- Email: [email protected]
The Human Brain Project: mutiny on the flagship
Editorial
The Human Brain Project (HBP) was launched in October, 2013, promising to revolutionise our understanding of the human brain. By July, 2014, the project was back in the news with a public dispute about its direction. The handling of this disagreement over the next few weeks will be crucial to the future of the HBP and perhaps other ambitious brain research efforts. The HBP, which has been selected as a flagship initiative for the Future Emerging Technologies programme of the European Commission (EC), involves scientists from more than 100 institutions in 24 countries and is expected to receive more than €1 billion over 10 years from the EC and member states. The project is best known for its aim to produce a computer simulation of the human brain, but its objectives also include neuroscience, medicine, and other aspects of computing. In neuroscience, the aims include a unified understanding of the human brain, from genes to behaviour and in health and disease; in medicine, they include a map to enable diagnosis of neurological and psychiatric diseases, in silico experiments to understand brain diseases and develop new drugs, and even personalised medicine. In the current rampup phase, information and communication technology platforms are being developed for use in the operational phase, which is due to start in 2016. These aims are ambitious and promise much needed benefits for neurology. But some people feel that the HBP is focussing too much on information and communication technology and not enough on real brains. In an open letter to the EC on July 7, a group of researchers called the project “not well conceived or implemented” and “ill suited to be the centrepiece of European neuroscience”. These critics say that the focus of the HBP is too narrow, and becoming narrower with the exclusion of a neuroscience subproject and as some researchers choose to leave. Concern was also raised that funding might be diverted from other neuroscience research. The signatories demand that a scheduled review of the ramp-up phase be independent, transparent, and prepared to recommend changes to governance of the HBP; if their demands are not met, they pledge to boycott future phases. The letter had 156 signatories listed as “Principal Investigators/Directors, eligible for HBP funding” when submitted to the EC; by Aug 6, it had 488, plus 267 supporters with less clear links to the project. www.thelancet.com/neurology Vol 13 September 2014
On July 9, the HBP directors and executive committee stated that they were saddened by the open letter and tried to clarify the aims of the project, highlighting that it provides a new approach to brain science and aims to integrate, not generate, data. They also pointed out that cognitive neuroscience has been repositioned to become a so-called partnering project rather than excluded entirely. Despite this statement, in an additional letter on July 16, six academics expressed their dismay at the attitude of the HBP leaders. On July 18, Robert Madelin, Director-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology at the EC, stated that the EC will do its best to address concerns and that recommendations from an independent review are expected in September. New approaches to the challenge of understanding the brain and its diseases are welcome and computing infrastructure seems a good place to start. But the likelihood of potential benefits will be reduced if people who would eventually use the infrastructure feel alienated and if potential funders of future phases decide to take their money to less controversial initiatives. The HBP was criticised from the start for being too ambitious, in view of the number of neurons and connections in the human brain and their variation between people and even within individuals throughout life. Prestige projects often attract criticism, but the disagreement about the direction of the HBP seems particularly bitter. Its supporters have pointed out that the Human Genome Project was also criticised in its early stages, but that project seems to have had a clearer direction from the outset. If, as has been suggested, the signatories of the open letter are misguided, the way in which the aims of the HBP have been communicated should be examined. Leaders of similarly ambitious projects, such as the Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative in the USA, should take note and do all they can to keep the neuroscience community on board. Madelin states that “it is helpful to have all views out in the open: but we must now wait and see for some weeks”. We must not wait for too many weeks. The team assessing the HBP needs to restore confidence in its direction and the value of such initiatives before more researchers and potential future funders turn away from this new approach to brain research. ■ The Lancet Neurology
Alfred Pasieka/Science Photo Library
The Human Brain Project: mutiny on the flagship
For more on the Human Brain Project see https://www. humanbrainproject.eu/ For more on Future Emerging Technologies Flagship Initiatives see http://cordis. europa.eu/fp7/ict/programme/ fet/flagship/home_en.html For the open letter see http:// www.neurofuture.eu/ For the HBP response see https://www. humanbrainproject.eu/ documents/10180/17646/HBPStatement.090614.pdf For the additional letter see Nature 2014; 511: 292 For the EC response see https:// ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/ blog/no-single-roadmapunderstanding-human-brain For early doubts about the Human Genome Project see Science 1990; 248: 804 For more on the BRAIN Initiative see http://www.nih. gov/science/brain/
855
The Human Brain Project (HBP) was launched in October, 2013, promising to revolutionise our understanding of the human brain. By July, 2014, the project was back in the news with a public dispute about its direction. The handling of this disagreement over the next few weeks will be crucial to the future of the HBP and perhaps other ambitious brain research efforts. The HBP, which has been selected as a flagship initiative for the Future Emerging Technologies programme of the European Commission (EC), involves scientists from more than 100 institutions in 24 countries and is expected to receive more than €1 billion over 10 years from the EC and member states. The project is best known for its aim to produce a computer simulation of the human brain, but its objectives also include neuroscience, medicine, and other aspects of computing. In neuroscience, the aims include a unified understanding of the human brain, from genes to behaviour and in health and disease; in medicine, they include a map to enable diagnosis of neurological and psychiatric diseases, in silico experiments to understand brain diseases and develop new drugs, and even personalised medicine. In the current rampup phase, information and communication technology platforms are being developed for use in the operational phase, which is due to start in 2016. These aims are ambitious and promise much needed benefits for neurology. But some people feel that the HBP is focussing too much on information and communication technology and not enough on real brains. In an open letter to the EC on July 7, a group of researchers called the project “not well conceived or implemented” and “ill suited to be the centrepiece of European neuroscience”. These critics say that the focus of the HBP is too narrow, and becoming narrower with the exclusion of a neuroscience subproject and as some researchers choose to leave. Concern was also raised that funding might be diverted from other neuroscience research. The signatories demand that a scheduled review of the ramp-up phase be independent, transparent, and prepared to recommend changes to governance of the HBP; if their demands are not met, they pledge to boycott future phases. The letter had 156 signatories listed as “Principal Investigators/Directors, eligible for HBP funding” when submitted to the EC; by Aug 6, it had 488, plus 267 supporters with less clear links to the project. www.thelancet.com/neurology Vol 13 September 2014
On July 9, the HBP directors and executive committee stated that they were saddened by the open letter and tried to clarify the aims of the project, highlighting that it provides a new approach to brain science and aims to integrate, not generate, data. They also pointed out that cognitive neuroscience has been repositioned to become a so-called partnering project rather than excluded entirely. Despite this statement, in an additional letter on July 16, six academics expressed their dismay at the attitude of the HBP leaders. On July 18, Robert Madelin, Director-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology at the EC, stated that the EC will do its best to address concerns and that recommendations from an independent review are expected in September. New approaches to the challenge of understanding the brain and its diseases are welcome and computing infrastructure seems a good place to start. But the likelihood of potential benefits will be reduced if people who would eventually use the infrastructure feel alienated and if potential funders of future phases decide to take their money to less controversial initiatives. The HBP was criticised from the start for being too ambitious, in view of the number of neurons and connections in the human brain and their variation between people and even within individuals throughout life. Prestige projects often attract criticism, but the disagreement about the direction of the HBP seems particularly bitter. Its supporters have pointed out that the Human Genome Project was also criticised in its early stages, but that project seems to have had a clearer direction from the outset. If, as has been suggested, the signatories of the open letter are misguided, the way in which the aims of the HBP have been communicated should be examined. Leaders of similarly ambitious projects, such as the Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative in the USA, should take note and do all they can to keep the neuroscience community on board. Madelin states that “it is helpful to have all views out in the open: but we must now wait and see for some weeks”. We must not wait for too many weeks. The team assessing the HBP needs to restore confidence in its direction and the value of such initiatives before more researchers and potential future funders turn away from this new approach to brain research. ■ The Lancet Neurology
Alfred Pasieka/Science Photo Library
The Human Brain Project: mutiny on the flagship
For more on the Human Brain Project see https://www. humanbrainproject.eu/ For more on Future Emerging Technologies Flagship Initiatives see http://cordis. europa.eu/fp7/ict/programme/ fet/flagship/home_en.html For the open letter see http:// www.neurofuture.eu/ For the HBP response see https://www. humanbrainproject.eu/ documents/10180/17646/HBPStatement.090614.pdf For the additional letter see Nature 2014; 511: 292 For the EC response see https:// ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/ blog/no-single-roadmapunderstanding-human-brain For early doubts about the Human Genome Project see Science 1990; 248: 804 For more on the BRAIN Initiative see http://www.nih. gov/science/brain/
855