http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/neuro/nematodeuploadproject/
From the Human Brain Project http://www.humanbrainproject.eu/neuroscience.html
Why not begin with simple organisms like C.elegans?
There are two problems here. The first is feasibility; the second is the relevance of our results. Feasibility. Neuroscientists have mapped all of C.elegans’ 300 or so neurons. However, enormous amounts of key data needed are still missing. For instance we do not have enough data on the physiology and pharmacology of C. Elegans neurons and synapses. And we still have limited data on the distribution of ion channels, receptors and other proteins on neurons, synapses and glia. Without this data we cannot build unifying models. A second problem is how easy it is to obtain the data. The crucial requirement for unifying models is the ability to access the data needed. Obtaining a deep understanding of the molecular machinery of a single neuron or a single synapse is just as difficult in C. Elegans as in human beings. And many datasets – particularly data on cognition - are actually easier to acquire in rodents, or even in humans. So we can’t just say: “let’s do this quickly in worms and do complex brains later”: we have to solve the same basic challenges, whatever brain we model. What we are actually doing is building a generic strategy we can use to reconstruct any brain. Relevance: Studying the “simple” nervous systems of organisms like C.elegans or drosophila, is obviously very important, particularly for molecular and genetic studies. However the organization, electrophysiology and function of the mammalian brain are quite different. One of the HBP’s most important goals is to contribute to the development of new treatments for brain disease. But pharmaceutical companies already have great difficulties in translating results from mouse to human beings; with simpler organisms these problems become much worse. If we want to make a real contribution to clinical research, it is probably unwise to invest heavily in simple systems, so distant from the human brain.
Science usually proceeds somewhat incrementally from easier problems to harder problems and I'm not seeing the foundation here.
Weren't simple genomes sequenced long before it was proposed to sequence the human genome ?
I apologize if there is repetition, unclear lines, or bad reasoning, I am in the middle of running some brain simulations, and had a minute while it ran.
It is debatable whether building a $1.6B catatonic brain will advance neuroscience more than a comprehensive, experimentally matched simulation of a simpler system first.
It's disheartening how much of science news and research today is all about hype, smoke, and mirrors. It's becoming more about catching fleeting fame and money grabbing than actually producing interesting advances and results.
Exactly how would they scale this when you have something like a hundred trillion synapses between the neurons in a brain? Mind you this is falsely assuming that there is nothing of worth to simulate within individual neurons/synapses. Our current technological infrastructure isn't even in the ballpark of being good enough to deal with actually LARGE graph data structures, and people are getting excited about this nonsense. They talk up these simulations, but we don't even know the basic details about these things yet.
Let's see a complete simulation of a spider's brain from the bottom up before talking about simulating the human brain. Let's figure out precisely what is going on in the brain of a spider. I will be surprised if we accomplish that in the next 50 years.
> Precisely. Can we even see a complete simulation of
> E. Coli?
Do these worms exhibit non-trivial behavior or is it at the level of say reflex attraction to light sources ?
PS: Not mine but this looks like a good summery. http://www.jefftk.com/news/2011-11-02