroscience is in its golden age? Or is yet to come? Or have the most advantages, that the quite rapid evolution of methodologies provided by other field of science, already been exhausted and the golden age is already behind.

 

[Samir]

Please, don't be silly. The best is yet to come! Always will be. However, it is up to each of us as individuals and as people to shape the future we want to live in. Remember, the best way to predict the future is to invent it.

But I would not say that we have stagnated, or that the rate of new discoveries has decayed. It may seem so to us at times when we have a pressing need for a breakthrough, when we have a medical condition, or a structural engineering problem, or any other type of problem that we want science to solve for us.

We don't get the results as fast as we would like, we don't go from research to practical application as fast as we would like to. Although, that is also something that is changing as I type this. But the best kind of science is basic research, and it is well worth investing in.

We often do not realize the greatness of the science that we are currently shaping. It is usually the generations that come after us that see the fruit of our efforts.

"All the flowers of tomorrow are hidden in the seeds that are sown today."

It is obviously so, as you have noticed.

What would monsieur Fourier have said if someone would have told him that 200 years later his ideas could be used in the process of imaging brains of a living human?

Merde! What have you been waiting for? Have you all been asleep? Do I have to do everything myself?

That's what monsieur Fourier might have said in response.

The question is, what would monsieur RingerBell have said if someone would have told him in year 2018 that in year 2218 his skepticism was unfounded?

But trust me, you will not need to wait another 200 years to see the fruits of the foundational research taking place in the world today.

Just as a quick example, CRISPR was first described in 1987, and in 2017, researchers successfully used CRISPR as a treatment in a mouse model of human genetic deafness. A span of 30 years. Compare that to 200 years. Going from research to application almost 7 times as fast. The time it takes to go from research to practical application will be different of course for different type of problems, from astronomy to zoology.

Let's not forget the economical incentive for discovering new things and making a practical, profitable application out of it. Just have a look at the numerous patent claims for CRISPR. People are driven not only by the sheer thirst for knowledge but also for money. In that respect, the time we live in and the time monsieur Fourier lived in are different.

There is nothing short of a revolution taking place today, with many fields converging and scientists working across multiple disciplines and exploring new possibilities. It is all greatly driven by information technology. It is not emphasized enough, because it is taken for granted. We have in fact entered a new age of computing, beyond the traditional IT.

Synthetic life!


What will the future bring? Qui vivra verra! He who lives, shall see.

 

[RingerBell]

Thank you for your time replying.

There is nothing short of a revolution taking place today, with many fields converging and scientists working across multiple disciplines and exploring new possibilities. It is all greatly driven by information technology. It is not emphasized enough, because it is taken for granted. We have in fact entered a new age of computing, beyond the traditional IT.

This is actually why I started the topic. IT revolution has probably been one of the biggest economic revolutions mankind has experienced. And as you said, we easily take IT for granted. Nowadays one doesn't need to try find exact solutions to Navier-Stokes- equations when modelling blood flow. (Doing so would give one a hefty pile of cash as bonus though.) One just let's the supercomputers do their magic. So IT has changed many fields of science alot. Some fields of science like bioinformatics are fairly new, so it takes some time before they flow through the academic and educational system. It's difficult, atleast for me, to say whether these branches have already been around long enough to have enough experts in the field to meet the demand.

The question is, what would monsieur RingerBell have said if someone would have told him in year 2018 that in year 2218 his skepticism was unfounded?

He would probably ask for empirical evidence to support the claim.

 

[Samir]

This is actually why I started the topic. IT revolution has probably been one of the biggest economic revolutions mankind has experienced. And as you said, we easily take IT for granted. Nowadays one doesn't need to try find exact solutions to Navier-Stokes- equations when modelling blood flow. (Doing so would give one a hefty pile of cash as bonus though.) One just let's the supercomputers do their magic. So IT has changed many fields of science alot. Some fields of science like bioinformatics are fairly new, so it takes some time before they flow through the academic and educational system. It's difficult, atleast for me, to say whether these branches have already been around long enough to have enough experts in the field to meet the demand.

I agree, and I don't think there are enough experts in these areas. There are not enough experts in regular IT services, yet alone in things like bioinformatics.

He would probably ask for empirical evidence to support the claim.

Touché!