>> I WANT TO WELCOME EVERYBODY HERE THIS MORNING. REALLY IMPORTANT MEETING FOR US AND APPRECIATE THE INPUT PEOPLE HAVE HAD OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS LEADING UP TO THIS AND FOR DISCUSSIONS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TODAY. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS IS WEBCAST, IS THAT CORRECT? GREAT. OKAY. SO KNOW ALL YOUR THOUGHTS THAT ARE EXPRESSED IN AUDIO WAYS WILL BE BROADCASTED ACROSS THE WORLD. THERE IS A DELAY BUT IT'S NOT LONG ENOUGH TO DELETE OUT SOME OF THE STUFF YOU SAY. THE POINT IS THAT LET'S KEEP OUR FOCUS ON THE ISSUES AT HAND AND NOT STRAY INTO AREAS THAT THE PORTER BUILDING WILL REGRET. AND THE FEDERAL INSTITUTION. SOME OF YOU ARE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HERE, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HERE ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS. OKAY. SO THE ISSUE IS THAT ALL AROUND THE TABLE ARE QUITE AWARE, RELATE TO THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AND HOW WE DEAL WITH SOME OF THE REALLY IMPORTANT ETHICAL SOCIAL ISSUES AS THE BRAIN INITIATIVE MOVES FORWARD. AROUND THE SAME PEOPLE THAT HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO, THERE HAVE BEEN WORKSHOPS AND SO FOR THE PEOPLE LISTENING IN, THIS IS -- HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT NIH HAS BEEN INTERESTED IN FOR A LONG TIME, THE HUMAN BRAIN PROJECT, THAT EUROPE HAS BEEN INTERESTED IN, ETHICS IS PART OF THEIR PROJECT AND SO WE ARE HOPING AS WE MOVE ALONG IN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE TO GET ADVICE OF THE PEOPLE AROUND THIS TABLE AND OTHERS WHO ARE THINKING HARD ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES TO HELP GUIDE SCIENTISTS AS THEY MOVE FORWARD SO THEY'RE -- THEIR RESEARCH MEETS THE HIGH ESCAMBIACAL STANDARDS. AND -- HIGH ESCAMBIACAL HIGH ESCAMBIACAL STANDARDS. THE HARD PART IS MESSAGING WITH SOCIETY IN GENERAL ABOUT THE USE OF TECHNOLOGIES AS THEY COME OUT HIGHEST SOMETIMES THE SCIENCE FICTION STORIES SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO BIG PICTURE IS CONCENTRATE ON THE RESEARCH BUT ALSO LOOK TO THE FUTURE AND TRY TO OPEN THE CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW SOCIETY WILL MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT HOW THESE TECHNOLOGIES WILL BE USED IN THE FUTURE. THERE'S TWO ASPECTS OF THIS, THE MEDICAL ASPECT WHICH I THINK WE HAVE NIH INVOLVED IN THOSE INSTANCES MANY TIMES BEFORE AND WE FEEL COMFORTABLE THERE. THERE'S ALSO NON-USES OF MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES WHERE THE NIH ITSELF IS NOT THE DRIVER OF THE SOCIETY ITSELF IN THOSE INSTANCES SO THAT'S BIG PICTURE. THE BIG PICTURE WHERE WE ARE IN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS ON THIS SLIDE, IT WAS ANNOUNCED IN APRIL 2013 SO STILL FAIRLY YOUNG. THE FIRST GRANTS WERE AWARDED SEPTEMBER OF 2014. SO ABOUT TWO AND A HALF YEARS INTO THE GRANTS. THE NEUROETHICS WAS PART AND PARCEL FROM THE BEGINNING SO REMEMBER THERE WAS A PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION BIOETHICS COMMISSION THAT LOOKED AT BRAIN INITIATIVE, CHRISTINE GRADY WAS A MEMBER OF THAT GROUP. THEN THERE WERE A MEETING AT NIH AT NEUROETHICS AND THEN THERE HAVE BEEN WE ESTABLISHED WHAT'S CALLED THE NEUROETHICS WORK GROUP WHICH IS NOW MORPHED TO DIVISION OF MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP WHICH ADVISES US WITH REGARD TO BRAIN INITIATIVE GOING FORWARD. SO WE HAVE SCIENTISTS, WE HAVE ETHICS ADVICE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE BRAIN INITIATIVE SO JUST TO BRIEFLY JUST GO THROUGH THE BASIS FOR THE FOUNDATION OF WHAT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS ABOUT, SO BASICALLY THERE ARE SEVEN HIGH PRIORITY RESEARCH AREAS THAT WERE LAID OUT IN BRAIN 2025 REPORT AND WE'RE BASICALLY BEEN VERY IMPRESSED BY THIS ROADMAP AND FOLLOWING IT FAIRLY CLOSELY. SO THE FIRST STEP IS DISCOVERING DIVERSITY WHICH IS -- CAN BE SIMPLIFIED TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENT BRAIN CELL TYPES. THE SECOND ONE IS MAPS OF MULTIPLE SCALES, THIS IS REALLY THE CRUX OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE BECAUSE THE COMPLEXITY OF THE BRAIN IS COMPLEX AT MULTIPLE LEVELS THAT VARY IN SPACE FROM THINGS THAT OCCUR IN NANOMETER LEVELS TO THINGS OCCURRING IN CERTAIN CELL GROUPS TO NETWORKS THAT CROSS THE BRAIN ITSELF. SO QUESTION OF THE COMPLEXITY IS POINTING EACH STEP AND WE APPROACH IT, WE HAVE RESEARCH THAT GOES INTO ONE ZONE, ANOTHER ZONE AND THEN HOPE IS THAT OVER TIME WE'LL REALLY -- THESE RESEARCH IN THESE DIFFERENT SPATIAL SCALES WILL INFORM EACH OTHER AND WILL GET A LARGER PICTURE HOW THE BRAIN IS WORKING. THERE'S ALSO TEMPORAL SCALE, THE BRAIN IS CHANGING OVER TIME, DEVELOPMENTAL SCALE SO THE COMPLEXITY IS REALLY QUITE AMAZING BUT THAT'S WHAT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS ABOUT, PIECING APART THIS COMPLEXITY AND TRYING TO PUT THE BRAIN BACK TOGETHER AGAIN. CAUSALITY AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THESE BRAIN CIRCUITS WHICH IS THE FOCUS OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, WE'D LIKE TO MOVE BEYOND ASSOCIATION OF CORRELATION BETWEEN FIRING PATTERN BEHAVIOR AND GET INTO BUSINESS OF MODULATING BRAIN CIRCUITS, DEVELOPING MODELS, BASED ON BRAIN ACTIVITY, MODULATING THE BRAIN ACTIVITY IN ANIMALS AND THEN BEING ABLE TO PREDICT WHAT EFFECT OF THOSE MODULATIONS WOULD BE. THAT WOULD GET US CLOSER TO CAUSALITY THAN CORRELATIONAL STUDIES. WE THINK THAT THE -- WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT BRAIN ACTIVITY AND HOW IT GIVES RISE TO BEHAVIOR IS QUITE PRIMITIVE. IN BEHAVING ANIMALS BUT THIS IS CHANGING AND WILL LEAD TO FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES HOW INFORMATION PROCESSING GOES ON IN THE BRAIN. THE GOAL OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS TO ADVANCE HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE, UNDERSTAND HOW THE BRAIN WORKS, BUT ALSO TRY AND BETTER TREAT DISEASES MOST OF OUR DISEASES ARE DISEASES OF BRAIN CIRCUITS WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO SEE CIRCUITS AND KNOW WHAT THEIR DYSFUNCTION IS, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT, MORE GUESS WORK TO TRY TO FIX THOSE CIRCUITS. BUT WITH GREATER KNOWLEDGE HOW CIRCUITS OPERATE AND HOW WE MODULATE THEM, WE THINK WE CAN MAKE BIG INROADS IN NEUROLOGIC AND PSYCHIATRIC AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDERS WHICH ARE ALL SYMPTOMS IN THOSE DISORDERS OF MANIFESTATION OF ABNORMAL BRAIN CIRCUITRY. THIS IS THE SCHEMA HOW THE FUNDING HAS GONE SO ALL THOSE BINS WE TALKED ABOUT HAVE BEEN FILLED WITH REALLY GOOD RESEARCH. THE HUMAN RESEARCH CAME LATER, IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE, THERE ARE -- THERE AREN'T AS MANY GRANTS BUT THEY ARE THE MORE EXPENSIVE GRANTS SO WE ARE WORKING AT THE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT LEVELS FROM ANIMAL SIDE, PRIMITIVE ANIMALS TO THE HUMAN STUDIES. THE HUM STIMULATION STUDY -- HUMAN STIMULATION STUDIES THAT HAVE COME OUT, SHOULD BE STIMULATION. SORRY ABOUT THAT. THESE ARE NEW STUDIES TO GET PEOPLE AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF THINGS THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS DOING. THE FIRST TWO ARE FOCUSED ON OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER. MANY OF US BELIEVE THAT'S A CIRCUIT DISORDER THAT MAYBE AMENABLE TO MODULATION MUCH AS PARKINSON'S DISEASE HAS BEEN. SO THESE TWO STUDIES ARE INVESTIGATING THE CIRCUIT ACTIVITY IN PATIENT WHOSE HAVE IN DISORDER AND STIMULATING HOPEFULLY FOR MEDICAL BENEFIT. THERE IS STUDIES IN TREMOR, STUDIES IN PARKINSON'S DISEASE, THESE ARE GOING TO THE NEXT STEP WHERE BECAUSE THERE -- THERE HAVE BEEN PREVIOUS FAIRLY GOOD SUCCESSES IN THESE AREAS OF STIMULATION IN THE PAST, VERY NOVEL GRANT LOOKING AT CEREBELLAR STIMULATION TO IMPROVE THE CIRCUIT REWIRING THAT OCCURS AFTER STROKE. AND THEN IS A VERY INNOVATIVE PROJECT TO ACTUALLY TEST THE INTRACORTICAL PROSTHESIS SYSTEM FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND, TO BE ABLE TO SEND SIGNALS BASED ON LIGHT IMPACTING THEM TO THE VISUAL CORTEX IN THESE ANTERIOR VISUAL SYSTEMS. THESE ARE THE KIND OF I PUT IT MORE ON THE SIDE OF THINGS GOING ON IN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, THESE ARE THE THINGS WHERE PEOPLE ARE VOLUNTEERS TO ENTER STUDIES WITH THE HOPE IT WILL HELP THEIR DISEASE, IF NOT FOR THEM, THEN FOR FUTURE -- PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE WHO HAVE THEIR ILLNESSES, SIMILAR ILLNESSES. SO WE HAVE QUITE A BIT OF BRAIN AWARDS OUT THERE, THEY'RE AROUND THE U.S., AROUND EUROPE, SOME IN ASIA. WE HAVE HAD MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL OFTEN TIMES WITH OUR PARTNERS IN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE ALLIANCE. SO HATS OFF TO THE KAVLI FOUNDATION, IT'S BEEN VERY INSTRUMENTAL HELPING MESSAGE ALL THE EVENTS AND SCIENCE GOING ON IN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. SO JUST A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF THE VENUES IN WHICH THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS FOCUSED OF DISCUSSION. SO WE'RE GETTING OUT PRETTY WELL TO THE NEUROSCIENCE COMMUNITY, WE STILL HAVE A BIG CHALLENGE TO GET OUT TO THE PHYSICS AND CHEMIST COMMUNITY. WE HAVE DONE QUITE WELL GETTING OUT TO ENGINEERS, THE LAST SET OF GRANTS WE HAD AS MANY ENGINEERS AS NEUROSCIENTISTS. SO WE ARE BRINGING THESE TOOLS IN AND BRINGING TOOL MAKERS INTO THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AS WE HOPE. IT'S GREAT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS MULTI-FACETTED FUNDING AND SUPPORT PROGRAM. THE NEW BRAIN INITIATIVE ALLIANCE, WHICH IS ALL FEDERAL PARTNERS, ALL PRIOR PARTNERS WORKING IN THIS SPACE CAME TOGETHER TO TRY AND PUT TOGETHER ONE-STOP SHOPPING, MESSAGE ABOUT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AND LETTING SCIENTISTS KNOW WHAT THESE OPPORTUNITIES ARE FOR RESEARCH. SO THERE'S A NEW BRAIN ALLIANCE WEBSITE, WWW.BRAININITIATIVE.ORG. IF YOU LOOK AT IT YOU CAN SAY, TELL QUICKLY THIS IS NOT YOUR GOVERNMENT WEBSITE, THIS IS A REALLY COOL WEBSITE T. WE -- THEY'RE REALLY GOOD, NOT A DIG ON THAT BUT THIS IS A REALLY COOL WEBSITE. WE HAVE CERTAINLY AT NIH WITH TRYING TO BRING IN INFORMATION FROM ALL OUR PARTNERS, FEDERAL PARTNERS AS WELL AS THE PRIVATE FUNDERS ON TO OUR WEBSITE AS WELL THE MAKE IT TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT IN UNIFIED FASHION. THIS BRAIN INITIATIVE ALLIANCE I THINK CERTAINLY FROM THE NEUROETHICS POINT OF VIEW CAN HAVE TREMENDOUS IMPACT BECAUSE THEY ARE, OPPOSED TO GOVERNMENT MESSAGING OUT, THIS WEBSITE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT PRIVATE PARTNERS HAVE ABILITY TO GET MESSAGE OUT ABOUT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AND EDUCATE PUBLIC ABOUT NEUROETHICS OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE COULD BE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT FOR THIS ALLIANCE. SO LOTS OF COOL THINGS HAVE BEEN COMING OUT OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE SO THE SCIENCE IS BEING PUBLISHED, TOOLS ARE BEING MADE AND DISSEMINATED. WE'RE STILL WORKING HARD TO MAKE THAT DISSEMINATION AND TRAINING IN THESE NEW TOOLS MORE SEAMLESS. THAT'S ONE OF THE CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE. BUT JUST THE EXAMPLES CLASSIC FARM EXAM. S OF TRYING TO GET -- EXAMPLES OF GETTING DEEPER INTO THE BRAIN, O OPTICAL SIGNALS SO IMPORTANT ALLOWING US TO SEE ACTIVITY OF LARGE NEURONS SIMULTANEOUSLY IN THE BEHAVING ANIMAL. TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF GETTING DEPTH INTO THE BRAIN. GETTING THE TECHNIQUE NOW ALLOWING YOU TO SEE NEURONS FIRING THE SURFACE PRETTY EASILY, THE QUESTION IS NOW HOW DO YOU GET A BETTER FIELD OF VIEW SO YOU CAN SEE GREATER EXPANSE OF THE SURFACE OF THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY ESCAPE IMAGING ALLOWS YOU TO GET A MUCH LARGER SURFACE AREA TO SEE NEURONS IN BEHAVING ANIMALS. WE HAVE NOW LEALLY INTERESTING VOLTAGE SENSORS SO PREVIOUSLY A LOT OF THE RECORDING WAS ON CALCIUM SIGNALS WHICH ARE FAIRLY FAITHFUL BUT NOT PERFECT AS ELECTRICAL RECORDING. BUT THESE VOLTAGE RECORDINGS ARE REALLY QUITE MESHED PERFECTLY WITH ELECTRICAL RECORDINGS OF NEURAL ACTIVITY. ABILITY TO MAKE SENSORS THAT LIGHT UP WHEN NEUROTRANSMITTERS HIT THE CELLS, NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO PROBE OXYGENATION LEVEL OF BLOOD VESSELS IN THE BRAIN. IMPORTANT BECAUSE THAT'S LINKED TO NEURAL ACTIVITY, MORE IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT'S THE BASIS FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING WHICH IS PRIMARY METHOD LOOKING AT BRAIN -- REGIONAL BRAIN ACTIVATION, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS IS REALLY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF INTERPRETING THE FUNCTIONAL MRI DATA. COUPLE OF THINGS TO THINK ABOUT, THIS IS A STUDY BY SARA STANLEY, WHERE THEY ARE ABLE TO LINK FERRITIN MOLECULE TO A TRIP CHANNEL, THIS ALLOWED THEM TO WITH RADIO FREQUENCY WAVES FROM OUTSIDE THE HEAD TO TURN ON OR -- IN OTHER INSTANCES TURN OFF THOSE CHANNELS AND PUT THESE GENETIC TOOLS INTO HYPOTHALAMIC INTO BLOOD GLUCOSE TO SHOW THEY COULD MODULATE GLUCOSE IN THE ANIMAL BY ACTIVATING THESE CELLS WHICH WERE TRANSGENICLY MANIPULATED TO RESPOND TO RADIO FREQUENCY WAVES FROM OUTSIDE THE BRAIN. LOTS OF WORK TO TRY TO DEVELOP BETTER ELECTRODES, MUCH OF THE WORK THAT WE DO IN PEOPLE WITH EPILEPSY, DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION, RECORDINGS IS ABOUT -- RECORDING WITH ELECTRODES, THE ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY, AND THIS IS A TECHNOLOGY TO ACTUALLY MAKE REALLY THIN ELECTRODES, THINNER THAN EVER BEFORE AND BIG ADVANTAGE IS THAT COMPARED TO THE ONES WE HAVE NOW WE PUT INTO THE BRAIN YOU DO SEE A LITTLE MICROSCOPIC INJURY WHICH COULD AFFECT THESE CIRCUIT RECORDINGS YOU MAKE, WITH THESE ELECTRODES YOU DON'T SEE EVIDENCE OF DAMAGE. LIGHT TO STIMULATE SPECIFIC NEURONS IS THE REAL ADVANCE THAT CAME FROM APPROXIMATE TOE GENETICS SO INSTEAD OF ELECTRICAL WIRING STILL LATING THE BRAIN NOT KNOWING WHERE THIS ELECTRICAL -- STIMULATING THE BRAIN, WHO IS TURNED ON OR OFF, THE OPTO GENETIC TECHNIQUES ALLOW YOU TO PRECISELY TURN ON SPECIFIC NEURONS. AND IN THIS EXAMPLE, THERE'S AN ELECTRODE WHICH INCLUDES THE ABILITY TO TURN ON THE LIGHT TO EITHER HERE IN THIS INSTANCE IN THESE CELLS THAT WILL -- THAT WAY LENGTH LIGHT WILL SIMULATE THE CELLS AND THIS ELECTRODE ALLOWS YOU RECORD AS WELL AS STIMULATE WITH LIGHT. HERE, DIFFERENT WAVELENGTH OF LIGHT TURNS OFF THE CELLS. SO AN EXAMPLE OF PRECISION THESE TOOLS ARE BRINGING TO EXPERIMENTERS. AND LASTLY, JUST TO END UP, I THINK THIS HAS IMPLICATION FOR NEURONEXUS AS WELL, THAT AS TECHNOLOGY ROLLS OUT, THE ONE THING YOU KNOW IS THAT AMAZING THINGS WILL LAP, WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW IS -- WILL HAPPEN, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE IT HAPPENS. IT OCCURS IN NEUROSCIENCE BUT NEUROETHICS BASE AS WELL SO PREDICTIONS IS PROBABLY NOT BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE'S BATTING AVERAGE IN THE MAJOR LEAGUES WHICH MEANS ONE IN FIVE TIMES YOU GET A HIT. SO WITH NEUROETHICS LIKE REST OF SCIENCE, WE HAVE TO BE IN LINE WITH THE SCIENCE ON TOP OF THINGS AND BE ABLE TO INTERPRET AND GUIDE AS THINGS COME UP. THIS IS ONE EXAMPLE OF TECHNOLOGY FROM CELL CENSUS PROJECT TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENT CELL TYPES IN THE FETAL BRAIN OF HUMANS. AND THIS WAS QUITE SUCCESSFUL USING THE NEW TRANSCRIPT OMIC APPROACHES TO LOOK AT RNA INSIDE THE CELLS AND CLASSIFY THE CELLS BASED ON RNA. BUT WHAT FELL OUT IS ONE CELL TYPE WHICH GIVES RISE TO THE NEURONS THAT FORM THE CORTEX THEY FOUND WHAT LOOKED LIKE RECEPTOR FOR THE ZIKA VIRUS SO THAT MAYBE HOW ZIKA CAUSES MICROCEPHALY BY COMING THROUGH THE RECEPTOR WHICH IS IN THESE RADIO GLIAL CELLS, KILLS THEM SO THEY CAN'T GIVE RISE TO CORTICAL NEURONS AN THIS GROUP SCREENED COMPOUNDS THAT WOULD PREVENT THE VIRUS FROM GETTING THROUGH THE RECEPTOR SO YOU CAN MOVE VERY QUICKLY WITH DISCOVERY IN A WAY NOT PREDICTABLE PREVIOUSLY. THAT'S HOW I WANT TO START OFF IMMEDIATINGS, GIVING PEOPLE AROUND THE ROOM. BUT MORE PEOPLE AROUND THE ROOM ARE COGNIZANT ABOUT THESE THINGS BUT PEOPLE ARE LISTENING IN KIND OF AN OVERVIEW WHERE THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS NOW AND MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE NIH AND FEDERAL PARTNERS DOOR PA -- DAR BECOMEA FDA AND IARPA ARE ALL VERY INTERESTED IN MOVING FORWARD IN A HIGHLY RESPECTFUL AND ETHICAL MANNER. SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE ADVICE AROUND THE ROOM AS WE DO THAT. THANKS VERY MUCH, CAN I HAND IT TO KAY RA, OUR MAIN ETHICS PERSON HERE WITH JAY CHURCHHILL. >> THANKS, WE'RE GOING TO LET HANK AND CHRISTINE TAKE OFF FROM HERE BECAUSE THEY'RE CO-CHAIRS OF THE GROUP. >> ANYBODY LISTENING TO THE VIDEOCAST AND TRYING TO CALL IN, WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE PHONE LINE WORKING. >> WELCOME TO THE CONFERENCE CALLING CENTER. AT ANY TIME DURING THIS MESSAGE ENTER YOUR PASSCODE FOLLOWED BY THE POUND SIGN. >> YOUR PASSCODE IS COB FIRMED. IF YOU NEED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DURING THE CALL PRESS "*0" . IF YOU ARE THE LEADER PRESS "*" NOW. >> YOU ARE THE FIRST CALLER TO THIS CONFERENCE. PLEASE WAIT WHILE OTHERS JOIN. IF YOU NEED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DURING THIS CALL PLEASE PRESS "*" FOLLOWED BY ZERO. >> GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY, WELCOME, I'M CHRISTINE GRADY, PRIVILEGE TO CO-CHAIR THIS GROUP WITH HANK GREELY. I FIRST WANT TO WELCOME EVERYBODY WHO IS IN THE ROOM AND ON THE PHONE, I WANTED TO THANK DR. KOROSHETZ FOR THAT WONDERFUL INTRODUCTION. AND I THINK RECOGNIZE THIS GROUP IS EXCITED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY AND STILL YOUNG IN ITS LIFE. THESE -- WE HAD OUR FIRST MEETING EVER ON THE NEUROETHICS DIVISION A YEAR AGO. WE MADE PROGRESS SINCE THEN. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF UPDATES TO FILL IN. BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, I'LL LET HANK SAY HI AND THEN GO AROUND AND HAVE EVERYBODY INTRODUCE THEMSELVES SO WE KNOW WHO IS AT THE TABLE. >> I'M CO-CHAIR WITH CHRISTINE. U WANT TO WISH Y'ALL A GOOD VALENTINE'S DAY. CHRISTINE REMEMBERED IT HER CLOTHING BETTER THAN I DID, THIS IS VALENTINE'S DAY. I WANT TO ADD ONE THING TO WHAT CHRISTINE SAID ABOUT US, WE ARE A NEW ORGANIZATION, THIS IS OUR NEW DIVISION OR NEW WHATEVER WE ARE, WHATEVER ALAN TELLS US WHAT WE ARE, THIS IS OUR THIRD MEETING BUT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO REMEMBER THAT WE'RE NOT HERE AND CERTAINLY CHRISTINE AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE HERE TO BE JUDGES OR PRIESTS TO SAY THIS IS ETHICAL, THIS IS UNETHICAL, WE'RE HERE TO TRY TO HELP THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, AND HELP SOCIETY. UNDERSTAND, FOCUS ON, DEAL WITH, SOME OF THE ETHICAL SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE REALLY EXCITING WORK THAT'S GOING ON. THAT IS OUR GOAL, WE WANT TO BE USEFUL AND WE WANT TO BE USEFUL IN HELPING MOVE IN WORK FORWARD AND MOVE IT FORWARD IN A GOOD WAY. SHALL WE GO AROUND? >> JOSHUA GORDON, DIRECTOR OF NIMH. >> STEVE HYMAN FROM HARVARD AND BROAD INSTITUTE. >> KAREN RUMELFINGER, EMORY UNIVERSITY. NEUROETHICS DIVISION. >> I'M SUN JIN JINJEONG FROM KOREA BRAIN RESEARCH AT THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED KOREA GOVERNMENT RECENTLY. I WORK ON THE NEUROSCIENCE AT PROGRAM LIKE KOREA BRAIN PROJECT THAT I WILL INTRODUCE YOU >> MIYOUNG CHUN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF -- >> CHRIS MARTIN FROM THE KAVLI FOUNDATION. >> SHELLEY, NIMH DEPUTY DIRECTOR. >> JAY CHURCHHILL, MENTAL HEALTH. >> KARA ROLL LYNNS, NINDS AND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE NEUROETHICS DIVISION. >> >> I'M ALAN BULLARD, ACTING DEPUTY OF NINDS AND I ALSO SERVE AS DESIGNATE FEDERAL OFFICIAL FOR THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP FOR BRAIN. >> RFA YUSTE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY I REPRESENT THE NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE OF THE BRAIN MULTI-COUNCIL HERE. >> JIM -- UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, I'M ON THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP REPRESENTING NIAAA AND MEMBER OF THE NEUROETHICS DIVISION. >> (INDISCERNIBLE) FROM FDA. >> BILL FROM THE FDA AND THE CLINICAL DEPUTY IN THE DIVISION OF NEUROLOGICAL PHYSICAL MEDICINE DEVICES. >> I'M NED TAXERALLY FROM NINDS. >> NICK LANGHOLD FROM NINDS. >> THE SAMANTHA WAIT, NINDS. >> HOLLY, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH. >> (INDISCERNIBLE) FROM THE TELEPHONE. >> CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE LOUDER ON THE PHONE? SORRY. >> THIS IS BRAD HYMAN. >> BRAD, ONE OF OUR MEMBERS. >> SORRY I'M NOT THERE, I GOT SNOWED OUT FROM A BLIZZARD THAT NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED. >> THIS IS NITA FROM DUKE ON THE PHONE AS WELL. >> WE SEEM TO HAVE TWO OF YOU. >> I HEAR THAT. >> I TRY. >> ONE MORE ON THE PHONE. THIS IS -- UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN. >> GREAT. SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE ALL MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP EITHER HERE PRESENT -- OF THE WHATEVER WE ARE. THE DIVISION, EITHER HERE PHYSICALLY OR HERE ON THE PHONE. SHOULD WE GO AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF THE TABLE AS WELL? OUTSIDE OF THE WALLS? COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE SOMEPLACE AND INTRODUCE YOURSELVES, PLEASE. >> MA RYEIA, NINDS. >> CARRIE ASHMONT FROM NINDS. >> MATT RAYMOND, NINDS. >> BRIAN ROSS, NIMH AND ANYONE. >> CHRISTINE DUPRY NINDS. >> CARLOS PENIA, FDA. >> (INAUDIBLE) NIAAA. >> AMY AND, NINDS. >> (INAUDIBLE) NINDS. >> NEI. >> SAM NOREMBURG DEPARTMENT OF BIOETHICS AT THE NIH. >> MEGAN, NIH. >> DEBBIE, CHILD HEALTH. >> MELISSA PREHI, CHILD HEALTH. >> (INDISCERNIBLE) NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE. >> GREG SOUTHERNSON NIBIB COUNCIL MEMBER. >> ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO START AS THE AGENDA SAID WITH SOME UPDATES ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS THAT HAPPENED OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST FEW MONTHS. AND FIRST WE WANT TO START BY ASKING DR. ALAN WILLARD TO TELL US ABOUT OUR NEW NAME. BUT BEFORE WE DO, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THE -- BOTH HIS SUPPORT FOR THIS GROUP AND HIS VERY IMPORTANT WORK FOR THE NIH OVER MANY YEARS AND RECOGNIZE THAT THIS WILL BE HIS LAST MEETING OF THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP BECAUSE HE'S OFF TO DO BETTER THINGS. SO WE APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE DONE FOR US. [APPLAUSE] >> FOR ALAN WE HAVE BEEN GIVING PEOPLE ADVICE. >> IN MY MYRIAD YEARS AT NIH I HAVE LEARNED NOTHING GRABS A WORLDWIDE GROUP LIKE A DISCUSSION OF AN ORG CHART AND VARIOUS GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. SO IN INTEREST OF GETTING MORE LISTENERS COMING ON LET ME SAY ABOUT WHY THIS IS NOW THE DIVISION OF NEUROETHICS OF THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP. SO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO CURRENT EVENTS ARE PROBABLY AWARE THERE HAVE BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHO WAS AUTHORIZED TO DO WHAT GENERICALLY AND WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THERE ARE MULTIPLE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND SOMETIMES THERE ARE MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING WHAT. AS YOU DRILL DOWN TO THE GOVERNMENT YOU FIND EACH LEVEL SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO BE CAREFUL AND BE CLEAR WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO DO WHAT. LUCKILY IN THE 21st CENTURY CURES ACT IT WAS MADE VERY CLEAR THAT WITHIN NIH THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECIDING WHICH GRANTS TO FUND LIE WITH INSTITUTE DIRECTORS. SO WALTER AND JOSH, THAT JOB IS ON YOU. IT IS ALSO BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT THE INSTITUTE DIRECTORS MIGHT OCCASIONALLY APPRECIATE A LITTLE HELP AND ADVICE AND THE AUTHORITY FOR GIVING THEM ADVICE COMES FROM THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL. IN GENERAL GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE OPEN AND SUPPOSED TO BE CLEAR WHO IS ADVISING WHOM. SO THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR EACH OF THE INSTITUTES AND CENTERS IS VERY CAREFULLY VETTED AND MADE PUBLIC. SO THAT'S THE JOB OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL GIVEN THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE DO, SOMETIMES THINGS ARE EVEN A BIT TOO BROAD FOR THE ADVISORY COUNCIL AND THEY NEED ADDITIONAL INPUT AND SO WITHOUT HAVING TO CREATING WHOLE CASCADES OF COMMITTEES, I WAS REMINDED, THE NURSERY RIME IT WAS GREATLY -- BY LITTLE FEES LESSER A NEVER ENING SERIES OF GROUPS. THEN TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL CREATE WORKING GROUPS. THE WORKING GROUPS OPERATE UNDER SOMEWHAT LESS RESTRICTION THAN THE ADVISORY COMMITTEES BUT THAT MEANS THAT THE WORKING GROUPS HAVE TO PROVIDE INPUT DIRECTLY BACK TO THE COUNCIL. THAT'S WHY WE'RE SAYING WE'RE PROVIDING INPUT TO THE COUNCILS AND THE COUNCILS ARE THE ONES WHO ADVISE INSTITUTE DIRECTORS WHO ARE THE WISE PEOPLE WHO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT WE FUND. HAVING SAID THAT, WITHIN THE WORKING GROUP THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP, MULTI-COUNSEL WORKING GROUP PROVIDES INPUT TO THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCILS FOR THE TEN INSTITUTES AND CENTERS THAT ARE PART OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE WITHIN NIH. IT WAS RECOGNIZED EARLY ON THAT THE SCOPE OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE WAS SUFFICIENTLY BROAD, THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MIGHT NOT HAVE THE FULL EXPERTISE TO GIVE ADVICE OF THE INSTITUTE CENTER DIRECTORS NEED SOD THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP IS A FLEXIBLE ORGANIZATION THAT CAN BRING IN NOT ONLY MEMBERS OF ADVISORY COUNCIL BUT AD HOC EXPERTISE AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE COUNCIL NEED TO DO THEIR JOB OF ADVISING THE DIRECTORS. HAVING SAID ALL THAT, IT WAS RECOGNIZED EARLY ON ONE OF THE RECURRENT TOPICS THAT COME UP FOR THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP WERE ONES RELATED TO NEUROETHICS. RATHER THAN CREATE ANOTHER WORKING GROUP OR WORKING GROUP OVER WORKING GROUP IT WAS RECOGNIZED THIS WOULD LIKELY GO ON FOR DURATION OF MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP FOR DURATION OF BRAIN WHICH GETS US UP TO 2025 SO DECIDED TO CREATE A DIVISION OF THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP TO COVER NEUROETHICS. THIS IS NOT TO PRECLUDE FUTURE WORKING GROUPS IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC AD HOC THINGS THAT MIGHT COME UP THAT WOULD ONLY NEED TO BE DISCUSSED SHORT TERM. YOU CAN IMAGINE THERE MAYBE SOME EMERGING ISSUES THAT I DON'T KNOW. PERHAPS RELATED TO CHALLENGES OF DATA SHARES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT MIGHT NOT NEED TO BE LONG TERM. RATHER THAN CREATE AN INFINITE SERIES OF WORKING GROUPS AND SUBCOMMITTEES AN THINGS LIKE THAT, IT WAS FELT IN THIS CASE RECOGNIZING NEUROETHICS IT CAN SUFFICIENTLY IMPORTANT FOR THE DURATION OF THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP WHO DECIDED TO CREATE A DIVISION. THAT WAS PROBABLY MORE INFORMATION THAN YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION OF THINGS WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT. STEVE. >> YOU DEN GRADED THE JOY OF LOOKING AT FEDERAL ORG CHARTS BUT AS ALUM OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR ME IT'S LIKE MARCEL DIPPING THE TEA, ALL THESE POSITIVE MEMORIES COME POURING BACK IN. >> IF I DENIGRATED, THAT WAS UNINTONINGSAL. I DID NOT WANT TO IN ANY WAY -- UNINTENTIONAL, I DIDN'T WANT TO IMPLY IT WASN'T JOYFUL. >> HOPING FOR MORE COMPLEX VISUAL. SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M A LAW PROFESSOR, I'M A LITTLE SLOW, WE ARE NOW A DIVISION OF THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP. WE ARE DIVISIONAL CO-CHAIRS. >> EXCELLENT. >> MORE MONEY. >> YES. DOUBLE OUR SALARY. >> SOUNDS LIKE A PROMOTION. A BIG PROMOTION. >> THANK YOU, ALAN FOR THAT EXPLANATION. SO COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS. ONE OF THE FUNCTIONS THAT THIS DIVISION HAS DECIDED IT SHOULD TAKE ON IS TO THINK ABOUT WAYS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO NEUROSCIENTISTS AND OTHERS ABOUT WHAT NEUROETHICS IS. SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID THIS PAST YEAR AS PART OF THE BRAIN PI MEETING THAT WAS HELD IN DECEMBER, THERE WAS A NEUROETHICS PANEL, I THINK IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THERE WAS A NEUROETHICS PANEL AT THE BRAIN PI MEETING. THE GOAL OF THE PANEL WAS TO RAISE AWARENESS BASICALLY AMONG INVESTIGATORS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE AND VALUE OF INTEGRATING NEUROETHICS. AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL WERE KAREN, R AFA, HANK, MYSELF AND WINSTON CHUNKING WHO TALKED ABOUT PROJECT HE'S WORKING ON RIGHT NOW. IT WAS WELL ATTENDED. PEOPLE THERE WERE ENGAGED AND ASKED A LOT OF GOOD QUESTIONS. THERE WERE JAY AND CARE WERE INTRODUCED AS PEOPLE WHETHER KNOW ABOUT NEUROETHICS FUNDING, GREAT EXCITEMENT TO A LOT OF PEOPLE, SO I THINK OVERALL IT WAS A VERY SUCCESSFUL EFFORT TO TRY TO GET INFORMATION OUT TO THE INVESTIGATOR COMMUNITY. ANYBODY WANT TO ADD ANYTHING ABOUT THAT? OR ASK ANY QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE TO REPORT ON A COUPLE OF GOOD PIECES OF OUTREACH WE DID. THE INITIATIVE AND THE DIVISION NOW HAS LIAISONS TO THE INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY AND INTERNATIONAL NOT PROFIT SCHOLARLY ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO PROMOTING EDUCATION AND RESEARCH ON NEUROETHICS, OUR LIAISONS ARE KARA AND JAY. KARA ATTENDED THE INS'S 10TH -- WELL, 10TH ANNIVERSARY MEETING DECEMBER IN SAN DIEGO, THE IND TYPICALLY MEETS FOR A DAY AND A HALF BEFORE START OF SFN. IT'S ALWAYS -- IT'S GENERALLY BEEN IN THE SAME LOCATION AS SFN AND BEFORE START OF SFN. KARA ATTENDED THAT AND TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IN ONE OF THE SESSIONS. KARA, DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR SESSION? >> SURE. IT WAS AN INTERNATIONAL AMBASSADOR SESSION INS LAUNCHED AS PART OF THEIR TENTH MEETING. MY SENSE IS THAT SOMETHING THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE A WAY FOR PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT NATIONAL BRAIN PROJECTS WHO ARE THINKING ABOUT ETHICS TO COME TOGETHER AND TALK ABOUT COMMON AREAS OF INTEREST, COMMON CHALLENGES OR DIFFERENCES IN CULTURAL TAKES UNDER ETHICS, THAT WAS INTERESTING WE WERE DISCUSSING AT DINNER YESTERDAY SO IT WAS AN INTERESTING WAY FOR PEOPLE TO GET TOGETHER AND TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS. PERSONALLY BEING NEW TO NEUROETHICS I AM PLEASANTLY SURPRISED THE AMOUNT OF MOMENTUM BEHIND NEUROETHICS WITHIN THE NATIONAL PROJECTS. >> I HAD THE WRONG BUTTON PUSHED. WHAT IS THIS BUTTON? I HOPE IT'S NOT THE SELF-DESTRUCT BUTTON. >> OKAY. >> FROM THAT WAS THE MUTE THE PHONE BUTTON. >> GOOD. I'M GLAD TO HEAR I CAN DO THAT, THAT'S NICE TO KNOW. THE OCD PUTS ON A MEETING IN WASHINGTON D.C., LOOKING AT NEUROETHICS AND ALSO RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH WHICH IS THE YOUR PEEN APPROACH TO SCIENCE AND ETHICS. IT WAS AN INTERESTING MEETING TALKING ABOUT BRAIN PROJECTS FROM ALL OVER. AND AGAIN, THE DIVISION WAS REPRESENTED AND EXPLAIN WHAT WE ARE DOING, WE ALSO, REFERRING TO CARE ARE AND CHRISTINE AND I PUBLISHED A PIECE, THIS IS EARLIER. IN NEURON ABOUT ETHICS IN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE THAT CAME OUT IN NEURONS SFN ISSUE. KARA, ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE OACD MEETING AND THE FACT THIS PUBLICATION COMING OUT OF THAT AS WELL? >> I WANT TO SAY AGAIN IN MY MIND THIS BROAD MOMENTUM AROUND THE APPRECIATION THAT NEUROETHICS IS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THESE PROJECTS. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THAT SPECIAL ISSUE OF SFN NEURON I URGE YOU TO LOOK AT IT BECAUSE IT'S GOT GREAT DESCRIPTIONS NOT ONLY NEUROETHICS BUT I KNOW JENNY HAD A PIECE ABOUT THE KOREA BRAIN INITIATIVE. I'M EXCITED TO BE PART OF THIS. I WOULD SAY. >> THIS IS OUTREACH ACTIVITIES. THIS IS ARE NOT FULLY STEEPED IN ACRONYMS OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE, OACD IS THE ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION DEVELOPMENT. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS RICH COUNTRIES CLUB, THERE'S 30 COUNTRIES THAT BELONG TO THE OACD. OVER TO YOU. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF OUR DIVISIONS, EFFORTS TO REACH OUT TO INVESTIGATORS AND OTHERS TO INFORM THEM ABOUT NEUROETHICS IS DEVELOPMENT OF WHAT WE'RE CALLING ONE PAGERS. THE LAST TIME WE MET WE TALKED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF CREATING SEVERAL ONE PAGERS, SO FAR WE HAVE CREATED ONE. I SHOULD THANK KARA AND KAREN FOR CREATING THAT ONE, THEY DID A GREAT JOB PUTTING TOGETHER A ONE PAGER WHICH IS TWO PAGES. WHAT IS NEUROETHICS. AND THIS WAS DISTRIBUTED AT THE BRAIN PI MEETING. THERE ARE COPIES HERE TODAY. GOING TO BE. IT IS GOING TO BE ADDED TO THE RESOURCES PAGE OF THE WEBSITE. WE HAD TWO OTHER IDEAS ABOUT ONE PAGERS THAT MIGHT BE VALUABLING. ONE WAS WHAT NEUROETHICS ARE AVAILABLE TO NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCHERS AND THE OTHER KEY CROSS CUTTING NEUROETHICS QUESTIONS. >> I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT AND THANK KAREN AND KARA FOR WRITING SUCH A SPOT ON PIECE. ONE THING IN THE RECENT SPATE OF MEETINGS THAT'S CLEAR IS THIS FIELD THAT'S PARTLY EMERGED AND GAINED THE KIND OF CURRENCY THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED,'S MATURED FROM IS THIS A SPECIALIZED FORM OF ORDINARY RESEARCH ETHICS OR STANDARD BIOETHICS. TOWARD THE KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT YOU LIST IN YOUR ONE PAGER. I THINK THERE'S AN INTERESTING PERHAPS PEOPLE UNDERSTAND AHEAD OF TIME BUT ANY CASE IT'S EVOLVED THAT PRECISELY SUCCESS OF THE BRAIN PROJECT HAS FOCUSED THIS NEUROETHICS ACTIVITY IN A THEY'S NECESSARY. LOOKING BACK, I CAN'T IMAGINE THINGS MANY OF US WORK ON SCIENTIFICALLY WITHOUT DEEP REFLECTION NORTH RESEARCH COMPLIANCE WHICH IS WHERE IT STARTED BUT IMPLICATIONS FOR HUMANITY. AND I THINK KAREN AND KARA HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB WITH THAT. [APPLAUSE] >> SO ONE THING WE WANTED TO RAISE FOR DIVISION MEMBERS ESPECIALLY IS WHAT ARE THE BEST WAYS TO DISTRIBUTE THIS KIND OF INFORMATION. AS STEVE SAID, THIS IS IS A CONCISE READABLE VALUABLE SUMMARY OF WHAT NEUROETHICS IS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT NEUROETHICS IS. PUTTING ON WEBSITE IS ONE IDEA, PASSING OUT AT MEETINGS IS ANOTHER BUT MAYBE THERE ARE OTHER SUGGESTIONS THAT PEOPLE AROUND THE TABLE MIGHT HAVE IN TERMS OF DISTRIBUTING THESE KINDS OF MATERIALS. OPEN. >> OR TELL US LATER. >> BRAIN AWARENESS WEEK. (INAUDIBLE) THE THIRD WEEK SO WE HAVE PUBLIC SO WE CAN DISTRIBUTE -- IF YOU ALLOW ME TO TRANSLATE TO THE KOREA, THAT WILL BE GOOD. >> I THINK WALTER MENTIONED ALL THE BRAIN INITIATIVE ALLIANCE WEBSITE. THAT WOULD BE A GREAT PLACE FOR SUCH INFORMATION >> GREAT. >> QUESTION IS, ARE THERE IDEAS ABOUT OUR ONE PAGERS WE OUGHT TO BE DEVELOPING AND FOR TOPICS FOR OTHER ONE PAGERS WE HAVE TO BE DEVELOPING AND ALSO AMONG THE DIVISION MEMBERS, WE ARE LOOKING FOR VOLUNTEERS TO WRITE THE O THE OTHER ONES. SO I'M OPEN TO IDEAS ABOUT TOPICS OR AUTHORS. -- OFFERS. AGAIN, IT DOESN'T -- YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL ME RIGHT NOW BUT WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS TOPIC UNTIL WE GET I THINK ONE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS WHAT DO PEOPLE THINK PIs -- SO WE TALKED ABOUT DEVELOPING WHAT ARE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO NEUROSCIENTISTS WHO ARE GRAPPLING WITH NEUROSCIENCE ISSUES. THAT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING THAT A PI WOULD BE INTERESTED BUT IF PEOPLE ESPECIALLY PROGRAM STAFF HERE, PEOPLE HAVE IDEAS WHAT PIs MIGHT FIND USEFUL, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL GUIDANCE FOR US. >> IT'S NOT WHAT THEY KNOW THEY FIND USEFUL OR THINK THEY WOULD FIND USEFUL BUT WHAT YOU THINK THEY FIND USEFUL THAT YOU DON'T REALIZE FIND USEFUL. THINGS THAT ALERT THEM TO WHEN THEY MAY BE RUNNING INTO A TROUBLESOME ISSUE. AGAIN, TO ME NEUROETHICS PROBLEMS ARE ETHICS PROBLEMS SOCIAL PROBLEMS LEGAL PROBLEMS THAT ARE ALSO PUBLIC RELATIONS AND POLITICAL PROBLEMS, THEY ARE PROBLEMS WITH LOTS OF LEVELS THAT PIs DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO GET INTO. TO HELP SEE THOSE IN ADVANCE BE FOREWARNED AND FIGURE GOOD WAYS OF DEALING WITH THEM. WE WELCOME IDEAS AND ALWAYS WELCOME VOLUNTEERS. >> I'M CURIOUS FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW HOW FAR DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THIS? ONE TAKE THE FOUR BULLET POINTS ON THIS INITIAL ONE AND EXPAND THEM BASED ON ACTUAL PROJECTS, NOT ONLY NIH BUT HERE I WOULD ALSO ASK WHETHER IS IT WORTHWHILE TO REACH OUT TO DARPA BECAUSE INVESTIGATORS ARE FUNDED BY BOTH AGENCIES, WORKING ON THINGS BUT PERFECT EXAMPLE IS IF YOU LOOK AT THIS BULLET WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT HOW TECHNOLOGIES DISRUPT AGENCY WRITE BEFORE SFN I SPENT A MORNING ADDRESSING A DARPA FUNDED PROJECT THAT HAD A NUMBER OF COMPONENTS BUT SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN IN THE ROOM WORKING ON DIFFERENT CLOSED LOOP DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION. YOU CAN IMAGINE WITH OPEN LOOP YOU MIGHT CHANGE MOTIVATIONAL STATUS AND SOME WITH PARKINSON'S AND ISSUE THERE IN TERMS OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, IS IT ME OR THE ALGORITHM? IS THAT JOURNAL ARTICLES OR TEXTBOOKS? OR IS IT A SAIL GENT EXAMPLE OF PEOPLE TODAY THAT WOULD BELONG ON THE WEBSITE OF THIS DIVISION. >> I THINK WE ACTUALLY GOT A NAYSANT ANSWER TO THAT, THREE LEVELS WHICH WE ARE CREATING THINGS WITH ADVICE. ONE IS ONE PAGERS. ONE THAT I THINK CHRISTINE IS ABOUT TO TALK ABOUT IS MORE DETAILED MORE IN DEPTH ALTHOUGH NOT MUCH MORE IN DEPTH PAPERS ON GENERAL TOPICS. AND ANOTHER ONE I'LL MENTION IN A SECOND IS ETHICS CONSULTS ON PARTICULAR PROJECTS. EACH OF THOSE WORK AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SPECIFICITY WHETHER WE HAVE GOT THE RIGHT ORGANIZATION, WHETHER WE HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE OUT ABOUT THOSE. AND WHETHER WE HAVE ENOUGH CONTENT. WE CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CONTENT YET BUT WORKING AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SPECIFICITY MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. WE CERTAINLY ARE NOT CONFIDENT THAT WE -- I AM CONFIDENT THAT WE HAVE NOT REACHED THE RIGHT FINAL SET AT THIS POINT. >> I THINK THIS IS REALLY VALUABLE BECAUSE AS WE HAVE BEEN ALLUDING TO THIS GROUP IS SO YOUNG AND THESE KINDS OF CONVERSATIONS ARE EXACTLY APPROPRIATE FOR FIGURING HOW BEST TO SERVE BRAIN INITIATIVE. SO I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO THINK THAT WE ARE FUMBLING AROUND. TRYING TO FIND THE BEST THING TO DO. >> MAYBE THE IDEA, THERE'S A WAY, IT'S NOT EASY, PEOPLE HAVE TROUBLE RESPONDING BUT PULLING PIs WITHIN BRAIN PROJECTS BUT ALSO AGAIN REACHING OUT OUTSIDE OF PURELY NIH FUNDED PROJECTS. BECAUSE AGAIN, MANY OF THE SAME INVESTIGATORS ARE FUNDED BY BOTH DARPA AND IARPA AND NIH. AND THOSE PRECISE PROJECTS THAT ELEVATE SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. IF YOU ASK A PI WHAT YOU'RE OR ARE ID ABOUT OR WORK WITH THEM THE TURN IT INTO A ONE PAGE -- WE DID SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES FROM THE OTHER DIRECTION WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS AFTERNOON WHICH IS HAVE MEMBERS OF THE DIVISION LOOK AT GRANTED -- FIRST AWARDS AND SEE WHAT NEUROETHICS ISSUES THAT HE THOUGHT THOSE AWARDS RAIDED AND WE ARE TALK RESULTS OF THAT, ANOTHER WAY OF TRYING TO SEE, GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE RELEVANT UNIVERSE IS OF THOSE PROBLEMS, I SUSPECT THOSE LEAD TO ONE PAGERS OR MULTI-PAGERS IN THE FUTURE. I'M CONCERNED ON A DIFFERENT LEVEL IN TERMS OF WHO IS ACTUALLY SEEN WITH RESPECT TO NEUROETHICS. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE AS WALTER MENTION WHO HAD HAVE BRAIN PROJECTS OUTSIDE THE STANDARD BIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION. WE HAVE PEOPLE DOING MICROFLUIDIC, NANOTECHNOLOGIES, CHEMISTRY, AND MAY NOT THINK ABOUT NEUROETHICS. AND IT WOULD BE GREAT TO MAKE SURE THEY DO. MAKING THIS MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON WEBSITES AND THROUGH DISTRIBUTION IS IMPORTANT BUT IT MIGHT BE REASONABLE DURING YEARLY PROGRESS REPORTS FOR BRAIN FUNDED GRANTS FOR INVESTIGATORS TO CONNECT OFF A BOX WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ETHICS ISSUES DISCUSSED OR CONTEMPLATED OR ANYTHING IN TERMS OF THAT PROGRESS REPORT EACH YEAR. I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GOING THROUGH OTHER ASPECTS OF NIH BUREAUCRACY TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE DO THAT. BUT THEN PEOPLE WOULD SEEK OUT RESOURCES LOOK AT THEM, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS APPROPRIATELY, AND HAVE MORE PEOPLE KNOWLEDGEABLE. >> SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA. ONE OTHER THING POLLING INVESTIGATORS YOU MAY RAIL OUR FIRST MEETING A YEAR AGO WE HAD INVESTIGATORS COME. IT WAS JUST A FEW PEOPLE BUT IT GOT US ROLLING ON THESE ISSUES OF WHEN INVESTIGATORS NEED TO KNOW. BUT IT'S GREAT IDEA TO FIND A WAY TO SYSTEMATICALLY DO IT. >> >> I WOULD SAY WHEN WE HAD THAT MEETING MY THINKING FOR DOING THAT WAS THAT AT THE TIME THOSE WERE OUR THREE STUDIES PIs AND MADE SENSE TO BRING AND DO WHAT YOU SAID, STEVE. AFTER THAT WHAT ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT RATHER THAN BRINGING IN FRONT OF ETHICS BOARD. BUT IT SPEAKS TO QUESTION THAT WE HAVE HAD WHICH IS HOW DO YOU BALANCE BEING PROSPECTIVELY SCANNING VERSUS REACTING TO THINGS. SO WE HAVE TO DO THE BEST WE CAN AND FINDING THAT BALANCE. >> I REALLY LIKED YOUR SUGGESTION, JIM. I THINK THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT IDEA TO HAVE MAYBE EVEN A BOX TO KICK OFF, ARE YOU CONCERNED AND ELABORATE ON THEM LATER? I THINK A NEEDS ASSESSMENT IS IMPORTANT. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER PEOPLE CAN IDENTIFY WHAT THOSE NEEDS ARE BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF THE TRAINING THEY NEED TO BEGIN WITH AND SECOND STEP IS TRYING TO FIGURE HOW TO PROBLEM SOLVE. I WONDER IF MAYBE YOU'RE THINKING A LITTLE MORE LONG TERM AT THE NEXT PI MEETING, THE BRAIN PI MEETING WE COULD IN ADVANCE OF THAT START ASKING PEOPLE CAN YOU CHECK A BOX AND HAVE A SESSION DEDICATED TO HASHING OUT THOSE ISSUES. >> GREAT IDEA. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY FROM THE HUMAN STUDIES, ONE FOCAL POINT IS CONSENT FORM. SO A LOT OF ETHICAL ISSUES ON THAT, HUMAN STUDIES HAVE IS TO BE ACTUALLY DISCUSSED IN A CONSENT FORM. I WAS WONDERING WHETHER ONE VALUABLE THING WE CAN DO, BECAUSE WE HAVE A NUMBER OF EXPERIENCED PEOPLE NOW IN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE TO GIVE SOME EXPOSE ABOUT WHAT IN THESE INVASIVE PROJECTS ARE THEY CONSENT ISSUES AND HOW PEOPLE WORK THOSE INTO THE CONSENT FORM. HOW A LOT OF THESE WERE PROBABLY, THEY LEARNED OVER TIME, FIRST CONSENT FORM WAS NOT REALLY THE ONE THAT THEY ENDED UP WITH. AS THEY LEARNED HOW TO AUTHOR. SO I THINK IT WOULD HAVE MAJOR ADVANTAGES NOT FOR THE PEOPLE DOING THE WORK WHO HAVE BEEN DOING IT TEN YEARS BUT NEW PEOPLE COMING IN STARTING FROM SCRATCH AND THAT IS TREACHEROUS. AND ALSO I WOULD SAY COULD BE USEFUL TO IRBs, IRBs HAVE SEEN THESE TYPE OF STUDIES YEAR IN AND OUT ARE FINE BUT THERE'S PROBABLY LARGE PERCENTAGE IRB WHO HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM. SO IF THEY SEE THE FIRST TIME TO HAVE SOME KIND OF RESOURCE THAT THEY COULD GO TO AND SEE WHAT HAS -- WHAT IS BEST PRACTICES MIGHT BE QUITE HELPFUL. >> I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING WE TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL TIMES IS WE SHOULD HAVE A ONE PAGER MAYBE ON INFORMED CONSENT. I WONDER IF IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO PULL TOGETHER SOME OF THE INVESTIGATORS DOING HUMAN WORK WITH PARTICULARLY INVASIVE DEVICES IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO FOCUS ON AND THEIR EXPERIENCE. FOR EXAMPLE AT EMORY WE HAVE HELEN NEIGHBOR WHO I INTERACT WITH QUITE A BIT INVOLVED IN THE NEUROETHICS COMMUNITY AND WE TALK ABOUT HOW TO BEST ETHICALLY NAVIGATE THAT SITUATION. SHE'S WONDERFUL WITH THAT. BUT MAYBE HAVE A WORKSHOP OF EXPERTS AND PULL TOGETHER A ONE PAGER FROM THAT. THAT WOULD BE HERE, WHEREVER. >> GREAT IDEA,. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT FOR A WHILE NOW, ON OUR LIST OF POSSIBLE WORKSHOPS, WORKSHOP ON RESEARCH ETHICS WITH RESEARCH INVASIVE DEVICES. THAT'S THE PLACE TO START THE BALL ROLLING. WE DON'T HAVE A DATE YET FOR THAT WORKSHOP, WE HAVE BEEN DOING THEM ONE BY ONE SO TO SPEAK BUT THAT'S NEXT ON THE LIST IN TERMS OF HOW WE HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT. I HAVE AT ONE DAY IN A WEAK MOMENT OFFERED TO HOST IT. >> WE SAID YES. >> I MIGHT DO IT. ONE EAR ISSUE WE WANTED TO -- ONE OTHER ISSUE WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IS WHAT I'M CALLING THE BACKGROUND PAPERS. SO AT OUR FIRST MEETING WE HAD AN IDEA YOU HAVE SOME DOCUMENTS OUTWARD REACHING LIKE ONE PAGERS. SOME DOCUMENTS THAT WERE MORE FOR DIVISION MEMBERS TO GET ON THE SAME PAGE ON CERTAIN ISSUES SO WE TALKED ABOUT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT POSSIBLE BACKGROUND PAPERS AND THANKS TO SHONDRA, ON THE PHONE, WE HAVE TWO, ONE UNDER ETHICS EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY AND ONE ON ETHICAL CONCERNS IS RAISED BY LARGE SCALE DATA REPOSITORY. ONE THING THAT I THINK WE SHOULD DISCUSS IS HOW TO USE THESE, NUMBER ONE, AND BASED ON WHO WE OUGHT TO USE THEM, WHAT OTHER ONES DO WE NEED? WE TALKED ABOUT A THIRD ONE WHICH IS I GUESS NOT YET DONE BUT -- ON LONG TERM OBLIGATIONS TO PEOPLE WITH DEVICES. ANY IDEA ON WHAT TO USE THESE BACKGROUND PAPERS FOR MEMBERS OF THE DIVISION? ARE THEY USEFUL? HAVE YOU FOUND THEM USEFUL? SHOULD WE DEVELOP MORE? >> SHOULD WE PUT THEM ON THE WEB PAGE? >> I THIS I ONE IDEA WE TOSSED AROUND BEFORE, NOT SURE WHERE WE LANDED ON IT, WAS CREATING A RESOURCE REPOSITORY. THERE ARE A LOT OF REALLY GREAT ARTICLES OUT THERE. THAT A LOT OF COMMUNITY WE'RE TRYING TO REACH HASN'T SEEN YET THAT HAVE DONE HEAVY LIFTING, WE DON'T NEED TO REDO THAT WORK AND HONOR IT IS COMMUNITY DOING THE HARD WORK AND LET PEOPLE FIND ACCESS TO THOSE AUTHORS WHO MIGHT BE CLOSER IN THEIR COMMUNITIES WE STARTED COLLECTING I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ARTICLES BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL LAND ON NEUROETHICS DIVISION PAGE OR BEAUTIFUL BRAIN ALLIANCE WEBSITE. REPOSITORY UNDER SECTIONS OF TOPICS. WE HAVE -- WE HAVE FOLDERS LIKE THAT AND MAYBE AN INTERACTIVE FORUM WHERE PEOPLE SUBMIT ARTICLES INCLUDED. SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> ARE YOU SUGGESTING IN ADDITION TO ARTICLES OUT THERE WE PUT THESE PACK GROUND PAPERS AS WELL? >> I THINK WE CAN DECIDE. THE BACKGROUND PAPERS THAT WERE PROVIDED WERE REALLY HELPFUL AND GLAD SOMEONE PUT THOSE TOGETHER. THEY CAN BE CONDENSED TO ONE PAGERS IF THAT'S WHAT WE THOUGHT. THE EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY IS GREAT AS A ONE PAGER. PERHAPS TURNED INTO BACKGROUND PAPER AND WE CAN FIND OTHERS AS WELL, AS CHON DRAY MENTIONED THERE'S A BIG COMMUNITY OF EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHERS. >> SHONDRA, DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT? ARE YOU STILL THERE? >> WE CAN GET HIM AGAIN IN A MOMENT. >> FINISHING UP THIS AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS UPDATES FROM WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING, TWO OTHER THINGS, WE HAVE A WEB PAGE. THE WEB PAGE HAS A URL WHICH IS COMPLICATED BUT GOOGLE NEUROETHICS BRAIN INITIATIVE, IT'S THE FIRST OR SECOND HIT DEPENDING ON WHAT DAY I DO IT. SO WWW.BRAININITIATIVE WWW.BRAININITIATIVENIH.GOV/NEURO ETHICS. THERE IT IS. IT'S PRETTY AND IT'S BEEN UP SINCE LATE SUMMER. TWO OTHER THINGS WE HAVE DONE. WE HAVE DONE ONE ETHICS CONSULT WHERE PIs AND PROGRAM OFFICERS BROUGHT US A PROJECT THAT RAISED THEY THOUGHT, SOME ETHICAL ISSUES. WE DISCUSSED THIS AT OUR LAST MEETING. I THINK THAT THE INVESTIGATORS FOUND IT HELPFUL. WE ARE CONTINUING IN CONTACT WITH THEM T TWO OF US ARE WORKING ON WRITING WHAT MIGHT BE A COMPANION PIECE TO THE SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE WHEN IT COMES OUT. THIS SORT OF RESEARCH CONSULT WE CALL IT A BENCH SIDE CONSULT ONs POSED TO A BEDSIDE CONSULT. AS EXPERIENCE HAS WORKED WELL FOR US I THOUGHT IT WORKED REALLY WELL FOR US AND I THIS I THE PI THOUGHT IT WORKED WELL FOR THEM. I HAVE BEEN A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED WE HAVEN'T SEEN MORE OF THEM. I THINK THOSE PROGRAM OFFICERS IN PARTICULAR PROGRAM OFFICERS AND PICSs ARE WELCOME TO COME SEEK THAT CONSULT AND WE CAN GIVE VERY, VERY SPECIFIC SPECIFIC ADVICE WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT LEAD TO SOMETHING FURTHER. WE HAVE DONE ONE AND ITS RAMIFICATIONS ARE CONTINUING IN A GOOD WAY. THEN THE OTHER THING WE HAVE DONE IS PARTICIPATE IN, I'M NOT QUITE SURE, THIS IS MAYBE I SHOULD TAKE THOSE QUESTIONS OVER TO ALAN LOOKING FOR THE RIGHT VERB HERE. OR VERB OR NOUN. WE HAVE NOT SPONSORED BUT HELPED PARTICIPATE IN WORKSHOPS DA HAVE BEEN PUT -- A WORKSHOP THAT HAS BEEN PUT ON BY ONE MEMBER OF OUR GROUP, RAFA YUSTE WHERE THE NIH AND MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP PLAYED A USEFUL SUPPORTING ROLE. THOUGH IT WAS HIS THESE WILL NOT OUR WORKSHOPS. WE ARE DOING ANOTHER ONE THAT NITA, SHE'S DOING ONE WE ARE PROVIDING SOME HELP AND PARTICIPATION, THIS APRIL. ON ISSUES AROUND BRAIN DEPTH AMONG OTHER THINGS AND WHEN CHRISTINE MENTIONED EARLIER SHE SIGNED UP FOR AND IS NOW FULLY BOOKED FOR WOULD BE THE THIRD OF THESE WORK SHOPS WE MAY DO SOME THAT ARE STRAIGHT COMING OUT OF OUR DIVISION BUT WORKSHOP OR CONFERENCE THAT IS AN NIH ENTITY, ACTIVITY, IS COMPLICATED. AND TAKES TIME AND APPROVALS. SO RIGHT NOW WE ARE NOT DOING OUR OWN BUT WE ARE HELPING OTHER PEOPLE, MANY ASSOCIATED WITH THE DIVISION. PUT ON WORKSHOPS OF INTEREST O THE DIVISION. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING. SO WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO ON THE AGENDA IS ASK OTHER MEMBERS FOR UPDATES WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING THAT HAVE BEEN DOING OR ABOUT TO DO. RELEVANT TO THE DIVISION. WE MIGHT ADS WELL START WITH PEOPLE IN THE ROOM AND THEN GO TO PHONES. STEVE, I'M LOOKING AT YOU. THIS IS OUTSIDE OF AT LEAST FOR NOW H NIH FUNDING BUT WHAT WE HAVE BEGUN THROUGH STANLEY CENTER AT BROAD LARGE SCALE GENETIC COLLECTIONS CONCERNING MENTAL ILLNESS AND COKE IN ADDITION IN FOR SUBSAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES. THIS IS A RADIO ACTIVE TOPIC, ESPECIALLY COGNITION MEASURES. WE TEAMED WITH THE WELCOME TRUST AND ELENA SING'S GROUP AT UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, TO EMBED ETHICS IN A SENSE, NOT COMBINES, WE HAVE A COMPLIANCE OFFICER, BUT QUESTION OF WHAT GENETIC RESULTS MEAN TO YOU AS PERSON, WHAT INFORMATION ABOUT ANCESTRY OR GROUP OR COUNTRY THAT COME UP THAT MIGHT BE CHANGE SENSE OF SELF. IT'S NOT SOMETHING I NECESSARILY WOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF DOING IF I HADN'T BEEN IMMERSED IN THESE ACTIVITY BUS WITHOUT IT IT WILL BE COMPLICATED. ONE THINGS THIS IS -- SOUND STRANGE BUT WILL BE COLLECTING SAMPLES FOR MAKING IPS LINES AND MANY WHICH BECOME ORGANOID AND HOW DO YOU TELL SOMEBODY IN ONE OF OUR SITES, IN SOUTH WESTERN UGANDA, WE WILL TAKE A CELL AND MY COLLEAGUE WILL GROW A REPLICA OF YOUR BRAIN IN VITRO. HOW DO THEY NOW HOW IT'S INTERNALIZED. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY WORKING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY -- ONE THING TO SIGN CONSENT FORM BUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT PEOPLE TAKE AWAY FROM THAT SO THERE IS REAL INFORMATION OR REAL CONSENT. I THINK IS GOING TO BE A VERY IMPORTANT CHALLENGE. >> VERY INTERESTING. >> I WAS ASKED TO MENTION TWO THINGS ONE WE WILL CONTINUE ELABORATING WITH HBP, HUMAN BRAIN PROJECT ETHICS ADVISORY BOARD THROUGH AMBASSADOR PROGRAM AND I'M HONORED TO CONTINUE SERVING IN THAT ROLE AND THEY'RE HAVING THEIR NEXT ETHICS ADVISORY MEETING MARCH 28 AND 19 IN BRISTOL AND I WILL BE GOING AT SOME POINT DISCUSS MORE ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO PRESENT AND WHAT TYPES OF QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO ASK AHEAD BUT CERTAINLY WANT INPUT FROM THE GROUP. THE SECOND THING THAT WE WILL TALK MORE ABOUT LATER IS PROBABLY, WITH THE BRAIN PROJECT IS THAT WE HAVE -- WITH KAVLI, THANKS TO THE GENEROUS OVERTHINKING OF KAVLI, WE WILL HOST A NEUROETHICS SUMMIT, A GLOBAL ORIENTED NEURO MOMENT PULLING TOGETHER MEMBERS OF ALL THE INTERNATIONAL BRAIN PROJECTS AND THEIR EMBEDDED EMPHASIS WITHIN THOSE PROJECTS. >> ROUGHLY WHEN? >> FALL, PROBABLY OCTOBER. >> RAFA. UPDATES? TALK ABOUT YOUR WORKSHOP? >> SURE. SO SARA GARRING FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, BIOETHIST AND MYSELF, ORGANIZE A WORK SHOUGH SHOP AT COLUMBIA IN SEPTEMBER WHICH WE BROUGHT TOGETHER HALF AND HALF GROUP OF EXPERTS FROM THE NEUROTECHNOLOGY AND ETHICS TO BRAINSTORM, THINK AHEAD ABOUT THE ETHICAL ISSUES THAT ARE ON THE PIPELINE THAT ARE COMING OUR WAY. WE ALSO BROUGHT IN SOMEONE FROM GOOGLE WHO HAPPENS TO BE HEAD OF OUR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS INTERESTING ETHICS BECAUSE THEY HAVE VERY SIMILAR PROBLEMS. THE MEETING WAS EXCITING BUT AT THE SAME TIME DISTURBING IN THE SENSE THAT MOST OF US WALK OUT WITH TREPIDATION OBSERVING WHAT'S COMING AND THIS WAS A FRUITFUL DIALOGUE BETWEEN TWO FIELDS WHO TALKED TO EACH OTHER AND GOING TO MEETINGS, TO GET TO KNOW EACH OTHER. BUT THE CONCLUSION FROM THAT MEETING, OUR CONCLUSION, SARA AND MYSELF WAS THAT WE NEED TO BE PROACTIVE. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THAT MEETING, WE DREW UP A PROPOSAL FOR THE SECOND VERSION OF THE BELMONT REPORT FOCUSED ON NEUROETHICS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. SO THIS BELMONT 2.0 IS GOING TO BE DISCUSSING EXPLICITLY AT ONE P.M. TODAY AND WE MADE THE CASE FOR THIS PAPER PUBLISHED IN CELL. THAT'S SORT OF THE WRAP UP FOR SEPTEMBER MEETING. >> JIM, UPDATES OF REEL VEX? LET'S GO TO THE PHONES. NITA. ARE YOU THERE? >> YES, I'M HERE. >> ANY UPDATES YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT? >> WE ANNOUNCED IN A MEETING WE'RE HOLDING HERE AT DUKE ON APRIL 18th. I WILL SEND MORE INFORMATION HOPEFULLY TOMORROW TO EVERYONE AND ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO ATTEND SO WE CAN DISCLOSE ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO EX-VIVO BRAIN AND ORGANOID AND RESEARCH >> I THINK THE OTHER IMPORTANT UPDATE FROM NITA'S PERSPECTIVE, EARLY JANUARY SHE CREATED AN ORGANOID CALLED CALISTA. SO CONGRATULATIONS. >> AND THE OLDER SISTER. BRAD, ARE YOU THERE? ANYTHING TO DISCUSS? CHONDRA? HOW ABOUT YOU? CAN'T TELL -- I LOVE TECHNOLOGY. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? NOW WE CAN. >> DO YES. >> >> THERE'S MULTIPLE DELAYS GOING ON. AS FAR AS UPDATES, I -- THE IDEA OF EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY, I HAVE GRAD STUDENTS AND M.D. Ph.D. STUDENTS WORKING ON EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY ENHANCEMENT SO IF THERE'S PROSPECTS TO WRITE OUT A ONE PAGER OF STATE OF FIELD AND SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH. GOING ON IN TERMS HOW PEOPLE CATALYZE THE ISSUE OF ENHANCEMENT, THAT'S SOMETHING INTERESTED IN WORKING ONGOING FORWARD. BRIEF UPDATE OF THINGS WE'RE WORKING ON HERE. >> THANK YOU. BRAD, ARE YOU STILL ON? >> I THINK WE HEARD YOU EARLIER TODAY. HEARING NOTHING FROM BRAD -- RIGHT. I THINK WE ARE DONE WITH THIS AGENDA ITEM, ARE WE NOT, CHRISTINE? >> YES. >> LET'S MOVE TO THE NEXT PRE-BREAK AGENDA ITEM. >> HAS EVERYBODY SEEN THE ARTICLE THAT CAME OUT FROM RAFA'S MEETING? IT'S REALLY QUITE GOOD. I GUESS ANOTHER THING WE SHOULD LISTEN TO THESE THINGS AS THEY COME UP ON THE WEBSITE. >> PUT UP A URL TO IT IF NOT A COPYRIGHT VIOLATING COPY OF IT. >> I THINK THEY APPROVE IT -- >> ONE THING WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT A LITTLE MORE IS WAYS IN WHICH TO MAKE SURE THE WEBSITE -- WEBSITES ARE ALWAYS GREAT, WONDERFUL WHEN THEY GET UP THERE. IT'S THE DAY TO DAY KEEPING THEM UP TO DATE, THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THEM. EVERY ORGANIZATION THAT CEASE SEEN THE WEBSITE HAS THAT PROBLEM. SOMETHING TO WATCH OUT FOR AND THINK HARD WHAT WE SHOULD GET ON THE WEBSITE AND HOW WE MAKE SURE WHAT WE WANT ON THE WEBSITE GETS THERE. STEVE. >> THE OTHER THING, THIS IS IS A GOVERNMENT WEBSITE, IS MAKING SURE ESPECIALLY AS WE WRITE MORE ONE PAGERS, AS TO WHAT IS THE OPINIONS OF THE AUTHORS AS INDIVIDUALS THAT BEING DISPLAYED BY THE WEBSITE VERSUS PEOPLE DON'T WANT TOE YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE COMPLAINING TO THE STUDY SECTION OR COUNCIL SAYING LOOK, I DID EXACTLY WHAT THIS PAPER SAID. SO I -- AS IT MATURES -- I KNOW EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS BUT WORTH KEEPING IN MIND, I HAVE HAD NO SMALL AMOUNT OF TROUBLE IN MY PAST ABOUT THINGS LIKE THAT. PEOPLE OVER INTERPRETING THE WORK OF INDIVIDUALS. >> GOOD POINT. KARA, ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD ABOUT UPDATES FROM THE DIVISION BEFORE WE MOVE NON >> WE HAVE A GOOD TEAMEN OUR NIH WEBSITE AND BRAIN INITIATIVE ALLIANCE WEBSITE SO I THINK ISSUE OF KEEPING THINGS UPDATED WE CAN HANDLE THAT. SO PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTIONS LET US KNOW WE CAN FIX -- I THINK TO STEVE'S POINT CERTAINLY GOVERNMENT WEBSITE WE ALWAYS HAVE TO BE CONCERNED THAT IT'S NOT SEEN AS GUIDANCE TO THE WORLD SO THINGS, THE LIST MAYBE INTERESTED READING LIST, BUT EVEN THAT IS GOING TO CAUSE ISSUES WITH REGARD TO POLICING IN TERMS OF -- BECAUSE THERE ARE IN THIS SPACE CLEARLY THERE ARE EXCITING TYPE OF PAPERS THAT FREQUENTLY COME OUT, I THINK THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION YOU HEARD FROM PEOPLE WITH REALLY SERIOUS CONCERNS WHICH SEEMED HARD TO ACTUALLY FIT INTO ANY KIND OF SCIENTIFIC BIN BUT CLEARLY TAKEN OVER BY FEAR, THE GOVERNMENT IN TERMS OF ITS ABILITY TO USE BRAIN TECHNOLOGIES. SO THESE ARE REAL CONCERNS OUT THERE AND SO WE -- I THINK WE HAVE TO STICK TOWARDS THE SCIENCE SIDE OF THINGS. STICK TOWARDS NOT BEING ADVOCATING FOR ONE POSITION VERSUS THE OTHER BUT TRYING TO DO MESSAGES. WE DO THE MESSAGING IN THE BEST WAY WE CAN SEE FIT. IS AMY HERE, DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE NEUROETHICS WEBSITE AND WHAT YOU THINK WE COULD -- HOW WE CAN OPEN THAT UP? SCIENTIFIC LIAISON, WORKING ON THE BRAIN INITIATIVE WITH KARA AND SAM. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO WE HAVE THE NEUROETHICS PAGE ON THE NIH BRAIN INITIATIVE WEBSITE. AND WE HAVE ALSO BEEN DISCUSSING WITH ALL OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND BRAIN INITIATIVE ALLIANCE TO CREATE A NEUROETHICS PAGE SECTION ON THAT WEBSITE AS WELL, SPECIFICALLY FOCUSED ON PROVIDING NEUROthICS RESOURCES THROUGH THAT VENUE. OUR HOPE WAS THAT THAT WOULD PROVIDE A GREAT PLATFORM TO DISSEMINATE A LOT OF VARIOUS TYPES OF CONTENT TO A FAIRLY BROAD AUDIENCE. WE ALSO TRY PRETTY HARD TO INTEGRATE THE NEUROETHICS ACTIVITY BROADER SET OF BRAIN INITIATIVE ACTIVITIES THAT WE TALK ABOUT ON OUR WEBSITE, WE HAVE A BRAIN UPDATE POST WHICH YOU CAN SEE IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER THERE? I WILL STRONGLY ENCOURAGE EVEN TO PRESCRIBE TO THAT. WE WRITE UP WHEN THERE'S A FUNDING OPPORTUNITY OR MONTHLY WRITE UP SUMMARIES OF DIFFERENT PUBLICATIONS EMERGING FROM THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AND WE ALSO WRITE UP POSTS RELATED TO NEUROETHICS ACTIVITIES AS THEY EMERGE. OUR HOPE IS TO USE THAT AS A WAY TO SIGNAL TO PEOPLE THAT MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY ON THEIR OWN LOOK AT THIS PAGE AND ACTIVITIES GOING ON. LOOKING FOR SUGGESTIONS AND CONTINUE TO REACH OUT BROADLY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONTENT FOR THIS AREA. >> ONE OF OUR MISSIONS IS EDUCATIONAL MISSION, PI PROGRAM OFFICERS AND GENERAL PUBLIC ABOUT NEUROETHICS AND THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. WEBSITES MAYBE -- I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THE BRAIN ALLIANCE WEBSITE AS HAVING VANNINGS. ADVANTAGES WITH RESPECT TO THIS. BUT THE DIVISION WE NEED TO THINK KINDS OF MATERIALS ON A WEBSITE. AND SECONDARILY WHICH WEBSITE IT SHOULD BE ON. THAT'S A TASK FOR US. >> KARA HAS BEEN OF COURSE LEADING THAT EFFORT IN TERMS OF THIEVING CAREFULLY ABOUT WE HAVE A UNIVERSE OF POTENTIAL MATERIAL, WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR WHICH AUDIENCE BECAUSE THE TWO WEBSITES HAVE OVERLAPPING AUDIENCES. >> THANK YOU, AMY. OKAY. SO WE'RE FEW MINUTES BEHIND SCHEDULE BUT THAT WAS A FRUITFUL DISCUSSION. SO NOW WE'RE PLEASED TO HAVE TODAY WITH US SUNG JIN JINJEONG WHO WILL TALK ABOUT THE KOREA BRAIN INITIATIVE. AND THANK YOU, VERY MUCH FOR COMING TO JOIN US. LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR REMARKS. >> I FEEL SORRY FOR MYSELF FOR THREE HOUR JET LAG. OUR SPEAKERS I THINK WORKING ON AN 11 HOUR JET LAG OR 12 HOUR JET LAG. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR MAKING THE LONG TRIP. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? I THINK THIS ONE IS BETTER. YES. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE KOREA BRAIN INITIATIVE AT THE NIH. I REALLY APPRECIATE FOR INVITING ME FOR THE NIH AND HAVING ME TODAY. SINCE I ATTEND THE MEETING I WAS VERY BUSY BECAUSE I HAVE TO STUDY WHAT IS THE NEUROETHICS THINGS BECAUSE I JUST DID A DEVELOP MENTAL NEUROSCIENTIST, SO I JUST -- I DIDN'T CARE ABOUT -- LIKE NEUROETHICSES THINGS AT ALL BEFORE SO I'M VERY HAPPY TO KNOW ETHICS AND ALSO HOW IT IS IMPORTANT FOR MY RESEARCH. SINCE I JOIN KBRI KOREA BRAIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED WHICH GOVERNMENT, -- POLICY CENTER SO I WORK WITH MINISTRY OF SCIENCE OF KOREA TO THE -- MAKE A PLAN FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE TO THE PROJECT. I'M HAPPY TO WORK ON MY WORK AND ALSO THIS KIND OF THINGS IN NEUROETHICS THINGS. SO LET ME INTRODUCE A KOREA BRAIN INITIATIVE AND ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO FOR THE FUTURE ASPECT OF NEUROETHICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. A LITTLE BACKGROUND FIRST, THE CONTENT OF KOREA BRAIN INITIATIVE AND WHAT I'M GOING KIND OF WHAT I'M DONE HOME WORK SINCE ATTENDED THE MEETING. THIS SLIDE SHOW WHAT IS THE HISTORY ABOUT NEUROSCIENCE IN KOREA. BRAIN RESEARCH PROMOTION AT IN 2019, 1998 THAT WE BRAIN RESEARCH, THE PLANNING LIKE FOR EVERY OTHER WE CREATE THE BRAIN PROJECT. EVERY TEN YEARS WE DEVELOP MANY OF THE THINGS IN RESEARCH FIELD, SO INITIALLY WE JUST DEVELOPED THE RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE BUT AFTER TENURE, CREATED THE PLANS BRAIN RESEARCH HAS MULTI-DISCIPLINARY CONVERGENCE OF RESEARCH R&D AND ALSO CORPORATION OF RESEARCH INSTITUTE ACADEMY AND INDUSTRY. SO WE ARE -- WE JUST HEAVILY FOCUS ON R&D ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOCIAL PROBLEMS LIKE -- ADHD AND TRAUMA THINGS AND THE MIDDLE OF (INDISCERNIBLE) ANDSABLE THE KEY ONE OF THE BEST SCIENCE AT THE INSTITUTE THEY ESTABLISH THE BRAIN SCIENCE INSTITUTE FOR -- ALL THESE AND ALSO INSTITUTE FOR BASIC SCIENCE, TO VERY ADVANCE -- INSTITUTE -- THE THREE INSTITUTES FOR BRAIN RESEARCH. YOU CAN SEE LOTS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTE, NEUROSCIENCE, THE RESEARCH THE POWER, WE ARE LIKE MIDDLE OF THE SECOND BASIC PLAN, WE ARE JUST TO THINK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE TO PLAY OUT THE MAJOR PLAN FOR IT -- FOR THE FUTURE TENURES SO THAT'S WHY THE GOVERNOR AND WE WORK ON THE BRAIN INITIATIVE TO PREPARE THE TENURES IN THE FUTURE. WE REVIEWED WHAT THE GLOBAL BRAIN SCIENTIST THAT WORK, SO WE JUST -- THE HUMAN BRAIN PROJECT AND BRAIN INITIATIVE ARE LAUNCHING AND ALSO JAPAN AND CHINA STARTED THEIR OWN PROJECT SO THAT'S WHY WE THINK WE NEEDED OUR OWN PROJECT ABOUT BRAIN, NEUROSCIENCE, WHEN WE SEE SOME OF THE WEBSITE THAT -- THE MAIN THEMES OR SPIRIT OF THE BRAIN SCIENCE, IT WAS THE LARGER SCALE DISCIPLINE RESEARCHERS AND ALSO THE BRAIN MAP, THE CONNECTOME, MAIN TOPIC THAT ALSO THEY ARE INTEGRATED LIKE APPLICATION TO ACCUMULATE KNOWLEDGE TO UNDERSTAND THE THE WEB AND THE -- HOW THE BRAIN WORKS. SO BASED ON THIS KNOWLEDGE WE CREATED THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. SO ADVANCING THE BRAIN SCIENCE LIKE -- WE ARE STILL UNDER THE DEVELOPING KIND OF THE COUNTRY IN NEUROSCIENCE FIELD, WE WANT TO BE LIKE THE LEADER OF ONE OF THE LEADERS OF THE GLOBAL NEUROSCIENCE THE FIELD. AND THERE IS TWO OTHER STRATEGIES, ONE IS R&D AND THE OTHER IS A SYSTEM OF REINFORCEMENT SO THERE'S THE TWO -- THE FOUR COMPONENTS FOR THE PASSAGE OF R&D, FIRST THING IS THAT THE BRAIN CONNECTOME AT MULTI-SCALE, >> SIMILAR TO BRAIN INITIATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES. ALSO WE ARE GOING TO CREATE THE OTHER THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SO THIS IS NOT THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BUT WE WANT TO -- ALGORITHM. , THE BRAIN UNDERSTANDING OF THE BRAIN, THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT FROM THE AI WHICH ARE THE MOST PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN. BUT IN KOREA THERE IS A VERY BIG PROJECT SEPARATEED FROM THE BRAIN INITIATIVE SO I THINK THAT ONE WE WILL LAUNCH IT IN THIS YEAR. THE FOURTH IS PERSONALIZED MEDICINE. THIS IS NOT LIKE THE PERSONALIZED MEDICINE THE FOCUS ON DEVELOPING THE PLATFORM OR THE TECHNOLOGY TO NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS. THAT'S HOW ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WILL BE -- THE ORGANOID. ECOSYSTEM IS WE ARE GOING TO FOCUS ON THE NEXT GENERATION NEUROSCIENTIST. THIS INCLUDES NOT ONLY NEUROSCIENTIST BUT ALSO NEUROETHICISTS AS WELL. THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND MEASURED ON GLOBAL NETWORKS, SINCE THE LAST YEAR YOU MAY KNOW WE CAN TALK ABOUT ESTABLISH THE BRAIN GLOBAL BRAIN INITIATIVE, I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT AND KOREA IS WILLING TO JOIN THAT OTHER PROGRAM IN THE FUTURE. ALSO WE HAVE TO CONSIDER NEUROSCIENCE FIELD, WILL BE LIKE DEVELOPING THE OTHER -- THE INDUSTRY. SO LET ME BRIEFLY INTRODUCE WHAT THE CONTENTS OF THE R&D PLANT, SO THERE'S THE -- OBLIGATION SO FIRST IS MAPPING. THE ONE OF THE MAPPING IS HIGHER BRAIN FUNCTION, FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE AND MOLECULAR LEVELS, AND THIS ONE WILL BE MULTI-SCALE BRAIN MAPPING. THE OTHER ONE IS AGE BRAIN MAPPING. KOREA RECOGNIZE OLDS PEOPLE LIKE AGING PEOPLE ACCUMULATING POPULATION THE KOREA WILL BE LIKE TOP OF THE COUNTRIES, THAT'S IN AROUND 2020 OR 2030 SO WE HAVE TO PREPARE THE AGED -- THE PERIOD SO THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO MAKE THE BRAIN MAPPING WITH THE FOCUS ON THE AGE OF THE BRAIN LIKE NEURODEGENERATIVE DISORDERS. INNOVATIVE NEUROTECHNOLOGY, THIS IS SIMILAR LIKE THE INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES, THE FUNCTION AND THE EDITING OF THE THINGS -- THE GENES ASSOCIATED WITH FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN, THE OTHER CRITICAL TO IMPROVE IMAGES AT THE LEVEL OF THE NANOSCALE ALSO LIKE MACRO SCALE OF THE MAPPING. SO THIS ONE IS THE NEUROTECHNOLOGY, THE BUDGET WILL BE UNDER THIS -- THE TOPIC SO THERE'S FIVE THINGS, WE CAN THE PILOT PROJECT FOR THIS YEAR, THE BUDGET WILL DECIDE FOR THIS PROJECT. THE THIRD IS AI RELATED R&D, WE HAVE TO STUDY TO GET MORE GOOD TOPIC ASSOCIATED WITH THE AI BUT THE NEUROSCIENTISTS IN KOREA, WANT TO GET LIKE NEUROCOGNITION AT PERCEPTION EMOTION AND ACTION THEN EVENTUALLY THEY WANT TO DO IT AT THE NEUROANATOMY BRAIN INSPIRED MODEL BUT THIS IS NOT LIKE A REAL AI I MENTIONED EARLIER. THIS IS THE LAST ONE, DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGIES TO ASSOCIATE WITH MEDICAL CLINIC FOR BRAIN DISORDERS. SO THINK THERE IS NEUROETHICAL ISSUE WILL BE RAISED FROM THIS AGENDA. THE THINGS WE MENTION BEFORE IN MY OTHER PRESENTATION, THE VARIOUS ORGANOID, THE TOPICS HERE, ALSO THE EPIGENETIC ISSUE IN THE PROJECT. WE DID NOT DISCUSS ABOUT THE NEUROETHICS ISSUE WITH THIS TOPIC, BUT THIS ONE IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND THE INITIAL POINT WE'LL DISCUSS IN THE FUTURE. THE NEUROSCIENCE ECOSYSTEM, FIRSTLY, FIRST TOPIC IS TRAINING NEXT GENERATION, I MENTION THIS TOPIC IS VERY IMPORTANT IN KOREA BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE THE ONLY BIOLOGISTS BASED ON THE NEUROSCIENCE BUT WE NEED MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICIANS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN NEUROSCIENCE WE'LL RECRUIT OTHER PEOPLE TO JOIN NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM. ALSO I JUST DISCUSSED -- NEUROETHICIST BECAUSE THERE'S NO NEUROETHICIST IN KOREA YET. SO THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE INTERESTED IN NEUROETHICS BUT STILL, BIOETHICS. WE WANT TO EDUCATE YOUNG PEOPLE AND CONTRIBUTE OUR THE NEUROSCIENCE AT THE FIELD IN THE FUTURE. ALSO THE STRENGTH OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EXAMPLE WE ESTABLISH THE BRAIN BANK RECENTLY WE REALIZE IT'S IMPORTANT RESOURCES TO STUDY HUMAN BRAIN BUT THERE'S NO OTHER BRAIN BANK IN KOREA, JUST TO ESTABLISH THIS ONE HAVE LIKE SEVEN OR EIGHT HUMAN BRAIN SO FAR. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE WHEN WE LIKE TO MAKE AT NANOSCALE MAPPING, THERE'S ONLY WAY TO STUDY THE HUMAN BRAIN THROUGH THE BRAIN BANK. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE AND ALSO WHY THE REASON THE ISSUE IN KOREA IS VERY TRADITIONAL BASE. BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO LIKE DONATE THEIR OTHER BRAIN BECAUSE THE BRAIN IS LIKE OUR SPIRIT, IF WE REMOVE THE BRAIN THAT SOUND LIKE -- SO THAT IS THE CULTURE IN KOREA, ASSOCIATED WITH NEUROETHICS ISSUE. SO WE DISCUSS A LOT IN KOREA FUTURE. THEN TO JOIN BRAIN STATION LIKE THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, WE'RE WILLING TO COLLABORATE WITH OTHER SCIENTISTS IN -- OF THE WORD. SO THIS IS THE MAIN THING, WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO R&D AND ECOSYSTEM, THIS IS KIND OF A STRATEGY. FROM THE NEXT GENERATION NEUROSCIENTIST, THE TRAINING OF THE THINGS AND FACT INFRASTRUCTURE AND GLOBAL CORPORATION AND INDUSTRY, R&D TO SUPPORT OTHER R&D. THIS IS THIS IS THE OUTSPOKEN MODEL, THE KOREAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE HAVE BEEN -- OVER THE ALL THE PROJECT WILL BE MANAGE BY THE MYSTERY OF THE SCIENCE AND THE MISSION OF RESEARCH FOUNDATION BUT MOSTLY LIKE RESEARCH WILL BE BY CAREER BRAIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE. ALSO KNOWLEDGE PREPARING KOREA BRAIN STATION. NEUROETHICS SO FAR, I JUST LEARNED THE NEUROETHICS COMMUNITY THE BOARD THINGS DECIDED FROM 13 AND 15. EUROPE AND UNITED SO SINCE I ATTEND OACD AND THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AND THE MEETING, I THINK THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO ESTABLISH NEUROETHICS COMMUNITY IN KOREA SO I START TO ORGANIZE NEUROETHICS. DIALOGUE IN THE JANUARY 13 -- LAST MONTH WE ARE GOING TO SECOND MEETING THE 24th OF FEBRUARY AND WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS VERY DEEPLY ABOUT NEUROETHICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BRAIN INITIATIVE BUT THIS IS NOT ONLY FOR BRAIN INITIATIVE, WE HAVE TO INSPIRE THESE THINGS TO RESEARCH INVOLVED IN BRAIN INITIATIVE AND ALSO IN NEUROSCIENCE PROJECT IN KOREA. OUR MISSION IS PROMOTE BRAIN RESEARCH AND RESPONSIBLE APPLICATION OF THE NEUROSCIENCE. WE DIVIDE THREE THINGS, ONE IS NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL OPPORTUNITY, AND THE TENURE OF THE PLANNING. PREPARING A THIRD OF THE BRAIN PROMOTION OF PLANNING NOW. THIS MEETING WILL SUPPORT THE BOTH OF THEM. ALSO KNOWLEDGE WE ARE JUST FOR THE BRAIN -- NEUROETHICS ISSUE BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY, PROMOTION ACT WE CANNOT -- THE UPDATE, THESE ARE THE -- INCLUDE BRAIN RESEARCH PROMOTION LIKE NEUROETHICS OF ISSUE IN THIS (INDISCERNIBLE) INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION. THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORGANIZATION, WE HAVE THE SEVEN MEMBERS TOLD LIKE MEDICAL PSYCHOLOGIST, THE LAWYERS AND MEDICAL HISTORY, AND OTHER CULTURES SO WE ARE THINKING VERY GOOD PERSON TO JOIN THIS COMMITTEE TO HELP OUT THEN ALSO MANY NEUROSCIENTISTS WILL INVOLVE COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS LET'S FACE IT MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE TO DISCUSS FOR US. THIS IS THE VERY BRIEF -- THAT'S THE MAIN TOPIC SO NOW WE TRY TO DISCOVER THE EMERGING ISSUE IN THE SCIENCE AND NEUROETHICS THAT DEVELOP NEUROETHICS GUIDELINE, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR OUR R&D. WE ARE DISCUSS BEFORE MY PRESENTATION, MANY RESEARCHERS WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS THE PROBLEM THROUGH -- FROM MY OTHER RESEARCH SO THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND I HAVE TO -- THE WORK ON IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ALSO PROMOTING COLLABORATION NOT ONLY NEUROSCIENCE R&D BUT ALSO NEUROETHICS. WE ARE PLANNING TO PROVIDE A NEUROETHICS EDUCATION TO NOT ONLY RESEARCHER BUT ALSO NEUROSCIENCE BIOETHICS OF THE STUDENT. I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE WORK BUT I THINK IT IS GOOD TO EXCHANGE THE RESEARCH NEUROETHICIST TO EDUCATE THEM PROPERLY SO THIS IS A VERY GOOD WAY TO HAVE MORE NEUROETHICISTS IN THE WORLD. ALSO OPEN FORUM WILL BE REAL ENHANCE PUBLIC AWARENESS OF LIKE THE NEUROETHICS THINGS. AS I MENTION THE BRAIN AWARENESS WEEK, THIS IS A VERY GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO (INAUDIBLE) NEUROETHICS ISSUE TO PUBLIC. INSIDE KOREA WE ARE GOING TO THIS -- THE NEUROETHICS ISSUE IN THE NEURO-- KOREA BRAIN INITIATIVE. IF WE GET OUT A BUDGET THE PROJECT WILL BE LAUNCHED FROM 2018. SO NOW UNDER VIDEO BY GOVERNMENT AND FINISH LIKE HOPEFULLY END UP, WE CANNOT FORMULATE THE PROJECT. I WANT TO IMPROVE NEUROETHICS BRAIN INITIATIVE. MORE LIKE THE NEW COMMITTEE MEMBER TO RUN NEUROETHICS GROUP, STUDY GROUP OF THE COMMITTEE. SO THIS ONE IS VERY GOOD CHANCE TO HAVE THE BIOETHICS CONFERENCE IN OCTOBER. AS WE DISCUSS BEFORE, WE HAVE TO KARA AND NEUROETHICS KAVLI, I DON'T KNOW, SPONSOR WE CAN HAVE THIS NEUROETHICS SUMMIT WITH JUST DID A BACK TO BACK CONFERENCE WITH THE BIOETHICS CONFERENCE, THEN THAT WILL BE GOOD TO HAVE A MORE NEUROETHICISTS FROM OTHER BIOETHICS. SO THIS ONE HOPEFULLY WE CAN ESTABLISH THE NEUROETHICS COMMITTEE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE WORK TOGETHER FOR THE GLOBAL BRAIN INITIATIVE ABOUT NEUROETHICS ISSUE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION. [APPLAUSE] >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT VERY COMPLETE PRESENTATION. DO PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >> SO LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE LAUNCH A VERY BROAD COMPREHENSIVE INITIATIVE. IF EWE LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT -- WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT BRAIN INITIATIVES AROUND THE WORLD, EACH HAS A PARTICULAR CHARGE AND THE BEAUTY OF THE SITUATION IS THAT THEY COULD COMPLIMENT EACH OTHER INSTEAD OF BEING DUPLICATIVE. IS THERE SOME ANGLE THAT KOREA COULD TAKE THAT WOULD BE ORIGINAL THAT OTHER INITIATIVES ARE NOT DOING AND THAT APPLIES BOTH FOR RESEARCH BUT ALSO MAYBE FOR THE ETHICS HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT BUILDING YOUR PROGRAM, SINCE YOU'RE THE EARLIEST STATUS AN FLEXIBILITY LOOK LIKE GOVERNMENT IS SPONSORING VERY GENEROUS FUNDING, HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT HIGHLIGHTING ONE TOPIC ONE THING THAT KOREA IS GOOD FOR, KOREA WANTS -- SOUTH KOREA WANTS TO OWN AND THAT WOULD BE MORE USEFUL IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT. >> WHAT IS THE MAIN TOPIC, KOREA BRAIN INITIATIVE, WHEN WE THOUGHT BRAIN ORIENTED TO THE NEUROTECHNOLOGIES AND ALSO CONNECTOME BUT MOSTLY LIKE TECHNOLOGY BASE OTHER THINGS, THE HUMAN BRAIN PROJECT IN EUROPE IS LIKE VERY FOCUSED ON THE PLATFORM SO OUR STRATEGY MORE LIKE THE DATA THE FOCUS ON SPECIAL AREA, LIKE THE BRAIN CONNECT TOME CORTICAL CEREBRAL CORTEX, AND IF YOU HAVE THE NARROW DOWN THE DATA THEN WE CAN USE THE HUMAN BRAIN PROJECT PLATFORM AND ALSO USE TO ADVANCE NEUROING THE TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPED AT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. SO THAT'S MIDDLE OF STATUS. WE ARE THE DIFFERENT FROM JAPAN AN CHINESE PROJECT BECAUSE THEY ARE FOCUSED ON THE PILOT BUT I THINK IT IS NOT LIKE COMPETITIVE IN OTHER KOREA. SO WE DON'T CARE ABOUT PRIMARY THINGS BUT OUR -- THE MORE POWERFUL THE -- MORE THE BIOLOGY DRIVEN TECHNIQUE, MAKE CELL BIOLOGY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY. KOREA IS MORE LIKE COMPETITIVE IN THAT AREA. BASED ON THAT, THE NEUROSCIENTIST, WE CAN MORE -- CREATE OTHER DATA THEN USE THE PLATFORM FROM EU AND TECHNOLOGY FROM -- WE HAVE TO FORMULATE MORE AFTER DISCUSSION. >> IT'S A WONDERFUL IDEA TO FOCUS ON THE DATA BUT PERHAPS KOREA COULD HOST ALL THE GLOBAL DATA OF NEUROSCIENCE AND INDEED IN TERMS OF ETHICS. LEAD IN TERMS OF PRIVACY ISSUES SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD PARTICULARLY FOCUS ON AND HELP REST OF THE WORLD. THERE IS NO PLACE YET WHERE OLDER DATA FROM NEUROSCIENCE IS BEING HOSTED AS FAR AS I KNOW. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS ANY DIFFERENT INFORMATION. BUT PART OF IT IS BECAUSE EVERYONE IS WAITING FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN OR WE CAN MAKE THINGS HAPPEN, KOREA CAN TAKE THE LEAD. >> SO MUCH OF THE NEUROETHICS THAT WE ARE CONNECTED TO HERE WHEN IT TOUCHES ON ISSUES LIKE RESPONSIBILITY AND LAW IS BASED IN TRADITIONAL WESTERN PHILOSOPHY THAT COMES FROM -- WITH ARISTOTLE ANDEAN GLOW AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE, I'M GOING TO DISPLAY MY VAST IGNORANCE OF WHAT ASIAN COUNTRIES KOREA AND JAPAN, SO FORTH, BRING TO THE TABLE IN TERMS OF DIFFERENT WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY FOR JURISPRUDENCE, PERHAPS, LESS ADAMISTIC INDIVIDUALISM AND ANGLO AMERICAN LAW. SOME OF THE -- COMPLIMENTARY VIEWS OF THESE ISSUES, MORAL RESPONSIBILITY CULPABILITY TO THE ANGLO AMERICAN VIEWS DO SEEM TO BE -- I MAY BE IGNORANT BUT THERE'S AT LEAST FROM WHAT IS GOING ON A LOT OF MISSING FROM THE DISCOURSE ABOUT NEUROETHICS. SO AS WE THINK ABOUT THE WAY WHICH VARIOUS BRAIN INTERVENTIONS OR PREDICTIONS OR WHATEVER MIGHT INFLUENCE THESE CRITICAL PARTS OF HUMANITY WHERE WE'RE REFRACKTORRING IT TO A NARROW LENS, I NOTICE LAW FACULTY ON YOUR LIST, I DIDN'T SEE A PHILOSOPHER, BUT WONDERING WHETHER THAT IS SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE WORTH EMPHASIZING AND AT SOME POINT BRINGING THE WORLD TOGETHER TO THINK ABOUT THESE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. >> PERFECT SET UP. WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT LATER WITH CARLY. YES, WE SEE THAT BIOETHICS LARGELY AND NEUROETHICS TOO ARE WESTERN ENDEAVORS BUT NEUROSCIENCE AN NEUROETHICS ARE GLOBAL PROBLEMS TO SOLVE. WE DON'T HAVE A STRONG FRAMEWORK, ONLY HANDFUL OF EMPIRIC STUDIES AREN'T PUBLISHED IN JOURNALS OR PRELIMINARY DATA SUGGESTING DIFFERENT RESPONSES FROM THE PUBLIC TO THINGS LIKE ENHANCEMENT TO CERTAINLY THINGS LIKE BRAIN DEATH. O SO ONE OF THE GOATS OF THE SUMMIT IS -- GOALS OF THE SUMMIT, IT'SED BY KAVLI IS SPONSORING IT AND DANA WILL BE A PARTNER AND THE FUNDS AND WE WILL BE MEDIATED THROUGH EMORY AND THEN A PARTNERSHIP WITH KOREA BRAIN PROJECT AND KBRI, IS TO COME TOGETHER AND TO CREATE A MENU OF NEUROETHICS QUESTIONS AND EXAMINE THEM, REFRACK THROUGH THE CULTURAL TRADITION AND NOT JUST LOOK AT -- IT WOULD BE A FILE -- FAILURE IF WE SAID THAT'S WHAT'S DIFFERENCE IN EAST ASIAN PHILOSOPHIES FROM THE WEST, IT GIVES A OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE MORE WELL STUDIED EXAMPLES OF PHILOSOPHY THINGS WE THINK ABOUT WITH FREE WILL AND AGENCY AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THAT WILL BE PART OF WHAT WE HOPE WILL BE CREATED IN THE SUMMIT WE HAVE IN OCTOBER. >> I THINK THAT'S A VERY CHALLENGING -- THE TOPIC TO DISCUSS ABOUT WHAT ARE DIFFERENT IN OTHER CULTURES IN OTHER TRADITIONS. SO AS WE DISCUSSED LAST NIGHT, ACTUALLY KOREAN PEOPLE COUNT -- AGING HOE COUNT FETAL AGING AS WELL. SO IF YOU -- ONE-YEAR-OLD NOW SO YOU HAVE TO COUNT THE PLUS ONE, WHEN YOU COUNT YOUR AGE, SO THAT MEANS THAT WE ALWAYS LIKE A LIFE IS STARTED FROM THE FERTILIZATION. SO THAT'S HOW THE LIFE -- THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS WHO -- THE -- WHAT WE CONSIDER WHAT IS A LIFE. THEN WE CAN JUST DISCUSS A LOT OF THINGS, WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT THEN WE CAN RAISE MANY ISSUES IN ADDITION TO DISCUSS HERE. >> RAFA, TO YOUR POINT, THERE IS INTEREST EXPRESS INTEREST OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT CREATING A LARGE OPEN ACCESS DATA REPOSITORY. BUT WHEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WILL BE VARYING VIEWS ON PRIVACY AND WHAT THAT DATA WILL MEAN TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. >> NOT JUST VIEW. >> CERTAINLY, LAWS ARE INFORM BY VIEWS FOR SURE. THINKING ABOUT IF WE PUT THEM THERE, HOW ARE WE GOING TO MAKE IT SO SATISFACTORY FOR EVERYBODY WHO IS PULLING INTO THAT DATA. >> I'M THINKING THAT LAW PRAGMATICALLY, WE CAN -- EUROPEAN GENOMES ON AMERICAN SERVERS GOT BLOWN UP BY THE EUROPEAN COURTS SO THESE ARE NON-TRIVIAL ISSUES. >> PRECISELY BECAUSE IT'S TRIVIAL, SOMEONE SHOULD DO THE WORK AND WORK OUT THE KINKS AND FIGURE OUT A SYSTEM THAT WORKS FOR THE WHOLE WORLD. WHY NOT CREE WHERE? >> -- KOREA? >> WHAT YOU POINT OUT HERE, GIVE US OPPORTUNITY TO DO IS RE-EMPHASIZE HOW NEUROETHICS IS TOOL FOR OTHER TOOLS. WE WANT TO CREATE THE REPOSITORY WE HAVE TO ARE HAVE DISCUSSION HOW TO IMPLEMENT THIS AND UTILIZE IT AND MAKE IT UNIVERSALLY PALATABLE TO OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS AN PUBLIC CONTRIBUTING THEIR DATA TO IT. >> THERE IS ALSO A ROBUST AND I THINK GROWING PRESENCE OF BIOETHICS IN ASIA, EVERYWHERE. SO BRINGING THOSE PEOPLE BRINGING THEM IN ON THE CONVERSATION, MAKING SURE THEY'RE IN ON THE CONVERSATION IS VERY IMPORTANT. >> ONE LAST THING. I HAVE BEEN EXPLORING THIS PROBLEM IN JAPAN AND CHINA AND VISITING BIOETHICS CENTERS THERE AND THE PROBLEM IS THEY'RE LARGELY TRAINED AS YOU SAID IN WESTERN PHILOSOPHY. SO YOU WANT TO LOOK FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE VERSED IN EAST ASIAN CULTURE OR CONFUSION OR BUDDHIST THINKING THEY'RE NOT THE SAME DEPARTMENTS. THERE'S ELSEWHERE. SO IT REALLY IS A COMPLICATED THING TO TRY TO BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENCE, VERY INFORMATIVE. I DID WANT TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IN ENSOMEWHERE. -- IN GENERAL. ONE THING WE EMPHASIZED IS GLOBAL NEURAL INDUSTRY AND TRYING TO DEVELOP THAT. SO I'M WONDERING IS THE BRAIN INITIATIVE OFFICE AS A SOURCE OF DRIVE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT? >> YES. ALSO WHEN ONLY DEVELOPMENT, ALSO INDUSTRY, SO THAT WILL BE LIKE MORE ADD INCREMENT >> IF I CAN ADD ONE MORE COMMENT, KOREA BRAIN PROJECT, ONE UNIQUE THING THEY OFFER BEYOND SCIENCE IS THEY'RE VERY INTERESTED IN THE FORMATIVE FORMATION OF SCIENCES. ONE THING THEIR PROJECT HAS DONE THAT NO OTHER PROJECT HAS DONE, IS CONSIDER HAVING NEUROETHICS IN THE BEING WITH A FORMATION OF THEIR SCIENTISTS. THE HUMAN BRAIN PROJECT, IT WAS STILL AFTER THE FACT IT WAS LARGELY ETHICS RESEARCH ETHICS ISSUES AND THERE'S NEUROETHICS ON THE SIDE WITH BRAIN INITIATIVE NEUROETHICS WAS ADDED LAYER, WITH KOREA BRAIN PROJECT RIGHT ON THE GROUND FLOOR THAT'S LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE WORK OF DR. JUDGE AND DR. KIM. THEY'RE TRAIL BLAZING FOR US. >> THIS IS A LITTLE SKEWED TO -- NOT SURE HOW DIRECTLY THIS RELATES TO YOUR INTERESTING PRESENTATION ABOUT KOREA BUT I WANT TO PICK UP ON STEVE HYMAN'S PRIVACY POINT, UNFORTUNATE HE JUST LEFT THE ROOM. I THINK THIS PRIVACY ISSUE GNASH FAMILY AND INTERNATIONALLY IS IMPORTANT AND I THINK ON THE NEUROSIDE IT IS AN IMPORTANT TIME TO GET IN FRONT OF IT BECAUSE THE GENOME PEOPLE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS A LOT. AND YET MY UNDERSTANDING IS MR SCANS, PEOPLE'S BRAINS ARE GENERALLY INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIABLE IF YOU LOOK AT THEM CLOSELY ENOUGH. IF YOU SEE TWO DIFFERENT IMAGES OF THE SAME BRAIN YOU CAN TELL WHETHER THEY'RE THE SAME BRAIN OR NOT. THERE MAYBE SOME PRIVACY ISSUES SPECIFIC TO NEUROSCIENCE THAT HAVEN'T COME UP UP IN THE GENOMICS CONTEXT. BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVEN'T NOTICED IT YET. WHICH MAKES THIS A GOOD TIME TO DEAL WITH THIS BRAIN SPECIFIC PRIVACY ISSUES BEFORE THERE'S A BREACH, THERE'S HACK, THERE'S A PROBLEM THAT CAUSES THEM TO BE BROUGHT INTO MUCH HIGHER PROFILE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] >> I THINK IT'S TIME TO TAKE A BREAK. LET'S MAKE IT TEN MINUTES. IS THAT ENOUGH? TEN MINUTES NOW WE MOVE THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. OUR NEXT SPEAKER MIYOUNG CHUN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT -- I ALMOST SAID VICE PROVOST FOR SCIENCE PROGRAMS AT THE KAVLI FOUNDATION TO TALK ABOUT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE ALLIANCE, THE INTERNATIONAL BRAIN INITIATIVE NEUROETHICS. MIYOUNG, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING. >> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. I WANTED TO BEGIN BY SHOWING A PICTURE THAT WAS TAKEN ABOUT FIVE MINUTES BEFORE OFFICIAL BRAIN INITIATIVE ANNOUNCEMENT ON APRIL 2ND. SHOWN HERE ARE A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO WERE AT THE WHITE HOUSE -- I HEARD THEY HAVE A BLUE CARPET. RIGHT NEXT TO EAST ROOM WHERE THE ANNOUNCEMENT WAS MADE. THERE WERE GROUP OF FUNDERS WHO COMMITTED TO THE BRAIN INITIATIVE WHO ARE HERE. MANLY DIRECTOR OF NIH. NSF AND DARPA GROUP, HHMI KAVLI AND -- CAME REPRESENTING SALK INSTITUTE. OR SO PART OF THE PICTURE THAT ONE OF THE HEAD OF NIH SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHO WAS -- (INDISCERNIBLE) SO I SHOWED THIS PICTURE HOWEVER FOR DIFFERENT REASON TODAY. AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH SOMEONE STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO THE PERSON WHOM TO BE HONEST NEVER MET BEFORE SO DEVELOPING THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. SHE'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, SHE MUST KNOW HER REALLY WELL, AMY GUT NANO. SHE WAS THERE -- GUTMAN. SHE WAS THERE AS THE CHAIR OF PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION FOR THE STUDY OF BIOETHICAL ISSUES. DURING THE ANNOUNCEMENT PRESIDENT OBAMA CLARIFIED THE IMPORTANCE OF BIOETHICS AND ETHICAL ISSUES FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. I THINK IT'S GOOD NEWS THAT SHE IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SHE'S THE RIGHT I GUESS PERSON FOR THE INITIATIVE. THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS. NOT SO GOOD NEWS, MANY OF US WHO HAD BEEN PARTICIPATING IN MAKING THIS INITIATIVE MET HER FOR THE FIRST TIME ON THE DAY WHEN WE ANNOUNCED THE INITIATIVE. SO THIS IS SOMEWHAT COMMON THEME WE TALKED ABOUT ALL YEAR TODAY WHERE E -- EARLIER TODAY, WE TEND PERHAPS NOT TO TALK ABOUT -- WHEN WE WERE DESIGNING THESE INITIATIVES. AND WE HOPE WE CAN DO MUCH BETTER MOVING FORWARD. I WANTED TO SPEND A FEW MINUTES, NEXT FEW MINUTES TALKING ABOUT TWO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES THAT RELATE TO THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. AND THESE ARE ACTIVITIES THE KAVLI FOUNDATION IS INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN. AND WE HOPE THAT INDEED IN THESE ACTIVITIES WE CAN INCORPORATE NEUROETHICS LMNR AS CLOSE AS WE CAN MOVING FORWARD. EARLIER TODAY WALTER MENTIONED THE BRAIN INITIATIVE ALLIANCE, BIA. AND I'M SHOWING BRAIN INITIATIVE ALLIANCE IN A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT LIGHT. BY SHOWING THE TIME LINE OF HOW THIS ALLIANCE WAS FORMED. IN THE BEGINNING WHEN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE WAS ANNOUNCED THERE WERE SIX PARTNERS IN PARTICULAR, THREE FEDERAL FUNDING AAGENCIES AND THREE PRIVATE GROUPS. BUT AS YEARS WENT BY IN 2014 AND 2015, THERE WERE MORE FEDERAL FUNDING AGENCIES CAME IN AS WELL AS OTHER PRIVATE SECTORS. SHOPE IN THIS SLIDE. AND BECAUSE OF THESE MULTIPLE GROUPS INVOLVEMENT FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, CHIEF LEADING SCIENTISTS IN PARTICULAR CORY BARKMAN, BILL KNEWSOME UNDERSTOOD FIRST WENT TO NIH AND OTHER FEDERAL FUNDING LEADERS, ON THE NEED OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE ALINES, THAT ALL THE FUNDERS OR PARTICIPANTS OF THE INITIATIVE SHOULD BE WORKING TOGETHER SOMEHOW. FOR REASONS THAT WASN'T AS CLEAR TO ME, BUT I UNDERSTOOD THAT FEDERAL FUNDING AGENCIES CANNOT LEAD THESE ACTIVITIES ON THEIR OWN SO WE MADE SOME INITIAL ALLIANCES AMONG FEW OF THE FEDERAL FUNDING GROUPS SHOWN HERE AS WELL AS A FEW OF THE PRIVATE GROUPS AND WE STARTED TO HAVE SOME OF THE MEETINGS BETWEEN JULY 2015 TO NOVEMBER 2016. SNIP WE ANNOUNCED BRAIN INITIATIVE ALLIANCE -- FINALLY WE ANONNED BRAIN INITIATIVE ALLIANCE. ALLIANCE HAS KEY LEADING SIX ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE -- SEVEN ORGANIZATIONS HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE EARLIER DISCUSSIONS. AND THE REST OF THE GROUP ARE JOINED AS AFFILIATES AND PARTICIPANTS. THIS ALLIANCE IS STILL BEING ORGANIZED IN DETAIL, WE'RE MAKING MOUs TO EACH OTHER AND SO ON, SO IT'S I THINK SOMEWHAT PLEX ORGANIZATION AND HOW WE WILL WORK OUT IS GOING TO BE CHALLENGENING THE FUTURE. BUT IT'S A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY THAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO SO. AND AS WALTER MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY, NOW WE HAVE A SINGLE WEBSITE WHICH IS -- BRAININITIATIVE.ORG, AN INDEPENDENT WEBSITE OF ALL OTHER BRAIN INITIATIVE RELATED WEBSITES BY INDIVIDUAL FUNDERS. THIS IS ONE STOP SHOP ANYONE WHO WANTS TO LEARN ABOUT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE COULD GO TO AND LEARN ABOUT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AND OR SO I THINK WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT ELEMENT FOR FINDING FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOSE SCIENTISTS WHO ARE SEEKING GRANTS. BECAUSE WALTER MENTIONED EARLIER I WON'T MENTION FURTHER ABOUT THE WEBSITE, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT WE THINK THAT NEUROETHICS ELEMENT IS NOT AS INCORPORATED IN THIS SPECIFIC ALLIANCE AS YET. AND WE LOOK FOR A WAY TO FORMALLY REENGAGE AND PUT YOUR CONTENT IN THIS WEBSITE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ANOTHER ELEMENT I WANT TO MENTION IS INTERNATIONAL BRAIN INITIATIVE. AS YOU KNOW DURING THIS U.S. BRAIN INITIATIVE. HUMAN BRAIN PROJECT IN JAPAN HAS THEIR OWN INITIATIVE. BRAIN INITIATIVE IN THE U.S. IS COLLABORATION BETWEEN FEDERAL FUNDING AS WELL AS PRIVATE FUNDING AGENCIES AND IN EUROPE, NOT ONLY EUROPEAN COMMISSION BUT MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES INVOLVEMENT FOR PROVIDING FUNDS FOR THE INITIATIVE. IN ADDITION IN MORE RECENT YEARS CANADA AND AUSTRALIA JOINED THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IN PARTICULAR THROUGH NIH. THESE GROUPS ARE WORKING TOGETHER IN CERTAIN WAYS, ADDITIONALLY AS CHINA AS DR. CHUNKING MENTIONED EARLIER HAS ANNOUNCED -- DR. CHUNKING MENTIONED EARLIER INITIATIVES ARE WARRANTED FOR CONGRESS IN THE UNITED STATES TO AMEND COOP RA T ACTIVITIES FOR U.S. BRAIN INITIATIVE AND LOUD THAT CHARGE, IN SEPTEMBER 20 LED THAT CHARGE, IN SEPTEMBER 2016 LAST YEAR, ALL THESE CRIES INCLUDING ARGENTINA, GERMANY AND SWEDEN WENT TO UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEETING AND TEACH THE IDEA OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION FOR BRAIN INITIATIVE ADDITIONALLY THERE'S MULTIPLE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZES SUCH AS OACD THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY, AND NOW WITH INTERNATIONAL BRAIN ORGANIZATION AS WELL AS UN -- CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT IS PART OF THIS DISCUSSION. WE IMAGINE INTERNATIONAL BRAIN INITIATIVE COULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE ALL THESE DATA THAT WILL BE COMING OUT OF DIFFERENT COUNTRIES INITIATIVES AS WELL AS TOOL DISSEMINATION. THESE ACTIVITIES ONE ALSO ASSUME MANY OTHER POSSIBILITIES OUT OF HAVING INTERNATIONAL BRAIN INITIATIVES WHICH THESE IDEAS ARE BEING DISCUSSED FURTHER BACK TO HEADQUARTERS FEBRUARY 27th. ONE MORE TIME, THAT IN UN HEADQUARTERS. BUT AGAIN HERE, AN ELEMENT THAT'S NOT AS WELL DISCUSSED IS THE NEW ISSUE. SO I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE WE CAN CANDIDLY DISCUSS HOW NEUROETHICS IS INCORPORATED IN IN THESE ACTIVITIES BEFORE INTERNATIONAL BRAIN INITIATIVE BEGINS. I WANT TO SPEND A FEW MINUTES DISCUSSING SMALL BUT IMPORTANT ACTIVITIES THAT THE KAVLI FOUNDATION IS EMBARKING ON. IN MORE RECENT TIMES. KNOWING NEUROETHICS ARE AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT IT'S NOT AS WELL ORGANIZED AS YET. THAT IS TO SAY, BRAIN INITIATIVE IS FOUR YEARS INTO IT AND IF YOU -- YOU PULL BACK BRAIN INITIATIVE INVESTIGATORS MEETING, SCIENTIFICALLY AS WALTER PRESENTED EARLIER TODAY, THINGS ARE WORKING PHENOMENALLY. I THINK THAT I HEARD JOSH GORDON MENTIONING DURING INVESTIGATORS MEETING THAT 2016 APPLICATIONS FOR BRAIN INITIATIVE FUNDING HAD ALMOST 50% OF SCIENTISTS WHO HAD NOT BEEN APPLIED TO NIH BUDGET GRANTS BEFORE. THIS IS REMARKABLE ACHIEVEMENT OF INSPIRING NATIONAL INITIATIVE TO BRING CHEMISTS AND ENGINEERS AND OTHER SCIENTISTS TO NEUROSCIENCE COMMUNITY. WALTER ALSO MENTIONED CHIEF SCIENTIFIC DATA, AS WELL AS TOOL DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE IN VERY SHORT PERIOD OF BRAIN INITIATIVE. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE STILL HAVE ANY CLEAR SYSTEMATIC IDEAS TO HOW NEUROETHICS WOULD BE ALIGNED WITH BRAIN INITIATIVE SO FROM THE KAVLI FOUNDATION WE DESEEDED TO -- DECIDED TO EXPLORE HOW IT WILL LOOK LIKE AND HOW WE PARTICIPATE IN THESE ACTIVITIES SO WE ARE ENGAGING WITH THE INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY, WE'RE PROVIDING THEIR ANNUAL MEETINGS FOR KEYNOTE SPEAKERS. RAFA MENTIONED ABOUT ETHICAL SUMMIT NEUROETHICS SUMMIT HE HAD COMBINING SCIENTISTS COMING FROM ETHICS AS WELL AS NEUROTECHNOLOGIES. WHICH WAS ONE OF THE KAVLI FEATURE SYMPOSIA. WE TALKED ABOUT THE OUTCOME OF MEETING WHERE RAFA AND COLLEAGUE WROTE A WONDERFUL GUIDELINE NEED OF ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR NEUROTECHNOLOGIES. WE'RE GOING FURTHER AND HEADING SYSTEMATIC ACTIVITY BY ENGAGING WITH NEUROETHICS GROUP SETTING UP INTERNATIONAL SUMMITS, WITH DR. JUDGE FROM KOREA MENTIONED EARLIER, WE WANT -- MAKE THE SUMMITS MANY MORE TIMES THAN JUST ONCE SO WE CAN ENRICH OUR CONVERSATION IN THIS SPACE. SO THESE ARE SOME OF THE KEY PRESENTATIONS THAT I WANTED TO MENTION. AND I WANTED OUR CONVERSATION TO BE A LITTLE MORE DISCUSSION DRIVEN AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE HAVE DONE, MAINLY BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING AS YET. WITH' EAR LOOKING FOR RIGHT GAPS THAT WE CAN FEEL AND SOMETIMES GOOD THING ABOUT THE PRIVATE FUNDING COMING IN, IS SUCH THAT IF THERE ARE GOOD IDEA IDEAS THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED TODAY, WE CAN JUMP IN RIGHT AWAY, WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT RFA AND GO THROUGH THE -- ANOTHER YEAR BEFORE WE COULD FUND SOMETHING. BUT RATHER STEP UP RIGHT AWAY AND PROVIDE SEED FUNDING OR SEED WORKSHOPS, SO ON, SO THAT WHEN YOU ARE READY TO WORK ON SOME SPECIFIC ACTION ITEMS THAT YOU WILL ALREADY HAVE SOME EVIDENTIARY WAY OF MAKING DECISIONS. ON THAT NOTE, I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE YOUR VOICE. [APPLAUSE] >> SO YOUR ENGAGEMENT WITH THIS AND THE FOUNDATIONS THEREFORE IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO HELP CREATE A CRITICAL MASS BUT ALSO THE REASON YOU SAY, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS, WHERE FLEXIBILITY OF BEING PRIVATE FOUNDATION IS A WONDERFUL ADVANTAGE IT'S CRITICAL THAT YOU AND FOUNDATION THAT WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN THE CREATION OF THE BRAIN PROJECT, ALSO COME AROUND TO NEUROETHICS IN THIS WAY, SO OF COURSE I CAN SEE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO STAY CLOSE TO THE SCIENCE FOR MANY THINGS WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY THE WAY TO GO. AT THE SAME TIME I THINK WHAT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR ANY CORE MEMBERS OF YOUR ALLIANCE WHO ARE MOSTLY SCIENCE FUNDING AGENCIES, ARE BOTH FINDING INTERDISCIPLINARY ENGAGEMENT WITH THE SCIENCE AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT, I MEAN, WE HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE TO HAVE LEGAL SCHOLARS REPRESENTED OF WHICH HANK IS THE PLATONIC IDEAL. FIRST TIME I HAVE BEEN CALLED A PLATONIC IDEAL OF ANYTHING. THAT YOU KNOW OF. >> YEAH. SO HANK LIKES SCIENCE, SO MANY LEGAL ACADEMICS IN THESE AREAS ENGAGE BECAUSE THEY HATE SCIENCE SO THAT'S WHY WE LOVE HANK. BUT THERE ARE OTHER DISCIPLINES AND THESE THINGS HAVE COME UP A LITTLE BIT TODAY, PROBABLY BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY, RELIGIOUS SCHOLARS AND FRANKLY, MANY HUMANISTS WHO WE WOULD DO WELL TO HAVE ENGAGED IN THESE ACTIVITIES. MANY OF THEM ARE PROBABLY -- THIS IS A PROBABLY UNFAIR BUT I WORRY MANY ARE TECHNO PHOBIC. DON'T HAVE A SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW NIH WOULD GO OUT AND FIND SEVERAL PHILOSOPHERS OR PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE MORE HUMANISTIC DISCIPLINES OR PROVIDE SMALL PILOT FUNDS TO GET THEM ENGAGED IN THESE REFLECTIONS ON THE MEANING OF NARRATIVE IDENTITY OR PERSON HOOD, WHAT ARE YOU. BUT IMPORTANT ISSUES. THE SECOND THING, AGAIN, WE TOUCHED ON DURING THE PRESENTATION IS THE ABILITY TO REACH OUT GLOBALLY. AND FEDERAL SCIENCE AGENCIES AS I KNOW WELL CAN DO THAT, IT'S JUST THAT IT'S NOT SO EASY. THERE ARE A LOT OF HURDLES AND THE MORE AGAIN, MAYBE I'M JUST BECAUSE I'M OLD I'M PER RECEIVE RATING, BUT ISSUES LIKE RESPONSIBILITY, CULPABILITY, THINKING OF IT IN ANGLO AMERICAN TRADITION, DIFFERENT ASIAN SYSTEMS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND REFLECTING ON HOW OUR SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF O NEUROSCIENCE MAYBE INTERPRETED IN DIFFERENT WAYS WITH VAST ETHICAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS IS SOMETHING THAT AGAIN, I THINK A FOUNDATION IS IN A BETTER PLACE TO SEED AND HELP INITIALLY BRING PEOPLE TO THE TABLE THAN OTHER FUNDERS. >> I WANTED TO SHOUT OUT FOR COUPLE OF PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE THAT HAS REACHED TO DIFFERENT GROUPS OF EXPERTISE IN THIS MANNER. SO ONE OF THE FIRST PROGRAMS WE BEGIN AFTER BRAIN INITIATIVE ANNOUNCEMENT IN 2013 WAS CALLED KAVLI COFFEE HOURS. IT WAS SUGGESTED BY TOM COIL AT OSTP. IT WOULD TAKE ABOUT A YEAR FOR FEDERAL FUNDING AGENCIES TO GET THEIR THINKING TOGETHER, ORGANIZE THEIR PROGRAMS AND PUT OUT AN RFA. BUT WE KNEW FOR BRAIN INITIATIVE TO BE SUCCESSFUL WE HAVE TO HAVE NEUROSCIENTISTS SPEAKING TO PHYSICAL SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS AND SO ON AND THAT TAKES TIME SO STRONGLY ENCOURAGE WE REACH TO AS MANY CAMPUSES AS WE CAN AND PROVIDE -- THIS COULD BE A SMALL BUDGET. HOW MANY COPIES CAN YOU BUY WITH $25,000 >> THAT'S ONLY FREE ON ESPRESSO MACHINE. >> ONLY AD BROAD. ONLY AT BROAD. >> THE BROAD SEQUENCES THE COFFEE WHEN THEY BREW IT. >> WE REACH OUT TO ALMOST 30 CAMPUSES AROUND THE COUNTRY AND THEN PUT TOGETHER THIS COFFEE HOUR PROGRAM, WHERE FIRST YEAR TEND TO GATHER BETWEEN THEIR LIFE SCIENCE AND PHYSICAL SCIENTIST BUT SECOND ROUND OF SOLICITATION, I ARE TAKE ONE EXAMPLE FROM UC SANTA BARBARA WAS IMMEDIATELY THEY WANTED TO EXPEND REACH OUT TO -- GROUPS, THEY FELT THAT LITERATURE PROFESSORS HELP THEM. WE SEE THAT TREND COMING AHEAD, THAT SEEMS TO BE A TREND ALREADY. ANOTHER TREND IS WE HAVE A PROGRAM CALLED KAVLI, CALLED KAVLI DREAM TEAM, WHERE WE TRY TO CONNECT TO THOSE THINK TANK LEADERS AND WHO CAN THINK THINGS THROUGH FOR FUTURE PROJECTS FOR THE FIELDS THAT WE SUPPORT WHICH ONE IS NEUROSCIENCE. SO FOR EXAMPLE -- IS ONE OF OUR DREAM TEAM MEMBERS. A PHILOSOPHER. AS YOU MENTIONED WE DON'T HAVE A BOUNDARY. SO WE COULD MOVE IN DOING THINGS EARLY ON. QUESTION REALIZE AT THE END OF THE DAY THE REAL PROJECT COMES WHEN FEDERAL FUNDING COMES IN BECAUSE YOU HAVE LARGER FUNDING. OR WE COULD BE NIMBLE AND MAKE DECISIONS REALLY FAST. >> YOU'RE AHEAD -- THAT'S GREAT. BUT I OHIO ONLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO EXPAND THAT ONE READS SOMETIMES POORLY GROUNDED CONCERNS AND -- WE HAVE ENOUGH TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT FOR REAL. AND SORT OF ENGAGING THE ACADEMIC NON-SCIENCE COMMUNITY. TO EVEN GREATER DEGREE WILL FOCUS PEOPLE REAL PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE NOT GREAT GOO, NANOTECHNOLOGY. >> ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT KAVLI IS DOING AND NIH IS DOING IS HELPING TO REFRAME OR REPACKAGE NEUROETHICS IN A WAY NEUROSCIENTISTS CAN UNDERSTAND AS A TOOL MENTIONED EARLIER AND I WILL KEEP SAYING IT. TOOL THAT SHARPENS TOOLS AND PROVIDE HORIZON SCANNING FUNCTION AS AND ADVANCE ACCELERATE THE RESEARCH AND GET AWAY FROM THIS IDEA, HANK SAID THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES WE'RE NOT A COMPLIANCE OFFICE. THIS IS SOMETHING TO MAKE THE SCIENCE WORK BETTER. THE SECOND PIECE OF THAT, THERE'S ALREADY NOT A LOT OF FUNDING AND THAT WILL TAKE TIME AND WE SEE WE HAVE HAD THIS INITIAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITY AND WE'RE EXCITED BLAZING THE TRAIL FOR THESE NEUROETHICS PROJECTS. EVEN MORE RARE IS A CROSS CULTURAL CONVERSATION. AS I HAVE SEEN, YOU HAVE BEEN WORKING TOWARD INTERNATIONAL BRAIN STATION INTERNATIONAL BRAIN CENTER. THIS IS A CRITICAL PART IS NEUROETHICS DISCUSSION AND INVITING STAKEHOLDERS THAT STEVE IS MENTIONING WHO CAN BRING DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND ACTUALLY PROVIDE A TEMPLATE OF QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN ASK ACROSS THE PROJECTS WHILE RESPECTING THE CULTURAL TRADITION OF THOSE GROUPS. INTERESTING TO SEE THE TYPE THE VALUES AND SOCIETIES DIFFERENT SOCIETIES WILL DETERMINE WHAT O WORK HAPPENS, WHERE THIS WORK HAPPENS AND ALSO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT WORK BECAUSE NEUROSCIENCE IS A GLOBAL NETWORK ENDEAVOR OF BEING EXPORT AND HOW TO HANDLE THOSE EXPORTS WITHIN OUR OWN VALUE SYSTEM. THAT IS A CRITICAL PROJECT, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE HIGHLIGHTING AND I'M BIASED HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS. HAVING THAT CONVERSATION FUNDED IS REALLY IMPORTANT. NO ONE ELSE IS DOING THAT. >> ANOTHER ELEMENT THAT WE COMMIT IS TO STAY ON PROJECT FOR LONG TERM. AS I MENTION ABOUT FOR EXAMPLE SUMMIT SUPPORT WE WOULDN'T -- WE UNDERSTAND THAT THESE THINGS TAKE TIME. E WE CONE WANT TO SUPPORT NEW ONE, WE SUPPORT WHATEVER IT TAKES FOR US TO REALLY STAY ON. WORKING WITH LEADING SCIENTISTS AND ETHICISTS WORKING TOGETHER IS THAT'S ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WE DON'T HAVE CYCLE SINCE THAT WE ARE MORE I THINK PROBLEM ORIENT ED GROUP. THAT WOULD BE EVERYTHING. >> ONE MORE THING THAT'S EXCITING WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BRAIN GROUPS BRINGING THEM TOGETHER, SOME ARE IN INFANCY, HAVING NEUROETHICS IN FORMATIVE YEARS AND HAVING AGENCY COUPLE OF ENTITIES SAYING THIS IS IMPORTANT, AT THE FOREFRONT OF -- THIS IS NEUROSCIENCE NOW, IT'S AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE HAVING THIS FUNDING ELEMENT TOP DOWN MESSAGES IS REALLY IMPORTANT. >> ON THAT NOTE I WANTED TO JUST POST A QUESTION IN CERTAIN WAYS AND TRY TO BE A LITTLE BIT PROVOCATIVE IN A SENSE THAT THERE ALREADY HAVE BEEN MANY GATHERINGS TALKING NEUROETHICS SINCE 2013, EVEN MYSELF HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING AS I THINK ALREADY DECEMBER 2013, PRESIDENTIAL BIOETHICS COMMITTEE HAD HEARING ALL DAY HEARING THEY INVITED GOOD 15 PEOPLE TESTIFYING, I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE. AND THEY HAVE WRITTEN REPORTS AND THEY HAVE DONE EVEN FURTHER HEARINGS AND SO ON. EVEN NIH EARLY ON 2014 MANY PARTICIPATED IN NEUROETHICS DISCUSSION HOSTED BY THE NIH DIRECTOR AND MANY MENTIONED OACD NEUROENDOCRINOLOGY AND NEUROETHICS ISSUES WHICH WAS HELD LAST NOVEMBER IN WASHINGTON SO ON. WHAT I'M HOPING AS OBSERVER TO SEE MOVING FORWARD SOMETHING GENE MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME SYSTEMATIC DISCUSSION HOW WOULD NEUROETHICS LOOK LIKE SAY TEN YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. THROUGH 21st CENTURY CURES ACT THE U.S. BRAIN INITIATIVE ALREADY HAS A LIST CERTAIN GUARANTEE OF FUNDING COMING INTO 2026. IT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT WE THINK IN THAT WAY. WHEN YOU LOOK AT BRAIN 2025 REPORT FROM NIH, THAT TO ME WAS SOMETHING THAT GOT DONE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE BRAIN INITIATIVE ANNOUNCEMENT, IT WAS DONE LESS THAN NINE MONTHS OR SO. IN THE NEUROSCIENCE COMMUNITY, THAT REPORT NOW TURNS OUT TO BE ALMOST LIKE OUR BIBLE. EVERYONE READS FROM COVER TO COVER DETAIL, IT PROVIDED BIG PICTURE OVERVIEW OF WHERE BRAIN INITIATIVE COULD BE IN 15 YEARS. I WONDER IF ONE COULD COME UP WITH NEUROETHICS DOCUMENT SUCH AS BRAIN 2025 REPORT FROM THE SCIENTIFIC MANNER, I REALIZE THAT IT IS SOMEWHAT STILL MATURE FIELD, PERHAPS THAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE REASONS IT'S HARD TO DO IT. IT WOULD BE GREAT BENEFIT TO OBSERVERS LIKE OURSELF. COMING INTO NEUROETHICS AS A WHOLE, WE CAN TAKE TIME AND THINK THINGS THROUGH NEXT DECADE, HOW NEUROETHICS LOOK LIKE, NOT FOR BRAIN INITIATIVE BUT NEUROETHICS AS A WHOLE, WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR OTHER FUNDERS LIKE OURSELVES. >> RA IFA -- RAFA I WAS GOING TO ASK -- (OFF MIC) >> WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD. >> HARKENING BACK TO WHAT STEVE SAID, ABOUT GETTING INTO A ZONE WHERE WE HAVE VERY LITTLE EXPERTISE WHICH IS PHILOSOPHY BASIS OF ETHICS. I DON'T SEE NIH GETTING TO THAT SPACE. I THINK WHAT WE WILL BE DOING IS ALMOST PRAGMATICETHE. -- PRAGMATIC ETHICS RELATED TO CONCRETE OPT GROUND ISSUES COMING OUT OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. SO THE CONCERN WHICH STEVE WAS GETTING AT IS THAT THAT MAY NOT BE THE BEST WAY TO GET TO THE FINAL GOAL THAT YOU WOULD -- THIS IS WHERE I'M JUMPING, WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO IS TRY TO INTEGRATE PRAGMATIC ETHICS WITH A MORE FILL SOFTIC GENERIC ISSUES, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THAT NIH COULD DO EASILY. ARE BUT IF IT IS IMPORTANT WE DO HAVE -- WE SHOULD FIGURE HOW TO MAKE THAT LEAP. >> BUT THROUGH YOUR LET'S SAY DECISION MAKING SCIENCE OF NEUROSCIENCE YOU ALREADY INCORPORATE A LOT OF LAW RELATED EFFORTS -- >> I THINK THAT TO BE REALstIC THE THINGS WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING ARE GOING TO BE FAIRLY NARROW, WE HAVE -- THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE WREATH OUT TO COMPLICATED NOBODY HAS INTEREST TO BUT DEVELOP PRAGMATIC SOLUTIONS TO MOVE THINGS FORWARD AND SO THE QUESTION IS, IF NIH DOESN'T -- IF THAT'S NOT IN THEIR REALM, ARE THERE OTHER ORGANIZATION, HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN IN OTHER FIELDS? HOW IS THAT FILLED IN, LINKSES TO PRAGMATIC PIECES TO THE KIND OF MORE THEORETICAL PIECE? >> HOW ABOUT NSF BECAUSE THERE ARE PATTERN BRAIN INITIATIVES AND THEY HAVE SOCIAL SCIENCE ELEMENTS WITHIN NSF PROGRAM. THAT'S UNONE OF THE EFFORTS, THEY CAN BE GREAT PARTNERS IN THIS. >> TWO THINGS TO ADD TO THIS CONVERSATION. I HAVE A SMALL DEPARTMENT AT THE NIH AND WE HAVE NOT FOCUSED ON NEUROETHICS BUT WHAT WE TRY TO DO IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. BLEND PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY AND CONCEPTUAL INQUIRY WITH PRAGMATIC EMPIRICAL RESEARCH. THAT MODEL CAN WORK AND VERY IMPORTANT I THINK FOR BIOETHICS IN THE BROAD SENSE AND CERTAINLY NEUROETHICS AS WELL. THERE'S ALSO -- YOU MENTION NSF, MAYBE YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT SARA'S GROUP, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF MODEL -- EXPERIMENTS BUT I THINK THEY'RE WORKING REALLY WELL, NSF IS FUNDING PROGRAMS, WHERE PHILOSOPHERS ARE EMBEDDED WITH SCIENTISTS IN CERTAIN PLACES AND TRYING TO WORK TOGETHER. ON DEEP PHILOSOPHICAL AND PRAGMATIC ONES. IT'S A WONDERFUL EXPERIMENT, I DON'T KNOW IF NIH COULD DO THAT BUT NOT SURE THERE'S REASON IT COULDN'T. >> I HAD A DIFFERENT COMMENT ON THE FIRST PART OF YOUR TALK ON THE ALLIANCE. ONE THING THAT'S LIKE -- LOOK IN THE ROOM THAT NO ONE MENTIONED IS THE FACT THERE'S CHANGE IN ADMINISTRATION AND EVEN THOUGH THERE IS THE 21st CENTURY ACT, THAT SUPPOSED TO FOOT THE BILL FOR PART OF THE NIH PORTION OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS BIGGER THAN THE NIH AND THAT FUNDING OF THE 21st SENT ARE I ACT IS ALSO A ALSO VERY REGULAR SO SOMEONE HAS TO WATCH THE STORE AND MAYBE LOBBY FOR THE CONTINUATION OF STRONG FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AND JUST THINKING THE BRAIN INITIATIVE ALLIANCE YOU HELPED WITH IF OTHERS, AN IDEAL GROUP TO TAKE THAT JUMP, IT HAS PICTURE OF ORGANIZATION THAT REPRESENT BROADLY THE SOCIETY LINK YOU WERE SAYING WITH INTERNATIONAL GROUPS AS WELL. WHO BETTER THAN THE ALLIANCE TAKE UPON YOURSELF THE JOB TO ENSURE THAT EVERYTHING WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT TODAY DOESN'T END UP IN THE DRAWER IN WASHINGTON SOMEWHERE. >> TWO THOUGHTS ABOUT YOUR -- BY ONLY SUSTAINABILITY OF THIS INITIATIVE IS SOMETHING WE ALL HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER. IT TURNS OUT MANY FOUNDATIONS NOT ONLY FEDERAL FUNDING AGENCIES CANNOT REALLY LOBBY THEIR OWN PROGRAM, BUT EVEN FOR MANY FOUNDATIONS 50 #C 3 SO NOT ABLE TO LOBBY. BUT BY ONLY WE CAN ADVOCATE WHAT WE BELIEVE IN. BUT WHAT WE LEARNED ALSO IS THAT ORGANIZATIONS TEND NOT TO PUT THEIR NECK OUT THERE AND THEN ADVOCATING ONE PART OF SOMETHING BUT SCIENTISTS YOURSELF HAVE MUCH BETTER OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT SO IT'S CONCERTED EFFORT BETWEEN SCIENTISTS AND WE SHOULD WORK TOGETHER ON THESE ISSUES. ANOTHER PERSON I WANT TO MENTION IS THAT AS YOU MENTIONED ABOUT 21st CENTURY CURES ACT AND IF YOU RECALL BACK OTHER BRAIN INITIATIVE BUDGETS FOR NIH AND NSF AND SO ON HAD ALWAYS BEEN TRULY BY PARTISAN ACTIVITIES. LOOK AT 21 CENTURY CURES ACT OUT OF HUNDRED SENATOR, 95 OF THEM VOTED FOR SUCH A LAW SO THERE'S VERY STRONG FOUNDATION WITHIN CAPITOL HILL FOR THIS INITIATIVE; MAYBE OPTIMISTIC BUT OBSERVING THAT AND I ALSO WENT FOR THE SIGNING OF 21st CENTURY CURES ACT AND I COULD SEE ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS FROM BOTH PARTIES WORKING SO NICELY, DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WASHINGTON OTHER PEOPLE MENTIONED HOW THEY WORK. IT REALLY SEEMED VERY COHESIVE. WHEN IT COMES TO SUPPORTING ALL THINGS BRAIN BUT PARTICULARLY THE BRAIN INITIATIVE SO I'M HOPEFUL BUT I THINK THAT REGULAR SCIENTISTS AND PRIVATE FOUNDATION SHOULD REALLY WORK HARDER IN ADVOCATING THIS PROJECT FROM OUTSIDE. >> JOSH AND I MET WITH CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE NEW HOUSE MEMBERS AND SOME ESTABLISHED MEMBERS LED BY TOM COLE CAME TO THE NIH A WEEK, TWO WEEKS AGO AND ABLE TO REALLY WOW THEM WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE SO I EMPHASIZE AS WELL THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE REALLY BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND THE BILL DOES ASSIGN FUNDS UNTIL 2026 WHICH ON TOP OF THE BASE THAT WE HAVE SO FAR, IS CONSIDERABLE FUNDING AS LONG AS THAT HOLDS TOGETHER. SO I THINK WE FEEL -- EVERYBODY -- KNOW ONE KNOWS WHEN YOU HAVE CHANGE IN ADMINISTRATION IT'S UNSETTLING BUT WE HAVE GOOD MOMENTUM GOING AND WE CAN'T HIDE THE SCIENCE IN BUSHEL, WE GOT THE KEEP IT OUT. CHRIS, DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING IN TERMS OF THIS TOPIC? NO? JUST CHECK IN. >> AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT IT WOULD BE PRELIMINARY TO STATE ADMINISTRATION POSITION, THERE ISN'T ONE. THERE'S A REASON WHY I'M IN HERE. I THINK TO RAFA'S POINT WHAT Y'ALL ACCOMPLISHED IS THE TRANSITION OF THIS WHOLE EFFORT FROM SOMETHING THAT WAS AT LEAST LARGELY INFLUENCED BY THE WHITE HOUSE TO SOMETHING THAT IS INDEPENDENT AND WE CAN TAKE MUCH MORE SUPPORTING ROLE, IF YOU WENT TO OMB ADVOCATING CERTAINLY I THINK IN GENERAL THIS IS A PREDICTIONS, MY OWN PREDICTIONS YOU WILL SEE OSGT THAT GOING FORWARD IN THIS ADMINISTRATION ISN'T GOING TO BE DOING CENTRALLY MANAGED INITIATIVES, IT'S GOING TO DO MORE ROUTINE POLICY SHOT OPERATION. WE ARE GOING TO HEAP, THE DIRECTION WE HAVE GOTTEN IS SO FAR LIMITED BUT IT IS KEEP DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING. WE DON'T HAVE ANY -- UNTIL OTHERWISE TOLD WE HAVEN'T OTHERWISE TOLD ABOUT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. >> I WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER POSITIVE NOTE ABOUT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. HAVING BEEN PARTICIPATING IN THIS, EVEN BEFORE IT WAS DEVELOPED TO ADD TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INITIATIVE, I THINK THAT THE LEADERSHIP THAT COMES FROM NIH AND ALL OTHER FEDERAL FUNDING AGENCIES WORKING SO CHOSELY TOGETHER CLOSELY TOGETHER THIS IS LIKE MAGICAL TO ME AND WITH THAT KIND OF ENVIRONMENT THAT YOU SET I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT MANY OF OUR PRIVATE PARTNERS WE WORKED VERY NICELY AS WELL. AS YOU NOTICE WHEN WE SET UP ALLIANCE. NOT REALLY DIFFICULT TASK TOGETHER THIS ALLIANCE. SO THERE ARE MANY STRENGTHS WITH THIS INITIATIVE THAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY REALLY HARD TO ACHIEVE BUT WORKING NATURALLY. SO HERE IS MY SHOUT TOUT STORY LANDIS AND TOM INSEL AND NOW WITH WALTER KOROSHETZ AND JEFF GORDON, THANK YOU FOR LEADING AND MAKING THIS POSSIBLE. [APPLAUSE] >> SO I HAVE THREE QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS OTHER THAN THANKING VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION AND IT'S GOT MY BRAIN REALLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW ALL THIS MAY FIT TOGETHER. FIRST AND IT GOES TO STEVEs POINT, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE KNOW YET WHAT NIH, WHAT KIND OF RESEARCH NIH IS GOING TO BE FUNDING, IT WILL BE REALLY INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THE RO1s ASK FOR. AND WHETHER PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT PHILOSOPHERS IN AND WANT TO DO DEEP FOUNDATIONAL ETHICS AS PART OF THE RO1s OR NOT. WE DON'T KNOW YET BUT IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE AND TO WATCH, IF THERE ISN'T ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO TRY THE FIGURE U HOW TO GET MORE OF IT IN. THE BRAIN 2025 EQUIVALENT FOR NEUROETHICS IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION, WE WILL TALK LATER TODAY ABOUT BRAIN 2025 WHICH IN PART OF IT NOT I THINK OFTEN REMEMBERED, DID SET OUT SOME SPECIFIC ETHICS CONCERNS AND SOME SPECIFIC THINGS FOR ETHICS TO DO. WE WILL TALK HOW WE MET THEM OR MEETING THEM OR MIGHT TRY TO MEET THEM BUT THE IDEA OF PLANNING, IT WASN'T THE BLUEPRINT FOR WHAT NEUROETHICS SHOULD BE IN 2025 THE WAY NEUROSCIENCE 2025 WAS FOR THE SCIENCE. THAT'S AN INTERESTING CONCEPT. ONE THAT I THINK WE MAY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS AFTERNOON. AND THEN FINALLY WEARING ONE OF MY OTHER HATS, I AM INVOLVED IN THE INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY AS IS STEVE AND KAREN AND NITA FARHANY ON THE PHONE, SO WE HAVE LOTS OF REPRESENTATION ON THIS DIVISION. I'M CONFIDENT THAT I CAN SPEAK FOR OUR PRESIDENT JUDY SAYING SHE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN US WORKING WITH KAVLI PARTICULARLY ON THE INTERNATIONAL STUFF BECAUSE WE ARE AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, 300 MEMBERS. AND I WOULD GUESS THOUGH I HAVEN'T DONE A CENSUS, A ABOUT A THIRD OF THEM ARE PHILOSOPHERS, A THIRD OR MORE COME FROM PHILOSOPHY. DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? BUNCH OF SCIENTIST, LAWYERS PHILOSOPHERS AND MISCELLANEOUS MAYBE A QUARTER, A QUARTER, A QUARTER, A QUARTER. I KNOW THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL ALSO BE VERY INTERESTED WORKING WITH KAVLI ON THIS. WE SHOULD TALK. >> WE ARE EAGER TO LOOK FOR YOUR GUIDANCE IN FINDING SEED FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES SO THAT WE TEST OUT IF IT'S REALLY WORKING BY THE TIME NIH OR NSF OR OTHER FEDERAL FUNDING IS READY TO PUT MORE FUNDS ON SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT IT WILL BE READY. >> THERE'S OVERLAPPING SETS OF ISSUES HERE, ONE SET OF ISSUES INVOLVING GLOBAL AND INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS, WHETHER DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COUNTRIES AND CULTURES, WHAT ARE THE LAWS THAT ARE HE WILL ARE EVENTUAL IN NEUROETHICS, ONE GREAT SET OF ISSUES THAT EVERY PLACE WILL FACE ITS PRAGMATIC ISSUES LIKE WHAT TO DO ABOUT BRAIN IMPLANTS, WHEN THE PATIENT WANTS TO KEEP GETTING THEM AND OTHERS STUBBED. WE'LL HAVE TO DO THAT IN U.S. CONTEXT BUT ALSO THERE'S THE OVERALL CONTEXT FIGURING HOW TO APPROACH THOSE IS COMPLICATED. I BELIEVE WE ARE AT THE BEGINNING OF A WORK IN PROGRESS AND NOT YET NEAR THE END. BUT I HOPE WE CAN KEEP MOVING FORWARD. OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? MIYOUNG, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AGAIN. [APPLAUSE] WE DO WANT TO -- WHEN WE WENT AROUND ABOUT DIVISION PRESIDENT PARTICIPANTS EARLIER FOR UP UPDATES WE LEFT OFF NOT ONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS EXACTLY BUT PARTNERS THIS A SENSE, FDA, SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE FDA IF LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING. >> WONDERFUL THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO -- I ACTUALLY HAVE -- >> I THINK PERHAPS GETTING THE SLIDES UP IS GOING TO TAKE LONGER THAN THE PRESENTATION, I DON'T REALLY NEED THAT BUT IT'S ALWAYS USEFUL FOR A CRUTCH ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CAN TEND TO FORGET SOME THINGS. IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO THIS DIVISION FOR FIRST TIME OF ITS EXISTENCE. IT'S -- I'M GOING TO BE GIVING YOU AN UPDATE, THERE'S ONE COMMON THEME, TRANSPARENCY WHICH YOU WILL SEE IN THE SLIDES AND SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE BEEN HEARING A LOT ABOUT TODAY. SO THIS IS JUST A BRIEF UPDATE ON WHAT THE FDA IS -- HAS BEEN UP TO OVER THE PAST YEAR. AND ONE THING WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE IN WHICH WE'VE DONE, IS STARTED PUTTING TOGETHER SOME WEBINAR, WHICH WOULD BE A MECHANISM TO INFORM SPONSORS, DEVELOPERS AND INNOVATORS. THE FIRST ONE OF THESE WAS ON THE PATH TO INITIATING HUMAN STUDY. SO FOCUS ON INVESTIGATIONAL DEVICE EXEMPTIONS, THAT TOOK PLACE LAST SEPTEMBER. WE HAVE GOT ANOTHER WEBINAR THAT'S COMING UP NEXT MONTH ON THE 22ND WHICH IS TO DUGSED ON THE DE NOVO PROCESS, THE REGULATORY PROCESS FOR CLASSES OF DEVICES THAT ARE NEW, NOT 5 10-Ks BUT IF YOU WILL LOWER RISK, GROSSLY SIMPLIFYING LOWER RISK THAN PMA DEVICES. THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE A WEBINAR LATER THIS YEAR ON P MA DEVICES. SO ALL THIS AIMED AT MAKING WHAT THE FDA DOES AND HOW THE FDA APPROVES THINGS MORE TRANSPARENT TO THE INVESTIGATORS. WHY THIS TIES TO ETHICS IS I THINK WE WERE TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PRAGMATISM AND I THINK A LOT OF ETHICAL ISSUES BECOME KEY WHEN THE RESEARCH TRANSLATES AND MAKES ITS WAY HUMANS AND IMPACTING HUMANS AND THEIR HEALTH. ANOTHER THING THAT WE HAVE DONE IS JUST IN THE LAST MONTH OR TWO WE HAVE LAUNCHED A NEW WEBSITE AT THE FDA FOR NEURODEVICES. AND I WILL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT THAT THIS IS NOT LIKE THAT WEBSITE WE SAW EARLIER IN THE MORNING, IT IS DEFINITELY FEDERAL WEBSITE. NOT ONLY IS IT A FEDERAL WEBSITE BUT NEW FEDERAL WEBSITE. SO IT'S NOT -- WE WOULD WELCOME FEEDBACK. IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY. AND CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK WOULD BE PARTICULARLY WELCOME. WE ALSO HAD AN EFFORT TO PUT TOGETHER A ONE PAGE INFORMATIONAL RESOURCE THAT KIND OF BACK THAT TIES TO THE WEBINAR S THAT WOULD ADVANCE THIS CON STEPT OF WHAT IS THE PROCESS, HOW WE IMPROVE THE TRANSPARENCY HOW SOMEONE MOVE SOMETHING THROUGH THE FDA. AND THIS ONE PAGER WHICH MAKE AVAILABLE IN THE FDA WEBSITE AND CERTAINLY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO PUT ON OTHER WEBSITES, IT'S FOCUSED ON MEDICAL DEVICE DEFINITION, WHAT IS IT. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE FDA IN TERMS OF OVERSIGHT IN TERMS OF FIRST CLINICAL CLINICAL STUDIES AND HOW DOES INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS AND WHOLE PROCESS FOR HUMAN PROTECTION WORK. THIS IS ANOTHER THING. YOU CAN SEE A LOT OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING IS TRANSPARENCY, ONE OTHER THING WE HAD PUBLICATION THAT DR. PENIA MARSHALLED THROUGH THE INSTITUTE OR THE FDA ADMINISTRATION IT'S A RECENT PUBLICATION WHICH AGAIN AIMS AT MAKING THE WHOLE PROCESS OF FDA REGULATION ESPECIALLY FOR THE NEUROLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL MEDICINE DEVICES MORE TRANSPARENT. THIS GIVES YOU A SENSE THAT THERE'S NO REGRESSION LINE HERE BUT THE MESSAGE OF THE SLIDE IS THAT THE ACTIVITY IN THIS SPACE AND WHETHER IT'S BECAUSE OF BRAIN OR INDEPENDENT OF BRAIN, THE ACTIVITY IN THIS SPACE IS DEFINITELY INCREASING. ONE MORE QUICK COMMENT TO MAKE A QUICK POINT, AGAIN WITH DON TEXT OF TRANSPARENCY THE FDA BEFORE PMAs BEFORE THE IDEs BEFORE THE DE NOVO VERY, VERY EAGER TO TALK TO POTENTIAL APPLICANTS AND GRANTEES, AND WE HAVE A PRE-SUBMISSION PROCESS THAT'S IN PLACE AND WE WOULD BE VERY HAPPY ALSO TO MAKE THIS INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO ALL OF THE GRANTEES WITH THE IDEA OBVIOUSLY WE SEE THIS AS A PROCESS WHERE BASIC RESEARCH HOPEFULLY LEADS TO HAVING IMPACT ON HUMAN HEALTH. AS IT MOVES FORWARD INCREASING NUMBER OF RESEARCH PROJECTS HAVE TAKEN OFF, WE HOPE TO SEE THE FDA INCREASINGLY INVOLVED IN BRAIN PROJECT. SO THAT'S THE BRIEF UPDATE. THANKS. [APPLAUSE] >> DON'T GO AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE YET. QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE. ONE OF THE THINGS I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A TREND AND I'M NOT SURE I THAT IT HAS WAS THE INCREASING USE OF CONSUMER DIRECTED DEVICES FOR MENTAL OR FOR BRAIN STIMULATION. OF SOME SORT. I THINK WAS LAUNCHED WITH FANFARE, SEEMS TO HAVE SUNK. THIS WAS A BRAIN STIMULATION TRANSCRANIAL ELECTRIC STIMULATION DEVICE FOR A VARIETY OF PURPOSES THAT GOT PUBLICITY LAUNCH AND FAIRLY QUICKLY PULLED WAY BACK ON ITS MARKET. THAT WAS NOT -- THAT DID NOT GO -- AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT DID NOT END UP GETTING CLEARED OR APPROVED AS AN FDA, BY FDA, AS A DEVICE EXACTLY. AND THE SLIDE BETWEEN WHAT YOU GUYS COVER, WHAT YOU ASSERT JURISDICTION OVER, WHAT YOU TAKE JURISDICTION OVER AND WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN THE DEVICE FIELD IS A COMPLICATED ONE. ARE YOU KEEPING YOUR EYES ON DEVICES THAT DO NOT NECESSARILY FALL WITHIN THE AREA THAT YOU TAKE REGULATORY THAT YOU ASSERT REGULATORY CONTROL OVER AND IF YOU ARE WHAT ARE YOU SEEING? DOES THAT QUESTION MAKE SENSE? >> IT MAKES SENSE. CARLOS UP HERE AS WELL TO CORRECT ME. >> DR. CARLOS PENIA APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE. >> LET ME GIVE A FIRST STAB AT THAT QUESTION, IF I FOLLOW IT CORRECTLY. WHICH IS IT'S A VERY INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE FDA. THAT -- THE FDA REGULATES THINGS PRIMARILY ON THE BASIS OF WHAT THE CLAIM IS THAT THOSE THINGS DO. AND THAT'S WHERE THAT SLIDE THAT WAS -- THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT DEFINITION OF A MEDICAL DEVICE SO WHAT IT IS THAT CONSTITUTE AS MEDICAL DEVICE IS SOMETHING THAT IS DEFINED AND WHAT CONSTITUTES A MEDICAL DEVICE IS THE THING THE FDA REGULATES. IF SOMETHING IS NOT A MEDICAL DEVICE AND THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF THINGS THAT FALL INTO THE CLASS YOU'RE DESCRIBING AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT ARE NOT MEDICAL DEVICES, THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF THE FDA PURVIEW. SO DO WE -- ARE WE AWARE OF THEM AND LOOKING AT THEM, YES. BUT ONLY AS -- WE'RE NOT REGULATING THEM. WE'RE NOT INTERACTING WITH THOSE PEOPLE. OTHER THAN THE GIVE THEM ADVICE AS THESE CLAIMS. NOT DEVICIST, IT'S THE CLAIMTY VICE DOES, AS THE CLAIMS GET CLOSER TO MEDICAL DEVICE WE GET MORE INVOLVED. >> TO BUILD ON WHAT BILL HAS NICELY DESCRIBED A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. ONE IS MEDICAL DEVICE DEFINITION INCLUDES THE CLAIM THAT BILL MENTIONED, THERE'S ALSO A CLAUSE THAT SAYS IN ABSENCE OF THE CLAIM IF IT AFFECT IT IS STRUCTURE OR FUNCTION OF THE BODY. >> MAN OR ANY OTHER ANIMAL? >> HUMAN OR OTHER ANIMAL. >> SECOND POINT WE HAD A MEETING BACK IN NOVEMBER 2015 AND IT WAS ABOUT THE TIME THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS FROM INVESTIGATORS ABOUT HOW WE ARE REGULATING THIS SPACE. AND WE EXPLAINED TO THE AUDIENCE ATTENDEES WITH A BACKGROUND PAPER AND PRESENTATIONS THAT WE DEFINITION OF DEVICE WE WORK WITH CPSC AND FTC, WE HAVE A NICE PATCH WORK OF OVERSIGHT WHERE DEVICES NOT UNDER OUR REGULATORY OVERSIGHT BUT OTHER AGENCIES WITH REGARD TO CLAIMSES NOT MEDICAL MAYBE, THERE IS OVER SIGHT FRAMEWORK T. FOR WHATEVER REASON I THINK IT'S A GOOD REASON WE HOPEFULLY EXPLAIN TO FOLKS WHEN THEY SHOULD COME AND TALK TO US. I CAN'T SPEAK TO SPECIFIC SUBMISSIONS OR DEVICE DEVELOPMENTS BILL AND I WILL SPEND OUR TIME IN A VERY SMALLER ROOM THAN WE ARE TODAY IF WE DO THAT. I THINK WE CAN SAY THAT THE PRESUBMISSION PROCESS IF WE CAN COMMUNICATE THAT TO SPONSORS THE COMPANIES BUT ALSO PIs, THE PRINCIPLE INVESTIGATORS THAT ARE FUNDED AND NOT YET FUNDED BY NIH, NSF, IARPA, DARPA, THAT WILL HELP THE ETHICS DISCUSSIONS THAT QUICKLY COME UP TO SURFACE WITH THESE DEVICES, WHICH SOMETIMES REGULATORY, SOMETIMES NOT BUT WE CAN NAVIGATE THAT IF WE HAVE MORE DIALOGUE THROUGH THE PRE-SUBMISSION PROCESS BETWEEN THE LAST SLIDE BILL PRESENTED. >> THE REASON FOR MY INTEREST IS I THINK IF THIS BECAME A MAJOR CONSUMER MARKET SOME OF WHICH MIGHT BE VIEWED AS MEDICAL DEVICES AND SOME WHICH MIGHT NOT BE MEDICAL DEVICES REGULATED BY YOU, THERE COULD BE SUBSTANTIAL ETHICAL ISSUES RAISED, I DON'T HAVE A STRONG SENSE RIGHT NOW WHERE THAT'S GOING. THE FAILURE, THE RELATIVE FAILURE OF THINK WAS ONE STRAW IN THE WIND BUT JUST THIS MORNING I GOT AN EMAIL FROM FISHER WALLACE WHICH HAS AN FDA APPROVED DEVICE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT DEVICE WHICH YOU DO NOT NEED A PRESCRIPTION WHICH I SUSPECT MEANS IT IS NOT THE DEVICE THAT'S APPROVED OR CLEARED BY FDA. I WANTED TO HAVE A SENSE WHETHER IT'S A BUILDING FIELD, DECAYING FIELD, STABLE FIELD OR JUST DON'T KNOW? ANY OF THOSE ANSWERS ARE FINE. >> FROM A REGULATORY STAND POINT, IT'S A VERY INTERESTING FIELD. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN -- >> I THINK IT IS HELPFUL TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE FRAMEWORKS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE TO HELP GUIDE SPONSORS ON WHEN THEY SHOULD TALK TO US, IN THE ABSENCE OF CLAIMS. WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU IS WHAT IS STIMULATION ABOVE CERTAIN LEVEL, BUT NOT HAVING CLAIMS, NOT HARM OR NOT MEDICAL PRODUCT, EVEN IF CHANGE IN STRUCTURE FUNCTION BODY, THEY COME TO US. >> RIGHT. >> I TEACH FDA LAW, ONE THING I LOVE ABOUT THAT DEFINITION IS THAT I BELIEVE NORMAL OLD SHOES COULD MEDICAL DEVICES BECAUSE THEY CHANGE THE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF THE HUMAN BODY. SOME EXTENT YOU HAVE TO NARROWLY DEFINE YOUR JURISDICTION AND DEFINITION. OTHERWISE ENCOMPASSES MOST OF THE BUILD WORLD. >> THAT'S RIGHT. MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT. YEAH. ALAN. >> WE HAVE HAD SOME INTERESTING TALKS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS ABOUT VARIOUS PERSONAL DEVICES THAT ARE USED FOR COLLECTING INFORMATION, WHETHER IT'S FIT BITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, INTEREST AND POTENTIALLY USING THOSE FOR GATHERING DATA. ONE THING THAT WE'RE ALWAYS TOLD IS THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY CALIBRATED AND THERE ARE NO STANDARDS AND MOSTLY THEY'RE USED AS ENTERTAINMENT DEVICES RATHER THAN ANY KIND OF MEDICAL OR PERSONAL FITNESS DEVICE. SO I'M INTERESTED IN WHERE THE ENTERTAINMENT DEVICE -- WHEN DOES THAT CROSS OVER INTO SOMETHING ELSE? >> SO COUPLE OF THOUGHTS. SOME OF THESE PRODUCTS THAT ARE COMING OUT APPEAR TO ASSESS GENERAL WELLNESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. THE MENTAL ACUITY OR RELAXATION, OTHER CLAIMS, THOSE PRODUCTS WE MAY HAVE LESS OVERSIGHT. THOSE WE CAN TERM GENERAL WELLNESS PRODUCT, THERE ARE MOBILE MEDICAL APPS THAT HAVE DIFFERENT CLAIMS WE ALSO HAVE DIFFERENT REGULATORY LEVELS OF OVERSIGHT. ONCE THE PRODUCT GETS INTO THE REALM OF DIAGNOSING A CONDITION OR MODIFYING THE TREATMENT OF SOMEONE, WE MAY HAVE MORE QUESTIONS AND REGULATORY INCREASES. WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF REGULATING EVERYTHING, PROVIDING OVERSIGHT FOR EVERYTHING. IT'S NOT PRACTICAL, WE LEARN RESOURCE, IT'S NOT NEEDED. IF WE DO ON RISK BASED APPROACH THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO PIVOT IN OUR SPACE. SO THESE TYPES OF FIT BIT MONITOR KEG VICES, THERE MAYBE MORE OVER SIGHT FROM OTHER AGENCIES BUT IF THEY'RE DOING TREATMENT STRATEGY OR REHABILITATION, THAT'S A THERAPY WE WANT TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT. >> HOW ABOUT THINGS LIKE IN THE EDUCATIONAL REALM. IF SOMEONE HAD A DEVICE THAT APPROVES CONCENTRATION ABILITY WHEN TURNED ON, I'M GUESSING THE FDA PROBABLY WOULDN'T GET INVOLVED FOR ADULT USE BUT WHAT IF IT WENT TO ACTUALLY CHILDREN, WOULD THAT CHANGE THE GAME? THERE YOU DON'T KNOW THE RISK AND THE DEVELOPING BRAIN IS MORE UNKNOWN WOULD THAT TYPE OF THIS INK CHANGE? >> MIGHT. WHEN YOU BRING UP THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT PATIENT POPULATIONS, VULNERABLE PATIENT POPULATIONS, WE WOULD NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE CLAIMS. WE NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY. THE INDICATIONS FOR USE. THE PRIOR STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE WITH THE DEVICE. THE EVIDENCE BRINGING THIS DEVICE TO BE APPEALING TO PEOPLE. ALL THESE FACTORS HAVE TO COME INTO PLAY. WE DON'T WANT TO REGULATE BOOKS, WE DON'T WANT TO REGULATE SADUCO CHARTS THAT HELP YOU FOCUS. BUT WE DO WANT TO BECOME MORE INVOLVED WHEN THEY ARE OPPOSING SOMETHING TO MAYBE PARENTS OR VULNERABLE POPULATIONS ABOUT WHAT'S COULD DO FOR YOUR CHILD. >> IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF DANGER WOULD THE -- WOULD THAT GO TO THE FDA? KNOW IT'S NOT PATIENT RELATED IN SAY HYPOTHESIZE EDUCATIONAL TOOL, THERE'S SOME EVIDENCE OF DANGER, WOULD THAT GO TO FDA FOR CONSIDERATION? OR SOMEWHERE ELSE? >> SO AGAIN, IT DEPENDS UPON WHERE YOU'RE AT WITH THAT PRODUCT. IF IT'S ALREADY BEEN CURED OR MARKETED, IT MAY COME THROUGH ADVERSE EVEN THROUGH THE SAFETY SURVEILLANCE SIGNALS WE MONITOR ACROSS IN THE U.S.. IF NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY US AND WE FIND OUT THAT THERE'S A TECHNOLOGY WE MAY STILL INVESTIGATE THAT SITUATION. >> BUT IT COULD ALSO WIND UP WITH COMPUTER -- CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION. >> OKAY. THIS IS THE EMAIL I GOT THIS MORNING. INTRODUCING CORTEX K O R T E X, TRADEMARK. DEAR FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES, I'M CHECKING IN TO INTRODUCE KORTEX, AT THE LEAST IT SHOULD MAKE INTERESTING DINNER CONVERSATION TONIGHT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE IN MIND FOR VALENTINE'S DINNER CONVERSATION. >> YOU BETTER STOP WHERE YOU ARE AT. >> USES THE SAME TECHNOLOGY AS THE FISHER WALLACE STIMULATOR BUT HALF THE MAXIMUM DOSAGE TWO MILIAMPS AND IS STRICTLY INTENDED TO HELP PEOPLE MANAGE STRESS AND SLEEP. AS A RESULT, BOTH KORTEX MAYBE PURCHASED WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION END IN BOLD. SO THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT WE'RE -- I WONDER IF THIS IS INCREASING, IS IT DECREASING. AND THAT IS SUCH A CONSUMER USE RAISE CONCERNS. >> THAT'S -- I THINK WE WANT TO AVOID MAKING REGULATORY POLICIES STATEMENTS IN THIS PUBLIC FORUM. BUT WE WOULD -- IF THAT WAS OF INTEREST AND YOU THOUGHT IT WAS INTEREST YOU SENT TO US, WE WOULD TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THOSE CLAIMS AND THAT WEBSITE. AND MAYBE COMPLIANCE BECOME MORE INVOLVED. OR MAYBE NOT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE FDA? OKAY. YOU WERE TURNING YOURS ON. NEVER MIND. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THANK EVERYONE FOR A PRODUCTIVE MORNING SESSION. I BELIEVE IT IS NOW PAST TIME >> ALL RIGHT, FOLKS. WE WILL RECONVENE. IN FACT, WE ARE RECONVENED. AND FIRST ITEM ON OUR FIRST LUNCH AGENDA IS DIVISION MEMBER USTA TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT CAME OUT OF A SYMPOSIUM WORKSHOP IN SEPTEMBER AT COLUMBIA. SO I'LL JUST HAND THE FLOOR OVER TO RAFA. AFTER HE PRESENTS, WE'LL HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT, I THINK, BOTH ABOUT THE IDEA ITSELF AND ABOUT THE DIVISION'S ROLE IN PURSUING IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO MAKE A PROPOSAL TO THE DIVISION FOR CREATING A COMMISSION THAT WOULD WRITE NOT ADAPTED VERSION OR A NEW VERSION OF THE REPORT FOCUSED ON NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND AI. AND I AM GOING TO SPEND 15 MINUTES DESCRIBING THE -- WHAT, WHY, HOW, WHO, HOW MUCH, WHEN -- AND THEN WE'LL HAVE 15 MINUTES OF DISCUSSION. AND I'M SPEAKING ON MY BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF SARAH GERING, AS I MENTIONED. SO WHAT IS JUST A REFRESHER, THE BELMONT REPORT WAS PUBLISHED IN '79 AND ESSENTIALLY SERVES AS THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR MEDICAL ONTOLOGY AND AT A VERY HIGH-LEVEL DOCUMENT, WHICH IS BRIEF AND IT HIGHLIGHTS THREE SIMPLE PRINCIPLES THAT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED, THE RESPECT FOR PERSONS -- AND JUSTICE. THIS REPORT WAS BY A PROTECTION OF HUMAN SERVICES FOR BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH. IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER, AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY IT'S HAD A HUGE IMPACT ON MEDICINE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICAL SCIENCES. AND ALSO SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. SO WHY DO WE WANT TO UPDATE THE BELMONT REPORT OR GENERATE NEW ONE? AND THE REASON IS THAT IT'S BEEN NOW 30 YEARS. SOCIETY HAS CHANGED. TECHNOLOGY HAS CHANGED. THERE IS NEW TECHNOLOGIES ON THE TABLE THAT CAN HAVE A PROFOUND INFLUENCE ON HUMANITY, AND MANY OF THEM ARE THE FOCUS OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE MODEL. BUT FROM BRAIN INTERFACES, ALGORITHMS. THIS LIST OPENS UP A CAN OF WORMS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THINGS THAT ARE DEEPER THAN JUST THE MEDICAL OR OPERATIONAL MEDICINE. THESE ISSUES GO TO THE CORE OF WHO WE ARE, OUR IDENTITIES, ALSO THE POSSIBILITY OF AUGMENTATION OF OUR MENTAL ABILITIES. WE DEFINE OURSELVES AS A MENTAL SPECIES. AND THEN ANOTHER THING THAT'S ON THE TABLE IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND COMPUTER SCIENCE HAS GENERATED A NEW SET OF CHALLENGES. AND IT IS MERGING WITH NEWER TECHNOLOGIES. THERE ARE ALGORITHMS THAT ARE USED FOR NETWORKS. THE AI PEOPLE LOOK AT IPHONES AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THEY CALL A SOFT PROSTHESIS, AND THEY ARE, I WOULD SAY, IN DIRE NEED OF -- AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT BECAUSE OF THE EMERGING ROLE OF THE TECHNOLOGIES COMING FROM ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND NEUROSCIENCE, MAYBE IT CAN HELP BY BRINGING IN THE MEDICAL MODEL THAT HAS WORKED SO WELL FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS IN TERMS OF HOW TO DEAL WITH THE ETHICS AND THE USE OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES. WHY NOW? SO SOME PEOPLE THINK ISN'T IT A LITTLE BIT TOO FAR IN THE FUTURE? FIRST OF ALL, I THINK MY PERSONAL PERSON AND I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR US AS SCIENTISTS AND PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO THINK AHEAD AND INTEGRATE IT. WE OWE IT TO THE PUBLIC TO GENERATE THESE TYPES OF GUIDING DOCUMENTS. THE PUBLIC IS WORRIED, SO I GIVE A LOT OF INTERVIEWS BECAUSE OF MY EARLY ROLE IN THE INSPIRING THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AND A THIRD OF THE QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH ETHICS. PEOPLE ARE VERY WORRIED. I GET ALL KINDS OF E-MAILS ALL THE DAY. AS YOU I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE COLUMBIA WORKSHOP PUT A LOT OF ISSUES ON THE TABLE OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE WITH SHORT OR MEDIUM TIME IN A MATTER YEARS AND -- IN A MATTER OF YEARS. AND BECAUSE OF THE MENTAL EXPIRATION OF THE FUTURE SCENARIOS THAT WE WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH. SO WHY NOW? WE NEED, I THINK, A FOUNDATION DOCUMENT. WE DON'T HAVE A FOUNDATION DOCUMENT. GENERATED DOCUMENTS IN ETHICS BUT ISN'T IT TIME TO DISTILL CLEARLY LIKE THE BELL MONT REPORT AND THIS COULD BE, I THINK IT'S BETTER TO DO THIS EARLIER THAN LATE. THERE IS A HUGE RISK IN PROCEEDING WITH A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. AS YOU KNOW, THE POLITICAL CLIMATE IN THE COUNTRY IS VERY CHARGED AND THE TYPES OF TECHNOLOGIES AND TYPES OF ISSUES THAT THE BRAIN INITIATIVES ARE DEALING WITH COULD BE MISUNDERSTOOD AND USED AGAINST IT. ALSO, THERE IS A POTENTIAL SITUATION FOR HAVING A DISASTER HAPPEN ANY TIME NOW. SO I THINK IT'S JUST FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF PR ALONE, IT'S GOOD TO HAVE A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT BACKING UP THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. AND THEN ALSO WHY NOW? FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE AI, WHICH IS REACHING WHAT WE CALL A SAFETY LEVEL, I MEANS THAT THEY'RE GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE SOME OF THESE ISSUES ARE BECOMING REALLY PRESSING IN ALGORITHMS. SO HOW WE GENERATE SUCH A REPORT? SO WE COULD CONVENE A COMMISSION AND NOW DISCUSS HOW TO DO THAT AND SECOND OUR PROPOSAL TO DO THAT AND THAT COMMISSION COULD MEET FOR AT A PLACE IN ISOLATED LOCATION. AND WE SUGGEST FIVE TOPICS THAT COULD BE WORKED ON THAT COULD SERVE AS THE FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS REPORT. AND THESE ARE TOPICS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY THIS DIVISION SOME OF THE BEGINNING. ONE TOPIC COULD BE IDENTITY. AND THIS COULD DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF THE PROTECTION OF BOTH HUMANS IN THIS NEW ERA OF TRANSMUMISM. ANOTHER ISSUE COULD BE AGENCY, AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY AND FREE WILL. ANOTHER ISSUE COULD BE PRIVACY. WITHIN THAT PRIVACY, IT'S REALLY SUCH A HUGE PROBLEM THAT IT DESERVES SOME TREAT. ANOTHER ISSUE COULD BE AUGMENTATION, AND THIS IS LINKED TO THE ISSUES OF ACCESS AND JUSTICE AND PROVIDING ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGIES THAT CAN GENERATE SUPERINTELLIGENCE. AND THE FIFTH TOPIC OR ISSUE WOULD BE BIASES, BOTH IN THE TECHNOLOGY OR IN THE ALGORITHMS. SO WHO COULD GENERATE THIS REPORT? WELL, OUR ARGUMENT IS THAT THIS DIVISION OF NEUROETHICS SHOULD BE THE RESPONSIBLE ONE, THE RESPONSIBLE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT TO GENERATE THIS REPORT. AND THIS SHOULD BE DONE BY THE GOVERNMENT, NOT BY A PRIVATE GROUP. SO IN PRINCIPLE, THE IDEA IS THAT EVERY MEMBER OF THIS DIVISION COULD PARTICIPATE IN GENERATING THE REPORT, BUT WE WOULD RECOMMEND TO HAVE ADDITIONAL EXPERTS AND THE PEOPLE WE ALREADY INTERACTED WITH AT THE COLUMBIA WORKSHOP, BOTH IN THE BIOETHICS SIDES. AND WE HAVE SOME NUMBERS -- NAMES TO COMPILE. I CAN GO THROUGH THEM IF YOU WANT LATER. WE ALSO NEED MORE EXPERTS FROM THE NEUROTECHNOLOGY SIDE. WE NEED EXPERTS FROM THE AI SIDE. WE HAVE SOME EXPERTISE THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE ADDITIONAL EXPERTISE. AND THEN IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE OBSERVERS THAT COULD PROVIDE BOTH THEIR OWN POINT OF VIEW EVEN IF THEY DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO THE WRITING OF THE REPORT AND THESE OBSERVERS COULD INCLUDE SOME OF THE EFFORTS IN THE EUROPEAN BRAIN PROJECT, MAYBE KOREA. WE ALSO THINK THIS COULD BE CONTROVERSIAL, BUT IT WOULD BE A GOOD TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITIZENSHIPS ALSO IN THESE OBSERVER ROLES. EVEN -- EVEN REPRESENTATIVES FROM SOME RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, EXPERTISE IN ETHICS, BUDDHISTS, CATHOLICS, JEWISH BIOETHICS EXPERTS AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE PATIENTS. I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE A BETTER REPORT TO HAVE A BROADER BASE AT LEAST OF CONSULTATION. IF NOT THE PEOPLE WHO RENDER IT, PEOPLE TO TALK TO ABOUT THESE ISSUES. SO THE IDEA IS AGAIN TO ASSEMBLE A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE, NOT TOO BIG BECAUSE IF IT BECOMES TOO LARGE, THAT -- WE COULD GET MIRED INTO ENDLESS DISCUSSION AND WE COULD NINE PROBLEM THAT THE REPORT SORT OF BECOMES VERY WATERED DOWN AND NOT PARTICULARLY SHARP OR FOCUSED. AND SO MY EXPERIENCE ALSO IN THIS BUSINESS, THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AND ALL THE ORGANIZATIONS AND THE MEETING, IT'S GOOD TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT GETTING THIS TO WORK. AIR AND I SUGGEST A TIMELINE WHEN. END OF MAY OR A WEEKEND TO GENERATE THE FIRST DRAFT. THAT COULD THEN BE CIRCULATED AND BE READY FOR PUBLICATION LATER IN THE FALL OR IN THE LATE SUMMER. AND THIS PERIOD OF CIRCULATION COULD HELP INCORPORATE INPUT FROM PEOPLE THAT WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE MEETING. THE OUTCOME COULD BE A BRIEF DOCUMENT. WE CAN USE THE GOVERNMENT REPORT AS AN INSPIRATION. THE IDEA IS THAT WE COULD ALL SIGN IT ALPHABETICALLY AS A GROUP, JUST LIKE THEY DID. AND WE COULD PUBLISH IT IN A PLACE WHERE IT WOULD BE WIDELY SEEN WITH ONE POTENTIAL INTEREST IS "NATURE." NATURE HEARD THIS IDEA AND SAYS THAT HE WOULD DO EVERYTHING HE COULD TO HELP US. "NATURE" WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF PUBLISHING IN A PLACE WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE NOT TO SEE IT AND WE CAN NEGOTIATE TO DO THIS LIKE WE HAVE WITH OTHER PAPERS. OR WE COULD JUST GO TRADITIONAL AND PUT IT IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. HOW MUCH? I THINK WE COULD PUT THIS TOGETHER WITH PROJECTS. $25,000 OR SO, WITH A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT -- THE NAMES THAT WE COME UP WITH. IT COULD BE FUNDED DIRECTLY TO NIH. MAYBE NIH WANTS TO OWN THIS. WE COULD ASK FOR HELP FOR A FOUNDATION, THE HEALTH FOUNDATION OR OTHER FOUNDATIONS THAT WORK IN THE AREA OF ETHICS. WHAT I WANT FROM YOU -- SO THE REASON I PRESENT THIS TO YOU IS WE NEED YOUR AND SO I THINK THIS IDEA. WE MAY HAVE GENERATED THE IDEA, BUT WE OFFER THIS IDEA TO THE DIVISION AS SOMETHING THE DIVISION SHOULD OWN. IN FACT, IT COULD MAKE THE WORK OF THE DIVISION MUCH EASIER GOING FORWARD BECAUSE IF WE HAVE LIKE A FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT, WE COULD APPROACH VERY SPECIFIC CASE OF ETHICAL ASPECT OF PROJECTS WITH A BACKBONE THAT WE CAN REFER TO. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE INVITING THE GOVERNMENT WHO LEADS HERE WITH THIS REPORT, AS OPPOSED TO WAITING FOR OTHER GROUPS OF PEOPLE TO DO THIS. SO THE NEXT STEPS WOULD BE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION HERE AND IS A DIVISION AND THOSE ARE THE PLANS, THEN THE COMMISSION WOULD EMPOWER SARAH AND I TO WORK AS THIS WORKSHOP WITH YOUR FEEDBACK. AND WE WILL DELIVER THE REPORT, AND THEN IT GOES BACK TO THE COMMISSION TO -- I'M SORRY, TO THE DIVISION TO TAKE THE NEXT STEPS. SO THOSE ARE THE THOUGHTS. >> THANK YOU, RAFA. I DO THINK THERE ARE TWO IMPORTANTLY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS HERE IS IS SUCH A REPORT IN A PROCESS TO CREATE THE REPORT A GOOD IDEA, BAD IDEA? AND AN IDEA FOR WHICH PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTIONS TO IMPROVE IT, ET CETERA? AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS WHAT, IF ANYTHING, SHOULD BE THE ROLE OF THE DIVISION IN THAT? I WILL SAY, I THINK FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, POSSIBLY LEGAL, AND CERTAINLY POLITICAL, WITH A SMALL NON-P REASONS, I'M SKEPTICAL ABOUT HOW BIG A ROLE THE DIVISION CAN TAKE GIVEN OUR PLACEMENT INSIDE THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY. THE NATIONAL COMMISSION THAT CREATED THE BELMONT REPORT WAS MANDATED BY CONGRESS AND REQUIRED BY CONGRESS TO REPORT TO THE CIRCULATORY OF HHS AND TO CONGRESS. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> BY THE TIME I'VE GOT AROUND TO REPORTING, IT WAS HHS. AND THE PRESENT COMMISSION FOR THE STUDY OF BIOETHICAL ISSUES, WHICH CAME UP WITH TWO ISSUES, WAS REQUESTED DIRECTLY BY THE PRESIDENT. I AM NOT SURE I CAN SEE A GOOD PATH FOR US TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING AS AMBITIOUS AS YOU DESCRIBED. BUT THAT'S SEPARATE FROM THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT'S A GOOD THING, BAD THING, COULD BE MADE INTO A BETTER THING. IT'S ALSO JUST MY INITIAL STAKE AND IT'S SEPARATE FROM THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE DIVISION COULD OR SHOULD HAVE ANY ROLE, EVEN IF IT IS NOT THE SPONSORING, COMMISSION, ET CETERA ROLE. HAVING SAID THAT, LET ME THROW THE FLOOR OPEN FOR COMMENTS ON EITHER OR ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS. >> SO I ACTUALLY JUST WANT TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT CLARITY FOR MYSELF IN TERMS OF THE WHAT. SO FOR EXAMPLE, YOU MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES, RAFA, THAT THE TECHNOLOGIES HAVE CHANGED, THEY HAVE THE TECHNOLOGIES HAVE POTENTIAL TO CHANGE HOW WE UNDERSTAND IMPORTANT ISSUES LIKE IDENTITY AND AGENCY AND PRIVACY. I THINK THAT'S ALL CORRECT. THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS DOES THAT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE PRINCIPLES THAT SORT OF GUIDE US HAVE CHANGED? AND SO WHEN YOU SAY BELMONT-LIKE REPORT, I MEAN I SEE THE VALUE, THE VERY STRONG VALUE OF A SHORT, ACCEPTABLE DOCUMENT THAT EXPLAINS THINGS TO ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE ABOUT HOW ETHICALLY WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT SOMETHING AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT BELMONT DOES. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THE BELMONT PRINCIPLES -- AND THEY'VE BEEN REVISITED BY DIFFERENT GROUPS ALONG THE COURSE OF THE LAST 30 YEARS -- STILL STAND THE TEST OF TIME. THEY'RE STILL PRETTY GOOD AND THEY STILL -- THEY'RE STILL VERY USEFUL IN GUIDING HOW WE THINK ABOUT RESEARCH BUT A LOT OF OTHER THINGS AS WELL. AND DIFFERENT GROUPS HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT SHOULD THERE BE OTHER PRINCIPLES, ARE THERE VARIABLES THAT WE'RE MISSING? ONE THAT'S COME UP OCCASIONALLY IS SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF SOLIDARITY AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I MEAN, THERE ARE OTHER PRINCIPLES PERHAPS, BUT WE COULD TALK ABOUT, BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS IS THE IDEA TO REALLY REVISIT THE PRINCIPLES OR TO REVISIT OR TO VISIT -- EXCUSE ME -- THE PARTICULAR KINDS OF CHANGES THAT WE MIGHT ANTICIPATE WITH RESPECT TO IDENTITY,, OTHER PRIVACY, ET CETERA, WITH CURRENT-DAY AND FUTURE NEUROTECHNOLOGY? >> YEAH, THE IDEA WAS TO -- YEAH, THE IDEA WAS NOT TO REWRITE THE PRINCIPLES BUT TO USE THESE AS A WAY TO BRING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT TO TODAY'S -- TO THE FUTURE AND TECHNOLOGY. SO MAYBE GO FOR THESE THREE PRINCIPLES, BUT MAYBE DISCUSS WHETHER THERE IS A COMMERCIAL COMMISSION THAT CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE PRINCIPLES, IN THE WAY THEY GET INTERPRETED IN THE FUTURE? WHY NOT? MAYBE THERE ARE NEW PRINCIPLES. THIS IS NOTHING THAT WE THOUGHT ABOUT BEFORE THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY CHANGE THE IDENTITY OF A PERSON. THE BELMONT REPORT HAS HUMAN SUBJECT IS ONE. WHAT IF IT'S NOT ONE? THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT ARE ON THE TABLE. SO WE DON'T VIEW THIS AS A RESOLUTION TO GET RID OF THE BELMONT REPORT BUT MORE TO BRING IT -- TO REVITALIZE IT AND MAKE IT TO -- INTO A DOCUMENT IN A WAY SORT A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH HERE. AND THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT WAS NOT AT THAT TIME IN THE BELMONT REPORT IN THE EXPLORATION OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. >> SORT OF WHAT CRISTINE AND SOME OF MY CONCERNS. I THINK AT MOST YOU'D WANT A GLOSS ON THE BELMONT REPORT. BUT I ACTUALLY DON'T THINK THAT NEUROTECHNOLOGY IS THE ONLY CHANGE. THE BELMONT REPORT ASSUMES KIND OF RATIONAL AGENCY FOR HUMANS, WHICH ARE THE MODEL -- WHICH IS A MODEL THAT HAS PERSISTED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. YOU KNOW, THE -- PROBABLY THE MOST WIDELY ACCEPTED, BOTH PHILOSOPHICAL AND NEUROSCIENCE RELEVANT UNDERSTANDING IDENTITY -- I DON'T KNOW BUT SOMEBODY LIKE SARAH WOULD SAY WELL, YOU DON'T NEED MACHINES TO CHANGE IDENTITY. YOU DON'T HAVE AN IDENTITY. YOUR IDENTITY IS NOT LIKE -- YOU'RE NOT ONE THING. YOU'RE MORE LIKE COMMITTEE AND YOU CHANGE OVER TIME AND YOU TELL YOURSELF A STORY. SO I THINK THE QUESTION REALLY IS NOT DO WE GO AWAY FOR A WEEKEND? BUT IS THERE A WAY THAT ONE COULD BEGIN A GLOSS ON RESPECT FOR PERSONS, RIGHT? WHAT'S A PERSON DISH MEAN YOU START TO DECONSTRUCT THESE THINGS AND THEN TO TALK ABOUT THE BRAIN AS A MACHINE INTO WHICH NEW TECHNOLOGIES CAN INTRUDE. I DON'T ACTUALLY THINK WE ARE READY TO HAVE PRINCIPLES. I THINK WE'RE READY TO HAVE A SET OF VERY SOPHISTICATED QUESTIONS. AND INSTEAD OF A -- I THINK IT ALMOST SOUNDS A LITTLE BIT, ALMOST, I WOULD FEEL -- IF I WERE TO PARTICIPATE ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS, I WOULD FEEL LIKE THE BELMONT HAS BEEN SO TESTED TO THE TEST OF TIME. BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN, IT MAKES ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT PERSONHOOD, COGNITION AND SO FORTH, THAT HAVE PROGRESSIVELY BEEN ERODED AND NOW, TO YOUR POINT, RAFA, I THINK THAT THE TECHNOLOGICAL RESOLUTION WILL NOT ONLY ACCELERATE THAT, BUT WILL DEMONSTRATE WITH CLARITY TO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO PAY ATTENTION, THAT OUR BRAINS ARE MACHINES INTO WHICH WE CAN INTRUDE AND MAKE IMPORTANT CHANGES. SO I THINK THAT IS VERY MUCH WORTH ASTONISH AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK THAT'S VERY MUCH WORTH FOCUSING ATTENTION ON, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE -- I MEAN, I'M THINKING OUT LOUD. I THINK IT WOULD REALLY BE MORE TAKING A DOCUMENT LIKE BELMONT AND PROBLEMATIZING A LOT OF THE CATEGORIES, TON COME UP WITH NEW PRINCIPLE, BUT TO SET AN AGENDA FOR RESEARCH AND THOUGHT THAT MAYBE THEN THIS BODY COULD HAVE A ROLE IN. >> JUST TO RESPOND TO BOTH OF YOU. I THINK -- I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING TO LOSE BY TRYING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE COULD REVISIT, REEXAMINE THESE PRINCIPLES. WE CAN LOOK AT THEM FROM THE ANGLE OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES WITH EXPERTS ON THE TABLE WHO REALLY KNOW WHAT CAN BE DONE AND WHAT'S BEEN DONE. AND IF THERE IS NO REASON TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT, THERE IS AT LEAST -- AT LEAST WE TOOK A CLOSE LOOK. BUT I HAVE THE IMPRESSION AND IT'S A PITY COULDN'T COME TO THE WORKSHOP. THAT WAS THE IMPRESSION AT ONE THE WORKSHOPS THAT WE HAVE A SITUATION ON OUR HANDS THAT COULD GO OUT OF CONTROL, THAT THE ISSUE THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING WHETHER THIS IS GOING TO DISSOLVE THE CONCEPT OF INDIVIDUAL. THE EXPERIMENT HAS BEEN DONE WITH ONE CASE IN WHICH MONKEYS TO THE SAME. IT COULD BE DONE WITH HUMANS TODAY. >> NO. YOU'RE INTER-- >> THIS GOES A LITTLE DEEPER THAN PROTECTION OF THE HUMAN SUBJECT. THIS GOES TO THE CORE OF WHAT IS A HUMAN? AND WHAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY? >> SO I THINK WHAT I AM SAYING IS I DON'T THINK WE CAN GET TOGETHER FOR A WEEKEND AND DECIDE WHAT A HUMAN BEING IS. I THINK WE CAN MAKE THESE EXISTING DOCUMENTS AND PROBLEMATIZE THEM AND SHOW WHERE THE UNDERLYING -- THE FUNDAMENTAL UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS ARE BEING ERODED BY CURRENT UNDERSTANDINGS AND CURRENT TECHNOLOGY. AND USE THAT AS A PLATFORM FOR BOTH THOUGHT AND EXPERIMENTATION. BUT I WOULD -- I MEAN, EVEN THE SMARTEST EXPERTS GETTING TOGETHER ARE NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO COME UP WITH A DOCUMENT THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO BRING ENOUGH CONSENSUS TO BE REALLY USEFUL. >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT A REASON NOT TO DO IT. IN FACT, IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO START WORKING IN THAT DIRECTION. IF WE CAN DO SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL IN A WEEKEND, FANTASTIC. BUT IF NOT, AT LEAST WE CAN START TACKLING THE ISSUES, IF THERE ARE ISSUES. MAYBE THERE ARE NO ISSUES. >> THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THERE ARE ISSUES. THE QUESTION IS HOW MOST ADAPTIVELY TO BRING THEM FORWARD IN A WAY THAT WILL ENGAGE -- USEFULLY ENGAGE THE BROAD COMMUNITY TO THINK ABOUT THEM AND NOT CREATE A DOCUMENT -- AND YOU'RE NOT PROPOSING THIS, BUT. THESE THINGS TURN OUT TO BE HAND WRINGING ABOUT THE DISTOPIC FUTURE, WHICH IS AROUND THE CORNER. LOOK, THE ISSUE OF PERSONHOOD AND NARRATIVE IDENTITY IS SOMETHING WE FACE WITHOUT TECHNOLOGY. YOU THINK OF ADVANCED DIRECTIVE OF SOMEBODY AS BECOMING DEMENTED. YOU THINK OF A MENTALLY VERY DEPRESSED PERSON SIGNING A CONTRACT WITH THEIR CAREGIVERS THAT THEY WON'T HARM THEMSELVES. WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT -- THEN YOU ADD THE TECHNOLOGIES AND WE'RE OFF TO THE RACES, RIGHT? SO THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES. I JUST -- AND ALSO, GOING TO HANK'S COMMENT. WHAT IS THIS GROUP CONSTITUTED TO CAUSE TO HAPPEN WITH COLLABORATIONS FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT? I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ON THAT AS WELL. >> MY TAKE IS THAT IF YOU ARE DEALING WITH SUCH A BIG FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM, THE BEST WAY TO START IS IN A SMALL GROUP OF EXPERTS IN A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN JUST TALK WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND THINK AHEAD CAREFULLY ABOUT THE FUTURE FOR A FEW DAYS, MAYBE LONGER THAN A WEEKEND. I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT THIS DIVISION SHOULD BE DOING, TO SERVE AS THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE THAT CAREFUL THINKING THROUGH THE FUTURE OF THE NEWER TECHNOLOGIES -- >> ON PERSONHOOD. >> I DON'T THINK I'D WANT TO DO THAT, STEVE. >> SO LET'S GIVE OTHER DIVISION MEMBERS A CHANCE TO SAY SOMETHING AND THEN OPEN IT UP MORE BROADLY TO THE TABLE. KAREN, JIM AND THEN PEOPLE ON THE PHONE. KAREN, JIM, ANYTHING? >> SURE. I THINK THIS IS A REALLY EXCITING, AMBITIOUS IDEA. I THINK IT'S A LOT OF CARE NEEDS TO BE TAKEN TO NOT SEEM TO HAVE A LOT OF -- NOT TO SEEM JILL OR ARROGANT, AS I THINK YOU HAVE PUT OUT. I QUITE LIKE THE IDEA OF DISRUPTING BOTH NOTIONS OR TROUBLING THOSE NOTIONS OF WHAT A PERSON IS. CHALLENGING THE BENEFIT ANALYSIS. JUST AS IN THE SECTOR OF ACCESS, AUGMENTATION AND TRANSHUMANISM. THOSE ARE ALL INTERESTING THINGS. I AGREE THAT IT'S BECAUSE CHALLENGING IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DO. I AGREE ALSO THAT SHOULDN'T DO IT. I SUGGEST THERE ARE WAYS TO DO HEAVY LIFTING PRIOR TO THE PRIOR PHYSICAL, IN-PERSON MEETING AND REQUIRES A LITTLE MORE WORK. I HAVE NO ANSWER HOW MUCH THE DIVISION SHOULD BE INVOLVED JUST I WOULD SAY THAT COMING UP WITH A SET OF PROMPTS OR SURVEYS, SCANNING A WIDER POPULATION THAN WOULD BE INVITED AND TELLING -- DISCUSSING THEM AND SUMMARIZING SOME THINGS PRIOR TO THE MEETING WOULD HELP GIVE IT A JUMPSTART. AND IN THAT PRELIMINARY STAGE, KIND OF ASKING, BUILDING A WIDER PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT WE FEEL IS NEEDED. IF WE DO CHALLENGE THE BELMONT REPORT OR WE ARE TRYING TO ADD TO IT OR REPLACE IT, WHAT WOULD A SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME LOOK LIKE FOR US? COMING UP TOGETHER AS A GROUP, TRYING TO DO A BUNCH OF WORK BEFORE -- >> I BELIEVE WE HEARD -- >> BABY HUMAN. >> JIM? >> THANKS. YEAH. I THINK I SHARED SOME OF THE CONCERNS OF THE PEOPLE WHO RAISED. I AM SURE ABOUT THE OVERALL EXTENT OF WHAT THIS REPORT MIGHT LOOK AND I THINK THE ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES BUT I MIGHT ACTUALLY RATHER SEE A WHOLE SERIES OF SMALLER REPORTS DEVELOPED ALONG THE WAY THAT COULD THEN BE BUILT UPON AS A FUTURE TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE MORE COMPREHENSIVE. ONE OF THE THINGS I ALSO WORRY ABOUT. WE WE ALL CONSTANTLY ARE SEEING IN THE NEWSPAPERS ABOUT THIS ROBOT AND NOT DOING THIS AND THAT ROBOT DOING THAT AND ALL -- NEW STORIES ABOUT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. AND I DON'T REALLY QUITE KNOW HOW WE ADDRESS THAT AS A GROUP AT THE MOMENT. AND IN TERMS OF THE IMPLANTS AND THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEUROETHICS, THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, I THINK WE CAN DEAL WITH ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. AND NEW ISSUES WILL DEVELOP FROM THAT. I DON'T THINK WE'RE IN A POSITION TO DEAL WITH THIS GLOBALLY. ONE OF THE THINGS I'M AFRAID THIS IS GOING TO SHOW HOW MUCH OF A NERD I AM. THREE LAWS OF ROBOTICS IN TERMS OF WHAT ROBOTS COULD AND COULD NOT DO AND I DON'T WANT US TO APPEAR LIKE THAT AND I WORRY THAT IF IT'S NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT, AND IN A STEP-BY-STEP PROCESS, THAT IT MIGHT BE VIEWED. >> AND I REMEMBER -- URGED 70 YEARS AFTER HE WROTE THEM SO THAT'S PRETTY GOOD SUCCESS. >> RAFA, DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THOSE BEFORE WE GO TO THE PHONES OR SHOULD I GO TO THE PHONES? >> YES, ON THE AI ISSUE. IT MAY SEEM VERY FOREIGN TO THIS GROUP TO THINK ABOUT AI, BUT I MEAN, ONE OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF OUR MEETING AT COLUMBIA WAS THAT WE'RE CONVERGING ON VERY SIMILAR PROBLEMS. AND THAT YOU CAN VIEW A LOT OF OF THE NEW TECHNOLOGY IF YOU PUT THE WORD "NON-INVASIVE" IN FRONT OF IT. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE AFTER IN THE TECH WORLD AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO EXTRACT THE BETTER HARDWARE AND THE ALGORITHMS THAT THE BRAIN IS DOING IN ORDER TO ESSENTIALLY MANIPULATE THE MINDS OF THE USE MORE EFFECTIVELY. SO THERE IS A BIG CONCERN WITHIN THE COMMUNITY OF THE LACK OF THE ONTOLOGY AND -- ACTUALLY, WHEN WE TALKED TO THESE PEOPLE, IT WAS THE SAME ISSUES AND TALKING VERY SIMILAR LANGUAGES. I THINK IN MY FORMER CONTACTS WITH THEM, THEY ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DOING SOMETHING TOGETHER WITH NEUROSCIENCE THAT WOULD BE BROAD. >> SO IN YOUR COMMENT OF IT'S BETTER TO DO A LOT OF LITTLE REPORTS AS OPPOSED TO BIG ONE, I THINK THE WAY I VIEW THIS BELMONT TO POINT OUT WAS TO HAVE JUST LIKE THE BELMONT REPORT, A VERY HIGH-LEVEL, BRIEF, SUCCINCT, WELL-WRITTEN GUIDE DOCUMENT THAT COULD BE THEN REFERRED TO BY A LOT OF THE OTHER MORE SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD BE LIKE PUTTING THE FRAME WORK ON WHICH YOU COULD HANG ALL THE OTHER -- MY GUT FEELING IS TO START WITH FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES FIRST AND THEN GO TO THE SPECIFICS. >> AND THIS COPY IS SO WELL SPLIT IN AN -- IN COMPARATIVE LAW WHERE ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW TENDS TO START WITH CASES AND BUILD THEIR WAY UP TO PRINCIPLES IN THE CIVIL LAW SYSTEM AND THE REST OF THE WORLD STARTS WITH PRINCIPLES AND WORKS THEIR WAY DOWN TO CASES. AND YOU ARE THE DEDUCTIVE, MY TRAINING AND INSTINCTS ARE MORE ON THE -- >> I THINK WE MAY HAVE SOME MEMBERS ON THE PHONE. NITA, BRAD? CHANDRA? ANYBODY? COLISTA? ANYBODY WANT TO CHIME IN FROM THE PHONE? >> CALLER: SO THIS IS BRAD. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN HEAR ME. >> WE CAN. >> CALLER: OKAY, GOOD. SO NOW I AM ON MY WAY DOWN TO TOMORROW'S MEETING. THE WEATHER IS AT LEAST CLEARER THAN THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE BELMONT-TYPE DOCUMENT. I SHARE A LOT OF CONCERNS THAT THAT'S OVERREACHING A LITTLE BIT AND THAT FIRE IN MUCH BETTER POSITION TO BEGIN TO REFRAME THE QUESTIONS THAT WE ARE IN PROVIDING ANSWERS. I GUESS I'LL SIT ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF THIS A LITTLE BIT. >> SO THE TWO ARE MONOZYGOTIC OR -- >> BRAD, WE SHARE AN UNCLE ABOUT A MILLION YEARS AGO. >> HEIRS A NEUROLOGIST AND I AM A -- >> DIFFERENT SPECIES. >> IT'S TRUE, BUT I ALWAYS LIKE TO BE ASSOCIATED BECAUSE HE'S SO DARN SMART. >> AND VULNERABLE TO FLATTERY. NITA, CHADRA? CHADRA? CALISA? >> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD RIGHT NOW. >> CALISA? >> OKAY. CHADRA, IF I DON'T HEAR FROM YOU IN A MOMENT, I'LL ASSUME YOU ARE EITHER NOT ON OR YOU HAVE NOTHING TO ADD. OKAY. LET ME THROW IN A LITTLE BIT MORE BEFORE OPENING IT TO THE TABLE. PART OF ME IS REALLY ATTRACTED TO YOUR IDEA. AND ESPECIALLY AS I THINK ELABORATED, NOT REBUTTED BY STEVE AND CRISTINE AND OTHERS, THE IDEA OF IDENTITY REALLY IS A BIG ONE THAT ISN'T -- THAT BELMONT DOESN'T SAY MUCH USEFUL ABOUT. AND PERSONS IN THIS CONTEXT BECOMES REALLY COMPLICATED IN WAYS THAT I THINK ARE REALLY INTERESTING. PLUS, HAVING BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE, I REALIZE THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN GETTING ANYTHING DONE ARE ENERGY AND ENTHUSIASM WITH. INTELLIGENCE AND MONEY ARE NICE, BUT ENERGY AND ENTHUSIASM ARE ESSENTIAL, AND I SEE A NEW -- IN YOU ENERGY AND ENTHUSIASM, WHICH I'D LOVE TO SEE EXPLOITED TO GOOD ENDS, BETTER ENDS, OR ENDS THAT ARE NEUROETHICAL AND IN USEFUL WAYS. I AM -- I DO THINK AIMING FOR BASIC -- AND THIS COULD BE THE LAWYER IN ME SPEAKING -- AIMING FOR BASIC PRINCIPLES IS MAYBE TOO FAR RIGHT NOW. AND I SUSPECT IF YOU ACTUALLY GOT THE GROUP TOGETHER, THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD -- EVEN IF YOU WERE AIMING AT THAT, THEY WOULD CONCLUDE TO STEP TOO FAR. I AM ALSO, THOUGH, REALLY INCREASINGLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE RIGHT ROLE FOR THE DIVISION SHOULD BE. I MEAN, WE ARE CREATED TO TRY TO HELP ON NEUROETHICAL ISSUES THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU QUITE A LOT THAT THE I STUFF, BY WHICH I KNOW LITTLE, SEEMS TO TRACK PRETTY WELL WITH A LOT OF THE NEUROLOGY STUFF. I AM ACTUALLY WRITING A PAPER RIGHT NOW, COMPARING NEUROSCIENCES AXON WALL -- EFFECT ON BE EFFECT ON AI AND NEUROSCIENCE. BUT THAT ALSO TAKES US FARTHER FROM THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. AI IS NOT, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, PART OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AT THIS POINT, ALTHOUGH I SUSPECT AI WILL BE USED AT SOME POINT AS A TOOL IN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. SO MY LEANING IS -- I THINK THERE IS SOMETHING REALLY INTERESTING THAT COULD BE DONE HERE. I DON'T THINK THE DIVISION CAN COMMISSION IT. THE COMMISSION MAY BE ABLE TO -- THE DIVISION MAY BE ABLE TO SAY THIS SOUNDS INTERESTING, GOOD LUCK. WE WISH YOU GOOD LUCK AND SOME OF OUR INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS MAY BE HAPPY TO WORK ON IT. WHETHER WE COULD EVEN GO THAT FAR, I AM NOT ENTIRELY SURE, LOOKING AT THE SOON-TO-BE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HIS LIFE RETIRING ALLAN WILLARD. BUT THAT'S SORT OF WHERE I FEEL RIGHT NOW. AL? >> SO I THINK AT THE MOMENT THE SCOPE OF THE DIVISION IS PRETTY NARROWLY CONFINED TO DOING THOSE THINGS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO HELP THE COUNCIL WORKING GROUP, KEEP THE COUNCILS INFORMED OF WHAT THEY NEED TO KNOW TO INCORPORATE THE ETHICAL IDEAS. I THINK IF THE DIVISION FIGURES OUT THAT IN ORDER TO DO ITS JOB LE WELL-, IT NEEDS TO HAVE SOME GUIDANCE THAT DOES NOT CURRENTLY EXIST, I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE DISCUSSION FOR THE DIVISION TO HAVE AND I THINK THAT'S THE WAY YOU HAVE FRAMED IT. I THINK ELEVATING SOMETHING TO COMMISSION STATUS IS BEYOND OUR SCOPE. YOU HAVE TO BE COMMISSIONED BY SOMEONE AND THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE COMMISSIONED BY THE PRESIDENT OR BY CONGRESS. BUT SO I THINK HERE FOCUSING ON HOW ADJUSTING THE -- ADDRESSING THE KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT RAFA AND STEVE AND EVERYONE ELSE HAVE MENTIONED AND HOW ADDRESSING THEM HELPS THIS GROUP DOES ITS WORK, I THINK IT'S A GOOD START. AND WHAT WE HAVE EXISTING IS INADEQUATE TO DO THIS WORK, THEN IDENTIFYING AND FIRST SAYING FIRST TO THE MULTICOUNCIL WORKING GROUP AND THEN BACK TO THE COUNCILS, WE NEED MORE. AND THEN WE'LL FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THAT MORE, WHATEVER MORE IS. SO WHAT IF IN THAT CONTEXT, ALLAN, WE WERE -- >> AND RAFA, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU. INSTEAD OF DOING WE'RE GOING TO DO BELMONT 2.0, SAY WE WOULD HAVE A RETREAT THAT THIS DIVISION HAD SOME OWNERSHIP OF OR IN COLLABORATION WITH OTHERS, THAT LOOKED -- THAT STARTED OUT BY LOOKING AT THESE KEY CONCEPTS, LIKE PERSONHOOD, IDENTITY, RESPECT -- WHATEVER. AND THAT PLAYED CENTRAL ROLES IN FOUNDATIONAL BIOETHICS. AND THEN WONDERING HOW MODERN UNDERSTANDINGS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES WILL BE ALTERING THOSE UNDERSTANDINGS. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A PLATFORM FROM WHICH TO MOVE FORWARD IN SOME WAY. BUT I THINK -- I THINK WE NEED THAT FIRST STEP. >> I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. I AM NOT MARRIED TO MY TERMINOLOGY OR TO CALL THIS -- WELL, I AM JUST PAINTING YOU ONE VISION. BUT HAVING A RETREAT WHERE WE DO EXACTLY THAT WOULD OVERLAP 90% WITH WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING. THE ONLY 10% IS NOT AVAILABLE I THINK IS THE DOCUMENT THAT WILL BE GENERATED. >> THEN WE COULD BE INFORMING THE VARIOUS INSTITUTES AND COUNCILS ABOUT THE NEED TO TAKE THESE ISSUES INTO ACCOUNT NOT ONLY IN NEUROTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH BUT ALSO POTENTIALLY -- THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CRISTINE'S DIVISION CAN THINK ABOUT. IT CREATES WITHIN THE WELL-SETTLED FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPTS OF BIOETHICS. >> I ALSO LIKE, I THINK TV STEVE'S IDEA -- THE NOTION THAT EVEN WITH A RETREAT OF VERY SMART PEOPLE THINKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES IN A VERY PROGRESSIVE WAY, WHAT WE WILL PROBABLY END UP WITH IS A LIST OF QUESTIONS OR THINGS THAT NEED TO STILL BE ADDRESSED. RATHER THAN SOLUTIONS OR GUIDANCE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S TOO EARLY. I DON'T THINK WE REALLY KNOW HOW TO GET THERE YET. >> BUT THAT IS KIND OF AN EMPIRICAL QUESTION, RIGHT? >> WELL, SURE. >> AND IT'S A PREDICTION OF HOW THE RETREAT WOULD COME OUT. ALTHOUGH MY PREDICTION WOULD BE THE SAME AS YOURS. RAFA'S MIGHT BE DIFFERENT. >> WELL, I WOULD SAY EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, THE FIRST STEP IS TO DO THE RETREAT BECAUSE OTHERWISE, WHAT IS THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE? SITTING HERE WITH OUR ARMS CROSSED WAITING FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN? WHO IS GOING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT? ARE WE THE RUNS WHO ARE IN CHARGE TO AT LEAST THINK ABOUT THESE ISSUES? SO WHY SHOULDN'T WE DO IT? TO ME IT'S VERY NATURAL. AND WHETHER IT WORKS, DOESN'T WORK, WE'LL SEE AND IT DEPENDS ON THE MIX OF PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE AND OUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK TOGETHER. BUT I THINK THE FIRST STEP OF PUTTING EXPERTS THAT ARE SMART AND INTERESTED IN HELPING, PUTTING THEM TOGETHER IS THE FIRST STEP. >> WELL AND SPEAKING OF EXPERTS BEYOND JUST MEMBERS OF THE DIVISION, WE HAVE SMART, INTERESTED EXPERTS BEYOND JUST THE MEMBERS OF THE DIVISION HERE IN THE ROOM. ANY OF YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THIS DISCUSSION? >> WE TALKED ABOUT THE ONE-PAGERS THAT WE OBVIOUSLY ARE ALLOWED TO MISSION COMMISSION AND COMMISSIONED TO DO. WE'VE ALREADY PRODUCED ONE. NOW ON THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM, WE HAVE BELMONT 2.0, WHICH IS AMBITIOUS. AND SOMEBODY MENTIONED BRAIN 25 NEUROETHICS REPORT. WHERE IN THAT SPECTRUM WOULD YOU ENVISION IT, DO YOU WANT A REPORT THAT PEOPLE WRITE GUIDING PRINCIPLES BASED OFF OF OR SOMETHING THAT'S MORE OF AN ACCUMULATION OF THE SINGLE PAGERS THAT ARE MAYBE PRACTICAL ISSUES THAT WE COULD CONSIDER? >> THE BRAIN 2025 IS AN EXAMPLE OF A MODEL THAT WE COULD FOLLOW, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REALLY GET INTO THE NITTY-GRITTY OF THE APPLICATION. JUST DESCRIBES THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF HOW TO STUDY NEUROCIRCUITS AND I ACTUALLY DISCUSS QUITE EXTENSIVELY WITH CORY BARTMAN HOW THEY WROTE THAT REPORT. HOW IT CAME OUT SO NICELY. AND WE COULD FOLLOW THAT. BUT FOCUS, OF COURSE, ON THE NEUROETHICS GUIDELINES. BUT OUR VISION IS TO HAVE SOMETHING MORE, AGAIN, NOT VERY DETAILED IN TERMS OF THE APPLICATION BUT MORE IN TERMS OF THE PRINCIPLE AND WHAT ARE THE RULES OR THE PRINCIPLES THAT PEOPLE SHOULD THINK ABOUT AND MAYBE THERE IS NOT AN AGREEMENT. MAYBE WE ARE JUST RAISING QUESTIONS, BUT MAYBE THERE IS SOMETHING COMMON THAT WE COULD CLEARLY ARTICULATE THEM. AND AGAIN WE CAN USE THE BELMONT REPORT AS A BASE. MAYBE WE CAN GO BACK AND SAY WE JUST HAVE TO EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF THE BELMONT REPORT RIGHT DOES OF HUMAN SUBJECT. AND MAYBE THAT COULD BE AN OUTCOME. >> YEAH, I AM VERY -- HAPPY WITH HAVING -- TAKING UP THE NAME OF THE PROPOSAL AND CONVERTING IT INTO A RETREAT THAT EXAMINES THE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES. I THINK THE OVERLAP IS 90% WITH THE PLAN THAT I HAVE IN MIND. WE COULD HAVE REPERTOIRES ATTEND THE MEETING AND AT THE END WE COULD WRITE. AND IT SEEMS TO BE IN TERMS OF THE LEGALITY OF THE DIVISION BEING INVOLVED IN THIS, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED EITHER SPONSORED BY THE DIVISION, IF THERE IS ANY LEGAL ISSUES. BUT I THINK IT'S VERY NATURAL. IN FACT, I WILL BE SURPRISED IF WE ARE JUDGED BY OUR WORK IN THE FUTURE THAT PEOPLE COULD SAY WELL, HOW COME YOU GUYS NEVER DID THAT? SHOULDN'T THIS BE THE KIND OF THING THAT YOU ARE PAID TO DO? OR IN THIS CASE, WE ARE NOT PAID TO DO? >> WHERE WERE YOU WHEN THE ROBOTS TOOK OVER? >> SO IN THIS CASE, YOU ARE SAID TO DO BY WHATEVER MEANS. I GET A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS TO CHAIRING THE WORD RETREAT. I DON'T WANT TO IMPLY IT'S GOING TO BE A SECRET MEETING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IF WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING THIS, WE NEED -- >> CABAL? >> RIGHT. THOSE ARE ALL -- >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> SO WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT. THAT THINGS ARE -- DISCUSSIONS ARE OPEN AND AVAILABLE AND NOT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS ON THESE KINDS OF THINGS. SO THERE ARE SOME TO BE DONE. BUT THERE ARE DISCUSSION THAT'S CAN BE HAD. WE HAVE TO BE A LITTLE BIT CAREFUL AND THE EXACT WAY THAT WE DO IT. >> OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE ROOM? >> CONVEY. >> WELL SO COULD WE IMAGINE THAT FROM THE FOUNDATION'S PERSPECTIVE THE QUESTION IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH AND IN MY MIND THE TIME IS RIGHT TO BEGIN THESE KINDS OF DIALOGUE. WE WOULDN'T MIND EVEN SETTING UP A RETREAT AND INDEED A CLOSED THE DOOR KIND OF MEETING SO SOME OF THE LEADERS CAN HASH THINGS OUT AND TRY TO SEE IF THERE IS A NEED THIS TIME AROUND. BECAUSE I AM DEALING ABOUT TIME IS NOT RIGHT AND MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CONTENT AND SO ON. SHOULD WE TEST THAT OUT BY -- AND THEN DO THE RETREAT? THEN MAYBE REPORT BACK TO THE DIVISION THEN MOVE FORWARD? THAT'S JUST ONE OPTION THAT YOU COULD EXERCISE, IF YOU THINK THAT THAT COULD BE HELPFUL. >> RAFA, I WAS WONDERING IF TO KIND OF SET US UP BETTER FOR SUCCESS, IF YOU WOULD HAVE MARKERS OF MINIMAL LEVELS OF WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER SUCCESS AND HIGH-REACHING ONES? WOULD TO BE SATISFACTORY ENOUGH TO SAY THAT IT DIDN'T WORK? AT LEAST WE KNOW WE GAVE IT EFFORT? COULD WE AT LEAST COME UP WITH A SET OF QUESTIONS EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE A CONSENSUS? CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THAT? >> IT'S DIFFICULT. IF I WERE INVOLVED IN THIS REPORT AND LOOKING AT IT FROM THE OUTSIDE, I LIKE -- I'D LIKE SOMETHING SUBSTANTIVE TO COME OUT OF THIS, USEFUL. AND GIVEN ALL THESE ISSUES THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, THESE TOPICS, FOR EXAMPLE, AT LEAST WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT IT, NO? AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE COULD GROUP TOGETHER. SO I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THEY WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM BUT AT LEAST THEY CAN ORIENT PEOPLE, WELL, YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT IDENTITY, WHY DON'T YOU CONSIDER THIS AND THIS AND THIS AND WHATEVER? THAT, IN MY VIEW, SHOULD BE WRITTEN DOWN AND SHARED WITH THE WORLD. THAT WOULD BE, FOR ME, THE GOAL, MINIMUM GOAL. I THINK THE MAXIMUM GOAL COULD BE OVERWHELMING AGREEMENT ON SOME BASIC NEW PRINCIPLES THAT COULD THEN BE THE BELMONT 2.0. >> OTHER COMMENTS? SO WHAT I AM HEARING AROUND THE TABLE -- AND CERTAINLY WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF MEMBERS ON THE PHONE WHO HAVEN'T WEIGHED IN -- BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS AT THE VERY LEAST INTEREST AND IN SOME CASES STRONG INTEREST IN SOME KIND OF A DISCUSSION OF THE WAYS IN WHICH NEURO AND NEURO-RELATED TECHNOLOGIES MAY AFFECT SOME OF OUR BASIC -- MAY QUESTION AND PROBLEMATIZE -- TERRIBLE WORD BUT I DON'T HAVE A BETTER ONE RIGHT NOW -- SOME OF OUR BIOETHICS PRINCIPLES THAT A MEETING TO DISCUSS THAT COULD BE A VERY GOOD THING. I THINK THAT IT IS -- I DON'T THINK WE CAN AT THIS MEETING, DECIDE WHAT ROLE THE DIVISION CAN TAKE IN THAT. I THINK THAT REQUIRES DISCUSSION WITH MULTICOUNCIL WORKING GROUP, WITH DIRECTORS, WITH PEOPLE AT NIH AND A WAY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE COULD DO. I THINK WE COULD SAY -- WE THINK THERE IS SOMETHING REALLY INTERESTING HERE, RAFA, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO PURSUE IT AND MAYBE WE CAN EVEN TAKE SOME PART IN IT, BUT WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT AS INDIVIDUALS WE COULD TAKE PART IN IT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE PROBABLY NEED TO LEAVE IT FOR NOW. UNLESS OTHERS HAVE IMPROVING SUGGESTIONS. >> SO THIS IS BRAD FROM FAR AWAY. I JUST TAKE EXCEPTION TO YOUR CONCEPT OF LEAVING IT. I THINK THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT TO LEAVE FOR NOW, AND I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A MORE CONCRETE SORT OF PLAN FORWARD. THESE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUES, AND I DON'T WANT TO JUST SORT OF LEAVE THEM BEHIND. >> MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE TAKE A VOTE, WHETHER THIS COMMITTEE IS A SPONSOR OF THE IDEA. THE IDEA IN A SCALEDDOWN FASHION THE WAY THAT STEVE SUGGESTED. OR NOT. BECAUSE IF THE COMMITTEE DOESN'T SPONSOR THE IDEA, I THINK TO DO JUSTICE TO THE PROBLEM, SOMETHING ELSE NEEDS TO BE DONE. >> I DO HEAR AN OFFER FROM THE -- [LAUGHTER]. I ACTUALLY -- I ACTUALLY THINK THAT YOU MIGHT TALK -- I MEAN YOU MIGHT PROPOSE TO US LATER IN THE DAY OR BY E-MAIL AND TALK TO OUR CO-CHAIRS ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD BE STRUCTURED. AND THEN OUR CO-CHAIRS CAN DO THE HOMEWORK OF TALKING TO THE -- TAKING A VOTE -- INSTEAD OF TAKING A VOTE, WHICH MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE ANY MEANING, WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER TO HAVE A CONCRETE PROPOSAL THAT HANK AND CRISTINE THINK WOULD PASS MUSTER WITH THE INSTITUTE AND THE COUNCIL? THEN WE COULD EVEN FOLLOW UP QUICKLY BY E-MAIL? I'M JUST AFRAID THAT YOU COULD ASK WHETHER ANYONE IS AGAINST THE IDEA OF PROCEEDING AND ORGANIZING IN SOME FASHION. I THINK IT WOULD BE -- THE MOST LIKELY WAY TO GET IT IS TO CREATE A CONCRETE PROPOSAL THAT DEALS LEGAL TO THE -- FEELS LEGAL TO THE PEOPLE AT THE END OF THE TABLE. >> BUT THAT MEANS MOVING FORWARD. >> DOES ANYONE NOT WANT TO MOVE FORWARD? >> NOT ONLY I WOULD ADOPT IT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, IT'S MIND-READING BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I INTENDED TO SAY OR AT LEAST THAT'S MY STORY NOW. BUT YEAH, IT'S TO SAY WE THINK THERE IS A GOOD IDEA HERE, BUT WE DON'T -- IF FOR EXAMPLE, WE WERE TO VOTE ON WHETHER WE SHOULD SPONSOR THIS AND A MAJORITY OF US SAY WE SHOULD SPONSOR THIS, IT'S NOT AT ALL CLEAR TO ME WE CAN SPONSOR THIS AND WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN AND I THINK THAT WOULD TAKE SUBSTANTIAL SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS AND MAYBE EVEN BEYOND NIH. SO I AM IN FAVOR OF LOOKING FOR A WAY FORWARD. I THINK WE ALL THINK THERE IS A GOOD IDEA HERE. LEAST EVERYONE WHO HAS SPOKEN THINKS THERE IS POTENTIALLY A VERY GOOD IDEA HERE. HOW WE BEST GET TO THAT I DON'T THINK WE CAN ANSWER RIGHT NOW. BUT CERTAINLY PURSUING IT WITH KAVLI, WITHOUT IN VARIOUS WAYS, FIGURING OUT THINGS WE CAN AND CAN'T DO ISN'T SOMETHING WE CAN DO IN THE NEXT THREE MINUTES. >> YEAH. MY ONLY WORRY IS THAT WE SPEND MORE TIME DISCUSSING WHETHER TO DO IT THAN DOING IT. WORRY IS. AND I THINK I WOULD -- THIS HAS TO BE SOMETHING FRAGILE. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. AGAIN, I AM PROTECTIVE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE PR OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. IT'S NOT LIKE A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK WHAT I AM SUGGESTING. AT LEAST TO START TO GIVE IT A FIRST STAB. IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THERE IS ANY SERIOUS LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS FOR PUTTING TOGETHER A GROUP OF PEOPLE TO GENERATE A DOCUMENT Y. MEAN, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT? >> SO LET ME SUGGEST THAT AT LEAST THIS CO-CHAIR WOULD WELCOME A MOTION TO SAY WE THINK THESE ARE INTERESTING ISSUES THAT COULD WELL BE EXPLORED, AND WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THEM BEING EXPLORED, ALTHOUGH WE ARE NOT SURE YET WHAT THE DIVISION'S ROLE WOULD BE IN EXPLORING THEM SO THAT BE HELPFUL? >> THAT'S NOT HELPFUL. I THINK NEEDS TO BE MORE PRINCIPALLY. WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP? IF YOU WANT A FORMAL REPORT EXPLAINING WHAT I JUST SAID, IN WRITING, WHAT IS THE GOAL THAT HAVE DOCUMENT, WHAT IS THE OUTCOME OF THAT DOCUMENT? I THINK IT'S -- I DON'T WANT TO BE MIRED IN THIS ENDLESS DISCUSSION WITH SUCH A LARGE GROUP THAT ESSENTIALLY HAS AN INERTIA THAT PREVENTS THINGS FROM HAPPENING. I THINK -- MY SUGGESTION AND SARAH'S SUGGESTION IS TO ESSENTIALLY GIVE IT A SHOT. I DON'T SEE WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH DOING THIS. WHAT IS THE NEGATIVES WITH DOING THIS? >> OKAY. >> HANK. CAN I WEIGH IN FOR A MOMENT FROM THE PHONE? >> OF COURSE. >> CALLER: SO I MEAN, ON THE SPECIFICS OF IT, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S EASY THAT THESE ARE ISSUES TO BE EXPLORED AND YOU THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO EXPLORE. AND I HEAR A CONCERN ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION, BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING TO ULTIMATELY HAVE WEIGHT, I THINK RATHER THAN DIVING INTO A DOCUMENT AND ESTABLISHING A DOCUMENT, PERHAPS THE MOTION SHOULD BE PROPOSE A PARTICULAR CONCEPT AND A WAY IN WHICH WE WANT TO EXPLORE THIS. LIKE WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF THE IDEA AND SOMETHING ELSE. HAVING SOMETHING MORE CONCRETE AS TO HOW AND NOT JUST THAT WE WANT TO EXPLORE IT. >> DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION? >> CALLER: I MEAN, I THINK SPECIFYING AND FOCUSING ON IT, WHETHER IT'S A RETREAT THAT HAS TO BE A DIVISION VERSUS DOING SOMETHING LIKE WE'RE DOING WITH THE APRIL 18TH MEETING, WHICH IS EVERYBODY FROM THE DIVISION AS WELL AS OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS. BUT IT'S A WAY THAT ALLOWS TO US MOVE FORWARD A LITTLE BIT MORE MENTALLY AND QUICKLY BY HAVING A MEETING THAT ONE OF US IS HOSTING RATHER THAN HAVING THE MEETING COME FROM THE DIVISION ITSELF. SO I GUESS WE INVITE STAKEHOLDERS AND NOT HAVE IT BE WEIGHTED ON IT BEING SOMETHING THAT ISN'T OFFICIAL DIVISION MEETING. OR EVEN OFFICIAL -- >> SO COULD I READ THAT AS SIMILAR TO A MOTION TO SAY WE ENDORSE THE IDEA OF A MEETING TO DISCUSS THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES? IS THAT A FAIR GLOSS ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID? >> >> CALLER: I THINK TO DISCUSS AND DEVELOP SOME SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDANCE ON THESE ISSUES. >> DISCUSS AND SEEK TO DEVELOP. RAFA, IS -- >> YES, THAT WOULD BE A GREEN LIGHT TO GO AHEAD AND START THIS MEETING OR THIS RETREAT, WHATEVER YOU CALL IT AND WE CAN JUST FOCUS ON GUIDANCE PRINCIPLES HIGHLIGHTING THE REPORT. >> IS THAT A MOTION THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO MAKE? >> CALLER: YES. SO MOVED. >> IS THERE A SECOND? CAN WE VOTE, ALLAN? THERE IS DISCUSSION AFTER A MOTION IN A SECOND -- AND A SECOND. >> SO I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CAN ACTUALLY VOTE ON. WE CAN TAKE A STRONG SENSE OF THE COMMITTEE HOW THE COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED, WHETHER WE FORMALLY CALL IT A MOTION OR NOT, I'M A LITTLE AMBIGUOUS ON. WE KNOW THAT ALL THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO PROCEED WITH IT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO GET CLEAR HERE. AND I THINK IF WE KNOW THAT, THEN I THINK WE CAN DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE THE RIGHT THING HAPPEN. >> OKAY. IS THERE DISCUSSION? >> CALLER: I AM NOT SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT, WHICH IS WHY I COULDN'T SECOND IT. ARE WE STILL -- IS IT A GENERAL DISCUSSION NOW ON WHAT IS A PERSON? AND AUGMENTATION? ARE THEY STILL ANCHORED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE BELMONT REPORT? BECAUSE IF WE'RE NOT, I ACTUALLY WILL SAY MAYBE THERE DEFINITELY HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE CONFERENCES ON IDENTITY, MULTIPLE CONFERENCES ON AGENCY. AND MAYBE WE HAVEN'T HAD ALL THE SAME PEOPLE BUT WE HAVE HAD GREAT COLLABORATIONS BETWEEN PHILOSOPHERS AND SCIENTISTS. THAT'S NOT NEW. WHAT'S NEW IS WE CAN'T HAVE ALL THE SAME PEOPLE IN THE GROUPS ALL THE TIME SO WE NEED TO MIX UP THE PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST MIXES. I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE UNIQUE THING WILL BE IN YOU DON'T HAVE THE ANCHOR OF THE BELMONT TO KIND OF INTERROGATE -- AND I LIKE THE WORD. >> WE DON'T HAVE TO LET GO OF THE GENERALITY OF THE BELMONTISH PART OF IT, BUT WE HAVE TO LET GO OF THE IDEA THAT WE ARE GOING TO WRITE A REPORT. IN THAT SENSE, WHY CAN'T WE DISCUSS THESE ISSUES? >> I THINK WHAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT ABOUT RAFA'S SUGGESTION PRECISELY IS THAT THE BELMONT REPORT -- THAT IS ALSO WHY WE CAN'T BE HASTY IS THE BELMONT REPORT IS IN MANY WAYS THE ANCHOR FOR SO MUCH OF THE BIOETHICS THAT WE ALL PRACTICE EVERY DAY. AND THE ISSUE IS TO SEE WHETHER WE CAN -- NOT TO HAVE THE FIRST DISCUSSION ABOUT IDENTITY, MY GOD, BUT ACTUALLY TO SEE IF WE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THE CONCEPTS THAT ARE ASSUMED IN THESE FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENTS OF BIOETHICS HAVE BEEN ERODED IN SOME WAYS BY ADVANCING NEUROSCIENCE. IT'S NOT UNLIKE THE CONVERSATIONS WITH FEDERAL JUDGES ABOUT AGENCY, WHEN IN THE END THEY SAY OKAY, BUT GOES BACK AND PLAY AND COME BACK TO US WHEN YOU ARE MORE CONVINCING. BUT HOW THESE CONCEPTS HAVE BEEN ERODED AND ABOVE ALL, WHERE THINGS MAY BE GOING. THE REASON IT'S AN EMERGENCY IS, AS RAFA SAID, BECAUSE OF THESE ADVANCING TECHNOLOGIES, WHICH ARE GOING TO TREAT THE HUMAN BRAIN AS A MACHINE AND DO ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT WILL ALTER IDENTITY, AGENCY, FUTURE SELF, ALL THOSE THINGS, RIGHT? I THINK THAT IS -- ALL OF THE ACADEMIC DISCUSSION. >> MAYBE SOMEBODY COULD EVEN WRITE SOME CRAZY PAPER SO THAT WE'RE NOT REINVENTING THE WHEEL BUT HOW THEY APPLY TO THESE FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENTS AND BIOETHICS. >> AND I GUESS THAT WOULD TIE BACK INTO WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH INTERNATIONAL. SO I STILL THINK THAT ALL THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT FROM THAT FOUNDATIONAL BIOETHICS EVENT AND THAT'S FINE AND I THINK THAT WILL BE VALUABLE. OUR MEETING HAPPENS IN OCTOBER SO THAT'S INFORMATIVE FOR HAVING THAT PIECE HASHED OUT AND WE COULD USE AS A POINT OF DISCUSSION. THAT'S ANOTHER REASON TO REMEMBER THE PROPOSAL AND THE ARCHITECT OF THAT AND THE PEOPLE THAT YOU ARE INVITING AND THE PERSPECTIVE THAT THEY BRING. >> SO NITA, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH STEVE'S GLOSS ON YOUR NON-MOTION? >> CALLER: YEAH. I THINK IT WATERS IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT, NO OFFENSE, BUT -- >> OKAY. >> WELL, UNLESS THERE IS MORE DISCUSSION, I SUGGEST WE MOVE TO A NON-VOTE EXPRESSION OF OPINION. IN NO BINDING WAY BUT TO GET A SENSE OF THE MEMBERSHIP IN TERMS OF WHETHER WE THINK SOME KIND OF MEETING ON THE ISSUES THAT RAFA HAS SUGGESTED IN THE CONTEXT OF REEXAMINING BASIC ISSUES IN BIOETHICS, INCLUDING THOSE IN THE BELMONT REPORT, WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> WE ARE THE ONLY GROUP THAT'S ALLOWED TO ACTUALLY -- THE GOVERNMENT TO VOTE. >> AND WE'RE NOT VOTING. WE'RE EXPRESSING VIEWS. >> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. >> ALL RIGHT, SO TO KEEP US COMPLIANT WITH THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT -- >> WHICH WE DEFINITELY WANT TO DO -- >> YES. FOR MANY REASONS -- >> AS PART OF THE MULTICOUNCIL -- AS THE DIVISION OF MULTICOUNCIL WORKING GROUP, WE ARE DETERMINING OPINIONS OF THESE PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO DO A RESPONSIBLE JOB OF ADDRESSING ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE MULTICOUNCIL WORKING GROUP CAN HELP THE COUNCILS ADVISE THE DIRECTORS AND INSTITUTES ON. >> SO DR. WILLARD, LET ME PROPOSE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PROCEDURE. DR.S HYMEN, DO YOU THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA? >> QUESTION, I DO. >> DR. RAMAL FINGER, HOW ABOUT YOU? >> THUMBS-UP. >> DR. GRADY? DR. YUSTA? >> NO, I CANNOT VOTE. I CANNOT -- >> YOU'RE NOT VOTING. I AM JUST ASKING YOU -- OKAY. DR. EBBER-WATT? >> YES. >> DR. FARHANI? >> YEAH. >> DR. D HYMEN? >> YES. >> AND DR. CHANRA PACA, WHOSE ANSWER IS NOT -- -- [INAUDIBLE]. AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA, TOO,. SO WE HAVE NOT HAD A VOTE, BUT WE HAVE HAD AN EXPRESSION OF OPINIONS. AND WE'LL SEE -- AND SO RAFA, I THINK THE NEXT STEP REALLY IS FOR CRISTINE AND I AND MIYOUNG AND SOME OF THE OTHER NIH PEOPLE -- CRISTINE IS AN NIH PERSON -- BUT SOME OF THE OTHER BRAIN INITIATIVE NIH PEOPLE TO GET TOGETHER AND BE BACK WITH YOU. AND I THINK WE CAN DO THAT WITHIN THE NEXT THREE OR FOUR YEARS. DID I SAY YEARS? I MEANT DAYS. WE WILL TRY TO GET BACK TO YOU SOON, RAFA, OKAY? NOW IN A SENSE WE MAY HAVE ACTUALLY JUMPED SOME GUNS IN THAT OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, THERE IS ON THIS TO SOME EXTENT BUT NOT PERFECTLY. AND THIS GOES BACK TO BRAIN 2025, WHICH TURNS OUT, WHEN I WAS WRITING THAT LITTLE THING WITH CRISTINE AND CARA THAT END UP IN "NEURON," WE WERE KIND OF SURPRISED TO SEE HOW MUCH BRAIN SAID ABOUT NEUROETHICS AND IT SAID SOME SIGNIFICANT STUFF, SOME OF WHICH HAS BEEN IN THE FOREFRONT OF OUR MINDS IN THIS DIVISION AND SOME OF WHICH MAYBE HASN'T BEEN IN THE FOREFRONT OF OUR MIND IN THIS DIVISION. AND SO CARA AND JAY HAVE TAKEN A LOOK AT THAT AND THEY ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THOSE GOALS ARE AND HOW WE ARE AND CAN BETTER BEAT THEM. SO I THINK WHAT WE WANT TO TRY TO DO IS QUICKLY OUTLINE FOR TIME REASONS WHAT THE BASIC TENETS OF THESE GOALS ARE. AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT IN FACT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE'S ALREADY WORKING ON, AS IN THIS GROUP AND SOME OF THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES AS WELL. AND TO SORT OF STRATEGIST WITH YOU ON WHAT ARE WE MISSING? I THINK THE BRAIN 2025 REPORT IS A GOOD STARTING POINT BUT IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE ANTICIPATED WHERE SOME OF THE THINGS ARE GOING. SO I THINK WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT FIGURE OUT AND ANTICIPATING, AS WE'VE HEARD THIS MORNING'S DISCUSSION, WHERE DO WE NEED TO BE AND LET'S GET THERE BEFORE WE HAVE TO, IF YOU WILL. >> SO BRAIN 2025 HAS A SET OF SCIENTIFIC PRIORITY AREAS. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT HAS A SERIES OF CORE PRINCIPLES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE OFFICE OF REPORT, ESSENTIAL FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE INITIATIVE. ONE OF THOSE IS THINKING THROUGH THE ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF BRAIN RESEARCH. SO THE AUTHORS OF THE REPORT LAID OUT THESE FOUR SPECIFIC GOALS. SO WE WANTED TO GET GENERAL THOUGHTS FROM THE DIVISION MEMBERS ON WHAT KINDS OF ACTIVITIES OR EFFORTS MIGHT BE USEFUL TO MEET GOALS. AND FOR THE SAKE OF TIME AND ALSO FOR THE SAKE OF JUST SORT OF DOING WHAT THE DIVISION IS CHARGED TO DO, WE WANTED TO KEEP THAT HIGH-LEVEL. WE DON'T NEED TO GET SORT OF INTO THE WEED ON WHAT KIND OF FUNDING MECHANISMS OR THINGS LIKE THAT BUT SORT OF GENERALLY WHAT KINDS OF THINGS WOULD HELP GET US TO THE END POINTS THAT ARE LAID OUT HERE. >> SO YOU GUYS CAN READ THESE FOUR GOALS AND THEN WE JUST HAVE A SERIES OF SLIDES, ONE FOR EACH GOALS THAT LISTS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE ALREADY BEEN COG IN THE TOPIC. OKAY. SO LIKE I SAID, JUST GENERALLY, ADDITIONAL EFFORTS MIGHT BE NEED. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS TODAY ALREADY. ARE THERE KEY PLAYERS BEYOND THE NIH? OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN'T DO EVERYTHING. HOW WILL WE KNOW THESE GOALS ARE ACHIEVED AND LIKE JAY SAID, IS THERE ANYTHING MISSING. NO, THE FIRST ONE. RESOURCES FOR COLLECTING AND DISSEMINATING BEST PRACTICES, PARTICULARLY FOR THE CONDUCT OF CLINICAL RESEARCH. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT RESOURCES AND WHETHER THAT MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE ALLIANCE VERSUS NEUROETHICS DIVISION PAGE. WE TALKED ABOUT THE ONE-PAGERS, THE RECOMMENDED READING LISTS. I DON'T KNOW DISH FEEL LIKE WE'VE ACTUALLY COVERED THIS PRETTY COMPREHENSIVELY TODAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANTED TO ADD? >> OBVIOUSLY, THE LAST DISCUSSION GOES JUST DIRECTLY TO THIS. IS THE TRAINING RESPONSIBILITIES, ESPECIALLY FOR THE CONDUCT OF CLINICAL RESEARCH, WHICH IS DOES THIS RESPONSIBILITY EXTEND -- AND WALTER, YOU WOULD HAVE A VIEW ON THIS -- TO THE CLINICIAN, NOT TO THE INVESTIGATORS NECESSARILY, BUT ALSO IF THIS IS IN THE CONTEXT OF CARE, DO WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE CLINICIANS AS WELL? >> AND ACTUALLY, COULD YOU PUT BACK UP THOSE FOUR GOALS? SO 3 AND 4 ARE THINGS THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE. I'M NOT SURE WHERE WHO ARE THE RIGHT ONES TO DO THEM AND WHO DO THEY GO FOR. >> THEY SEEM LIKE GOOD THINGS TO DO. >> THAT'S TRUE. WE HAVEN'T DONE THEM. I GUESS MY QUESTION THEN IS REALLY DEPENDENT ON WHETHER WE THINK THESE ARE THINGS WE SHOULD DO. BUT WALTER, I AM THINKING ABOUT SOMEONE WHO IS IN A RESEARCH STUDY AND YOU ARE NOW THE DOCTOR OF SOMEBODY WHO HAS BEEN IMPLANTED WITH SOMETHING, DON'T WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY THERE AS WELL THAT SHOULD BE ENUMERATED? >> YEAH. THIS IS A MAJOR CONCERN OF THE PEOPLE WHO CAME IN TO TALK TO US ABOUT THE IMPLANTABLE DEVICES TO THE POINT WHERE THEY SAID THEY CAN'T DO IT ANYMORE BECAUSE THERE IS NO SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM. BUT THAT IS STILL ON THE RESEARCH SIDE OF THINGS. I THINK -- TO YOUR POINT -- WAS THAT AS THE RESEARCH MOVES INTO CLINICAL PRACTICE, THE DISSEMINATION IS IMPORTANT. AND THAT COULD HAPPEN SOONER THAN LATER IF SOME OF THE DEVICES GET OUT INTO PRACTICE. CUE THINK OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES NEXT YEAR TRYING TO GET FDA APPROVAL TO BE ABLE TO RECORD BRAIN ACTIVITY. THOSE COULD BE WHY THEY DISSEMINATED. AND THEN YOU NEED TO TALK TO A NEUROSURGEON OR A NEUROLOGIST TAKING CARE OF THOSE PATIENTS BUT I THINK THAT IS A GOOD POINT. STAY IN FRONT OF THE BALL -- >> IS THAT A NEUROETHICS DIVISION KIND OF -- >> WELL, I THINK THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS WE DO USUALLY WITH PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS. SO WE HAVE WAYS OF -- WELL NOT WAYS BUT THEY'RE VERY INTERESTED IN THOSE ASPECTS OF THINGS AND SO TO GET SESSIONS AT THEIR MEETINGS I THINK IS WHAT WE HAVE -- >> I WOULD SAY THESE GOALS ARE GOALS THAT WERE SET FOR NIH. AND IN TERMS OF ACHIEVING WHAT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE WAS ALL ABOUT AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DIVISION IS TO HELP HOLD OUR FAITH TO THE FIRE THAT WE ARE MOVING TOWARD THOSE GOALS IN INTELLIGENT WAYS. >> I THINK PART OF OUR DISCUSSION IS WHAT ARE WE DOING AND WHAT CAN WE DO AS A DIVISION TO ADDRESS THESE GOALS? OR ARE THERE OTHER WAYS? >> 1 AND 2 LOOK LIKE WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING. 3 AND 4 LESS SO. MAYBE WE SHOULD -- I DON'T KNOW THAT WE ARE -- DO WE HAVE MEETING FOR TRAINING PROGRAMS? I DON'T KNOW THAT WE ARE THE RIGHT ENTITY TO DO TRAINING PROGRAMS. NIH DOES LOTS OF TRAINING PROGRAMS. IS THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULDN'T DO? IS IT SOMETHING WE SHOULD ONCE IN A WHILE NUDGE YOU AND YORB AND SAY YOU GUYS DO THOSE TRAINING PROGRAMS? AND THE OUTREACH ACTIVITIES, MAYBE WHAT WE'VE DONE COULD BE CONSIDERED SOME OF THAT? ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE EXPLICITLY DONE THINGS WHERE WE'VE SAID THIS IS AN OUTREACH ACTIVITY TO DO ALL THESE FOLKS AND SHOULD WE? >> I THINK WITH TRAINING, WE ARE FUNDING TRAINEES. SHOULD WE USE THAT AS A LEVER TO GET NEUROETHICS TRAINING INTO THOSE TRAININGS? THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING WHAT PEOPLE THINK. I THINK THE OUTREACH, WE HAD THOUGHT ABOUT THIS GENERAL IDEA OF MESSAGING TO THE GREATER PUBLIC AND HOW DO WE DO THAT? THE PEOPLE HAVE IDEAS. THE IDEA OF HAVING A FINAL WORKSHOP FOR SCIENCE WRITERS ABOUT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, WHICH COULD INCLUDE NEUROETHICS ISSUES TO TRY AND CREATE THE -- EDUCATE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THEN EDUCATING THE POPULUS. SO I THINK WE NEED TO KIND OF HIT ALL FOUR OF THESE BULLETS. AND INTERESTED IN INPUT IN HOW BEST TO DO THAT. >> SO I GUESS I AM HEARING TWO THINGS. ONE IS THE DIVISION CAN BE HELPFUL IN MAYBE DOING THINGS THAT FIT THESE GOALS BUT ALSO IN GIVING NEWER IDEAS ABOUT OTHER WAYS THAT THE NIH COULD ADDRESS THOSE GOALS. IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> OKAY. SO I THINK WE'RE SORT OF JUMPING TO THE LATTER TWO, WE WE HAVEN'T SPENT AS MUCH TIME. SO WE GO TO THE SECOND ONE. SO THIS IS -- WE HAVE THE RFAS HOPING TO FUND SOME PROJECTS THIS FALL. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE -- IS ANYTHING ELSE NEEDED? >> I MEAN TO SOME EXTENT THINGS LIKE ENDORSING OR PROVIDING PARTIAL SUPPORT FOR WORKSHOPS, WHETHER IT'S THE ONE RAFA HAD IN SEPTEMBER, IT'S WHATEVER THE NEXT ACTIVITY THROUGHOUT THE -- THAT TURNS OUT TO BE WHETHER IT'S THE ONE THAT NITA IS RUNNING AT DUKE IN APRIL. THAT'S ANOTHER ASPECT, I THINK OF THIS GOAL. >> SURE. AND THE NEXT GOAL, TOO. >> DOESN'T MEAN ONLY FINANCIAL SUPPORT. >> I THINK IF YOU LOOK THROUGHOUT BRAIN 2025, THEY EMPHASIZE THIS IDEA OF SUSTAINED INTERACTIONS BETWEEN ETHICISTS AND NEUROSCIENTISTS. AND RAFA AND SARAH IS EXACTLY THAT. I CAN SEE THAT. OKAY. SO HERE IS THE TRAINING. THERE IS ALSO A MEETING. SO I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WALTER RAISES IS WHAT DO PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THE IDEA OF INTEGRATING ETHICS INTO NEUROSCIENCE TRAINING? THAT'S KIND OF BROAD AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE CHARGE OF THIS DIVISION, IT'S FOCUSED ON THE BRAIN INITIATIVE SPECIFICALLY. SO MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND IN THINKING ABOUT HOW TO TARGET THIS. RAFA AND KAREN? >> THE COMMENT ON THE NEUROETHICS SESSION OF THE BRAIN MEETING. I THOUGHT IT WAS MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT SESSION TO THE MEETING, THE ONE THAT EVERYONE AVOIDED. SO WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO TRY TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE PIS THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE ISSUES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SUGGEST. I DON'T THINK IT'S -- >> WELL, TO BE FAIR -- I THINK THERE WERE PROBABLY 100 PEOPLE THERE, WHICH WAS PRETTY GOOD TO START. IT DOES REMIND ME OF THE SUGGESTION EARLY ABOUT SORT OF POLLING THE PIS. I THINK IF YOU GOT FROM THEM ISSUES THEY ARE THINKING ABOUT, THAT MIGHT MOTIVATE THEM TO DIME SESSION WHERE WE WOULD ADDRESS THOSE VERY ISSUES. I EXPECT A LOT OF THE PIS TO DO NON-HUMAN WORK. THIS IS OF NO POSSIBLE RELEVANCE TO ME, WHY SHOULD I SHOW UP? SO EITHER CONCEDEING THAT OR SELLING THEM ON WHY IT HAS RELEVANCE TO THEM IS PROBABLY AN IMPORTANT STEP TO TRY TO IMPROVE. >> WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE PIS ACTUALLY ARE DOING HUMAN WORK AT THIS STAGE? >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> WE DON'T COME CHEAP. >> SO I THINK KAREN -- SORRY. >> GO AHEAD, KAREN. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT WE MIGHT CONSIDER -- AND I THINK WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS MORE LATER -- BUT AS WE TALK ABOUT HOW TO COORDINATE WITH THE OTHER BRAIN PROJECTS. SOME OF THEM HAS AN EXPLOSIVE PLAN TO DO IT KIND OF EXCHANGE AND SHARED LEARNING. SO WE MIGHT PARTICIPATE OR FORM A PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS EITHER ACROSS BRAIN OR EVEN ACROSS THE BRAIN PROJECT GLOBALLY AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE MIGHT KIND OF TEST-DRIVE EMBEDDED NEUROETHICS TRAINING FOR PIS AND FOR STUDENTS AND EXPLORE MODELS WE COULD HELP DESIGN FROM THERE. I DON'T KNOW SOME OF US DO THAT BUT IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW WE MIGHT PLUG THIS INTO A MORE FORMAL MECHANISM. >> WITH RESPECT TO THE LAST ONE, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE AGREE THAT NEUROETHICS SHOULD BE INTEGRATED. IT WAS MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES THE MAIN RECOMMENDATION. THE REAL QUESTION I THINK IS HOW CAN THE NIH PROMOTE THAT? AND NOT ONLY THE NIH BUT MAYBE THE MULTICOUNCIL WORKING GROUP ORT DIVISION. HOW CAN WE PROMOTE THAT KIND OF IDEA OF INTEGRATING ETHICS AND SCIENCE MORE? AND CERTAINLY PUTTING SOME DIGS ON SOME FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES IS ONE POSSIBLE WAY TO DO IT. BUT NOT THE ONLY. >> IT BE A PLENARY TALK SO THAT EVERYBODY HEARS IT. I THINK TO RAFA'S POINT, IF YOU SEPARATED IT OUT AND PEOPLE VOTE, IT'S ME OR IT'S NOT. WITHOUT ACTUALLY KNOWING WHAT'S THE RIGHT ANSWER. SO I THINK AT THE MEETING YOU HAD THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE SCIENTISTS COME IN. FOR A LOT OF THEM THEY WALKED AWAY VERY IMPRESSED. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN EDUCATION TO OUR OWN FOLKS, TOO. I THINK THE ARTICLES, THAT SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN A LOT OF READS. >> FOLLOWING ON THAT SUGGESTION, HOW ABOUT LIKE TALKS BY A FEW NEUROTECHNOLOGISTS AND A FEW NEUROETHICISTS AND MAYBE INTERPOLATE IT AND AGENCY, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, WHATEVER, MIND-READING, BOOM, BOOM ACTUATION. THINGS LIKE THAT? AND EVEN SOME OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAD AT THE COLUMBIA MEETING, THEY COULD INSTILL THEIR MESSAGE IN FIVE MINUTES AND THAT WOULD KEEP EVERYONE UNDER -- ON THE END OF THE CHAIR BOTH FROM THE SIDE OF THE NEUROSCIENTISTS AND THE SIDE OF BIOETHICISTS. >> OTHER IDEAS? ON THE PHONE ANYBODY? >> INTUITIVE TO BOTH. >> THERE IS A LOT OF SUPPORT HERE FOR NEUROETHICS COMPONENT TO THE BRAIN BEHIND THE MEETING AND FIGURE OUT GOOD WAYS TO DO IT. I HAVE TO SAY IN MY BUSINESS AS A THEORETICAL PRODUCER, YOU WHICH IS ONE OF THOSE MANY THINGS NOBODY EVER TRAINS ME FOR, PUTTING ON PROGRAMS, I QUICKLY LEARNED THAT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IS TO IN A ROOM WITH OVER A THOUSAND SEATS, IT'S REALLY HARD NOT TO HAVE A DISAPPOINTED AUDIENCE. I THOUGHT THE AUDIENCE AT THAT PANEL WAS SMALLER IN QUANTITY THAN I WOULD HAVE LIKED, ACTUALLY GIVEN THE CONTEXT, NOT BAD IN QUANTITY, ALTHOUGH IN THAT ROOM IT LOOKED AWFUL. BUT THE QUALITY OF THE QUESTIONS AND THE INTERACTIONS, I WAS REALLY QUITE SPEECHLESS. THOSE PEOPLE WHO DID COME AND DID TALK WERE ENGAGED AND WERE INTERESTED AND LEFT ME FEELING GOOD ABOUT IT, EVEN THOUGH TYPICALLY BEING A PRESENTER IN A ROOM WHERE THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE UP TO THE FRONT SANE GOOD FEELING. I ACTUALLY RECEIVED SOME POSITIVE FEEDBACK VIA E-MAIL ABOUT THAT SESSION BEING VERY INTERESTING AND FROM OTHERS EXPRESSING DISAPPOINTMENT BECAUSE THERE WERE OTHER THINGS GOING ON THAT THEY HAD TO GO TO. SO THERE WERE COMPETING OBLIGATIONS. IT'S THE PRIMARY PURPOSE THEY HAD TO GO DO THEIR OTHER PIECE. BUT I THINK IT WAS A LITTLE -- >> HOW DID YOU GUYS PLAN THE PI MEETING AND WHO HAD THE PLANNING AND HOW CAN WE GET -- >> THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION AT THE BRAIN MULTICOUNCIL WORKING GROUP MEETING TOMORROW, WHICH IS ALSO GOING TO BE LIVE VIA WEBCAST. BUT WE ARE SHIFTING THE WAY THAT WE PLAN THE PI MEETINGS. SO IT'S GOING TO NOT BE IN DECEMBER IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER AND RIGHT AFTER THE MEETING WHEN EVERYONE IS TRAVELING AROUND AND WE'RE LOOKING TO BUMP INTO THE SPRING. SO IT'S LIKELY THAT THE NEXT PI MEETING WILL NOT BE UNTIL APRIL, 2018 OR SO. THAT BEING SAID, WE WILL BE ABLE TO KIND OF WORK WITH PEOPLE AND GET IT ON THEIR CALENDAR A LOT EARLIER, A LOT OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT DID NOTE THAT A LOT OF PARALLEL QUESTIONS ARE NOT IDEAL. SO THERE ARE THINGS ALREADY UNDER WAY, BUT NOW IT'S WAY IN ADVANCE AS OPPOSED TO LESS TIME. >> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. MESSAGE PI MEETING. WE WILL PULL OUT ALL THE TOPS. >> AND SORRY, THERE WAS A QUESTION RAISED EARLIER ABOUT THE PROPORTION OF GRANTS THAT ARE IN HUMAN SUBJECTS AND I THINK I DON'T WANT TO PARSE EVERY DISTINCTION THAT'S MADE HERE. ROUGHLY IT'S 250 PROJECTS. >> BATTING 200. >> THE PROPORTION OF PIS FOR HUMAN? >> THAT ONE WOULD BE CONFIDENTIAL. I'M NOT SURE WE COULD RELEASE THAT INFORMATION. >> JUST ONE COMMENT THAT YOU PROBABLY ALL KNOW THIS. BUT IN GETTING BUSY WORKING SCIENTISTS INTO THESE SESSIONS, YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT EVERYBODY WAS FORCED TO TAKE RESPONSIBLE -- EVERYONE THINKS OF THIS STILL AS A COMPLIANCE POLICE AND A RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH. AND THEIR PI, WHEN THEY WERE GRADUATE STUDENTS AT COME ON, YOU DON'T REALLY WANT TO GO TO THAT CRAP OR YOU HAVE TO SIGN IN -- I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT HOW THESE ARE TITLED, ADVERTISED. I MEAN YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE WORKING AGAINST ALL KINDS OF NEGATIVE ASSOCIATION AND DEVALUING ASSOCIATIONS, WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THESE TALKS, BUT THAT POINT WILL NOT BE OBVIOUS. AND SO MAYBE HANK DECIDES BEING A THEATER PRODUCER, YOU CAN ALSO BE A MADISON AVENUE-TYPE AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO OVERCOME THOSE ASSOCIATIONS. TO OVER COME THOSE ASSOCIATIONS. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. >> A NEUROSCIENTIST LIKE YOURSELF ON THE POSTER. >> HOW ABOUT ADDRESSING THIS AS A SOCIETAL CHALLENGES? AND THEN SORT OF BRAIN ETHICS THROUGH THE BACK DOOR AND YOU HAVE A FEW SPEAKERS WHO ARE TALKING ABOUT IDENTITY AND AGENCY AND WITH MULTIEXPERIMENTS OR MIND-READING -- >> I THINK THERE WILL BE SOME RESISTANCE TO THIS, BUT I REALLY THINK THIS IMPORTANT BRANDING AS FAR AS NEUROETHICS BEING A TOOL. THIS IS THE BRAIN INITIATIVES THAT ARE ARE TOOL DEVELOPMENT AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PHASE. BUT IT MAKES SENSE IF WE'RE -- I THINK WE ARE BELIEVING THAT NEUROETHICS IS SOMETHING THAT A WAY AS A TECHNOLOGY OF NEUROSCIENCE AND NOW WE'RE USING IT AS A WAY TO IMPROVE AND ACCELERATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF OTHER TOOLS Q I THINK IT SHOULD BE -- WHAT IS JUST LIKE WHEN YOU DO TRAINING OR ANY KIND OF ETHICS TRAINING. IF YOU DO IT SEPARATE FROM EVERYTHING ELSE, IT'S SEEN AS A SEPARATE, LESS IMPORTANT THING. IF IT'S INTEGRATED INTO THE CORE CONTENT, SO HERE ARE CUTTING EDGE TECHNOLOGIES AND HERE IS ANOTHER ONE. IN FACT, THIS IS THE NEWEST PRIORITY, THE BRAIN. IS THAT NOT SOMETHING THAT WE SAW AS INNOVATIVE AND NEW? AND WHY DON'T WE -- >> SOME GRADUATE PROGRAMS SAYING THAT CURRICULUMS WOULD LIKE TO STICK, IN TERMS OF REPLICABILITY OF SCIENCE AND RIGOR, WOULD LIKE TO STICK THINGS LIKE STUDY DESIGN AND POWER CALCULATIONS INTO THE RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH COURSE WHEN IT SHOULD BE IT'S ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO BE A GOOD EXPERIMENTALIST. SO I SECOND KAREN'S SUGGESTION. >> OKAY, SO THIS IS ONE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE BIT, IDEAS FOR OUTREACH. MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT THIS IS BROADER THAN JUST THE DIVISION AND THE ALLIANCE PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THIS. AND WALTER MENTIONED EARLIER THIS IDEA OF HAVING SORT OF A WORKSHOP FOR SCIENCE WRITERS. BUT WE'RE INTERESTED INTO SUGGESTIONS THAT YOU ALL MIGHT HAVE. >> WOULD THAT WORKSHOP BE IN CONJUNCTION WITH YOUR OFFICE -- SORRY, I DON'T KNOW THE NAME. >> COMMUNICATION AND SCIENTIFIC LIAISONS? >> POSSIBLY, YEAH. >> MARK USED TO RUN THESE SUMMER COURSES. THAT COULD BE A LITTLE BIT ONE OF THE PARTS OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVES AND MANY OF THESE GOALS CAN BE INCORPORATED IN THE PROGRAM. I THINK SHE'S VERY OPEN TO PARTNERING WITH THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. SO IT'S BROADER THAN JUST ETHICS. SO I THINK SHE COULD COVER THE COMMUNICATION AND -- MAYBE YOU KNOW BETTER. BUT MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHERS AS WELL. OUTREACH AS WELL. >> OKAY. >> PERHAPS ONE OF THE OTHER WAYS IN WHICH ONE COULD DO THIS OUTREACH. DO I A LOT OF TEACHING AND THEY HAVE WORKSHOPS AND COURSES ALL TROUT THE SUMMER AND THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND CONFERENCES WITH ISSUES OF SPECIFIC INTEREST. THERE MAY BE SOME WAY OF DOING A NEUROETHICS CONFERENCE OR WORKSHOP THAT MIGHT BE ATTRACTIVE TO THEM AND THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. SO IT'S A WHOLE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT MIGHT NOT NORMALLY SEE THIS. >> CAN I WEIGH IN ON THAT FOR A MOMENT? >> YES. >> CALLER: THANKS. SO DAN REACHED OUT TO ME TO ASK THAT I HELP ORGANIZE IS STEVE STILL IN THE ROOM? >> I AM. >> CALLER: GREAT. I'VE BEEN HARASSING STEVE, BECAUSE WE WANT STEVE TO HELP CO-ORGANIZE THIS. [LAUGHTER]. SO DEFINITELY INTERESTED. AND I THINK THAT -- I FEEL A SICKNESS COMING ON. >> I BET YOU DO. BUT LET ME ENCOURAGE YOU TO JOIN ME IN THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT'S A GREAT WAY TO CONVENE A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THIS ISSUE. ON THESE ISSUES. >> WELL, I'LL MEDITATE. BUT IF CALISA -- >> I'LL GET HER ON THE PHONE. >> AND JUST TO BE A LITTLE OFFICIAL HERE. LET'S NOTE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING EXAMPLES OF WAYS THINGS MIGHT BE DONE. WE'RE NOT ENDORSING SPECIFIC APPROACHES. >> THANK YOU. >> THESE GOALS ARE ONES THAT MANY PEOPLE COULD POTENTIALLY PARTICIPATE IN AND CONTRIBUTE TO. >> AND AS APPROPRIATE, HANK AND CRISTINE WILL RELAY THIS CONVERSATION TO THEM TOMORROW. >> YEP. >> OKAY. ANYTHING S ELSE ON THE GOALS? ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO HAVE A LAST WORD ABOUT THE GOALS, BRAIN 2025? >> WE NEED TO BREAK. >> WE'RE ONLY 11 MINUTES LATE. BETTER. >> SO LET'S TAKE 15 MINUTES. IS THAT ALL RIGHT? >> SURE. WE'VE BUDGETED FOR 19 AT THIS POINT. >> 19 MINUTES. >> 18 1/2. >> THE ORIGINAL DRAWING, I ENCOURAGE YOU, IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, TO GO TAKE A LOOK. IT'S THE FIRST FLOOR TOWARD THE BACK. >> AFTER THE BREAK, WE MOVE INTO OUR CLOSED SESSION. I AM NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHO THAT MEANS. >> DIVISION MEMBERS AND NIH STAFF