February 19, 2013

Opposition to Obama’s boondoggle brain activity map project is jealousy pure and simple.


17 Responses to “BAM!”

  1. Susan Says:

    Why are you trolling the choir?


  2. becca Says:

    Yep. It’s also a huge waste of money.


  3. miko Says:

    Nothing to see here, move along.


  4. Pinko Punko Says:

    Well played by our brain project cash hot tub swimming host.


  5. It’s like a new cold war but then with neuroscientists instead of nuclear physicists.


  6. Spiny Norman Says:

    It’s identical to the Euro foolishness. Meanwhile BGI is going to own our asses.


  7. becca Says:

    Is this map thing gonna be cooler than Brainbow, or just less practical?


  8. DJMH Says:

    How can you call it a “boondoggle” in one breath and claim any oppo is jealousy in the next?

    The human genome project had a distinct and clear goal, and we know what every piece was, we just had to do it a bazillion times to get to the goal. This one…is not like that. But I can’t really think of other neuroscience goals that we’re *more* likely to hit, so I’m just indifferent.


  9. drugmonkey Says:

    How can you call it a “boondoggle” in one breath and claim any oppo is jealousy in the next?

    What makes you think I can’t simultaneously think it is a boondoggle but see no real objection other than jealous scientists who aren’t in on the largesse?


  10. Odyssey Says:

    It’s a boondoggle.

    Unless I get funded through it. Then it’s clearly jealousy.


  11. jipkin Says:

    Perhaps the critics are salty because they didn’t figure out how to secure a giant pot of money for themselves.

    But really, BAM = systems neuroscience, basically (with a little mind control* on the side). Looking at what they proposed in June, all they’re doing now is what they would have done anyway, but with an arguably more secure funding source.

    *yep, mind control:


  12. Where’s the evidence that this money is real? In order to make this happen, Congress has to appropriate the funds, right?


  13. Bashir Says:

    I assume that I’m getting like 30% of this in the form of a personal check from Obama. So I think it’s great.


  14. highdesert Says:

    Seems like vaporware. So far the sole source is the NYT piece and a passing reference in the SOTU, yes?


  15. neuromusic Says:

    @highdesert – might be vaporware, but as @jipkin noted, there is a review/proposal from last year:


  16. Dave Says:

    I love this new style of science proposals. Fuck NIH panels and peer review all together. Just whoop up your idea to politicians and the press.

    I *am* jealous. It’s an awesome idea. Just wish it wasn’t so selfish. You and I and everyone else sensible knows damn well the 3 Billion is ultimately going to come at the expense of real science. Even if congress grants some special appropriation now, it still means biomedical science — and neuroscience in particular — goes to the back of a very long line. Next time NIH asks for a general increase, those politicians will remember. How’s that brain map coming, they’ll say.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: