>> GOOD MORNING, I'M SUSAN WEISS, FEDERAL DESIGNATED OFFICIALFOR THIS GROUP, I WORK AT NIDA. I WELCOME YOU TO THE 11th MEETING OF THE BRAIN MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP. I THINK -- I WANT TO REMIND YOU, I DON'T THINK IT'S ANYBODY'S FIRST MEETING BUT THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL FACA OR ADVISORY COMMITTEE. IT IS A WORK GROUP WHICH MEANS THAT TECHNICALLY IT'S ADVISORY TO THE ADVISORY COUNCILS. IT WAS SET UP THIS WAY BECAUSE IT WAS RECOGNIZED FROM THE START THAT WE NEEDED MORE EXPERTISE THAN A SINGLE COUNCIL WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM COUNCILS FROM THE BRAIN MEETING AND AT-LARGE MEMBERS FOR ADDITIONAL EXPERTISE. WE'LL HAVE OPEN AND CLOSED SESSIONS, STARTING WITH THE OPEN SESSION, SO I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT THAT'S BEING VIDEOCAST AND RECORDED, SO IT WILL BE PUT ON THE "BRAIN" WEBSITE AFTERWARDS AND EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS ON THE RECORD. I'LL TALK TO YOU AGAIN ABOUT THE RULES FOR THE CLOSED SESSION BEFORE WE BEGIN THAT, WHICH IS AROUND ELEVEN, AND I WANTED TO JUST TAKE A MINUTE TO THANK THE PEOPLE WHO WORKED VERY HARD TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN, INCLUDING SAMANTHA WHITE, KARA RAMOS, KRISTIN DUPREE AND AMY ADAMS. THIS IS NOT A MINOR UNDERTAKING FOR PEOPLE TO GET EVERYTHING TOGETHER FOR US. SO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP IN THIS. WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE PHONE. I JUST WANT TO CHECK TO SEE IF THEY ARE ON YET. JIM EBERWINE, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE? BIN HEE. I THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO BE ON THE IN THE MORNING. >> (INAUDIBLE). >> OKAY. BIN HEE. CHRISTOPH SCHREINER. ARE YOU GUYS MUTED? ARE YOU JUST SHY? IF ANYBODY HAS ANY PROBLEMS EITHER CALLING IN OR OTHERWISE GETTING ON TO THE WEBCAST, PLEASE CONTACT SAM, SAMANTHA WHITE, SHE WILL BE ABLE TO HELP YOU, OR HER TEAM. EMERY BROWN, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE? >> IS ANYBODY ON THE PHONE? IS THERE ANYBODY? >> DO WE HAVE THE ROOM MUTED AGAIN? >> (INAUDIBLE). >> HOPEFULLY THEY WILL BE JOINING US, IF THEY ARE NOT ON THE PHONE NOW, AND IN THE MEANTIME I THINK WE CAN JUST TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO GO AROUND THE ROOM WITH INTRODUCTIONS BRIEFLY. SUSAN WEISS, FROM NIDA. >> HANK GREELY, STAND FORD LAW SCHOOL, AT-LARGE. >> BRUCE OWES INNABIB. >> EVE MARDEN. I DON'T KNOW IN I'M HERE. >> DAVID MARCOWICZ AAA PA. >> CARLOS PENA, FDA. >> CHRIS WALSH REPRESENTING NIMH COUNCIL. >> CAROL MASON REPRESENTING NEI. >> FRANCIS YENSEN REPRESENTING NICHD. >> NED TALLEY FROM NINDS. >> AND GREG FARBER FROM NIMH. >> JOSH GORDON. >> WALTER KOROSHETZ, NINDS. >> I THINK WE CAN START. WE'LL BEGIN WITH AN UPDATE ON "BRAIN" FROM WALTER AND JOSH, SO I THINK CAN YOU DO THIS FROM HERE. >> YES, I THINK SO. >> GREAT. >> THANKS, EVERYONE, FOR COMING IN AND HELPING US WITH THIS INCREDIBLY IMPACTFUL AND IMPORTANT AND EXCITING PROJECT. AND INITIATIVE, THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FAIRLY SHORT OPEN SESSION AND GO INTO CLOSED SESSION MID-MORNING TO REVIEW THE PAY PLANS, SO A LITTLE SHORTER ON THE OPEN SESSION THAN USUAL BUT PEOPLE HAVE IDEAS, PLEASE GET THEM OUT ON THE TABLE. SO AS WE USUALLY DO, I WANTED TO START WITH JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW. THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THE WEBCAST WHO MAY NOT BE AS FAMILIAR WITH THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AS EVERYBODY AROUND THE TABLE. SO AS PEOPLE AROUND THE TABLE KNOW, THAT THIS WAS A VERY AMBITIOUS PROJECT LAUNCHED IN FIRST FUNDING IN 2014, AND THE PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT CRYSTALLIZED OVER A COUPLE YEARS BEFORE THAT TIME, AND WAS DOCUMENTED IN THIS BRAIN 2025 REPORT, PUT TOGETHER BY A REALLY STRONG VERY CAREFUL AND WISE GROUP OF SCIENTISTS, AND THIS HAS KIND OF BEEN OUR GUIDE BOOK FOR NIH IN LAUNCHING FUNDING PLANS FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE WHICH YOU'LL SEE LATER TODAY. THE GOAL OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS FOCUSED NOT ON ALL NEUROSCIENCE BUT ON A PARTICULAR SPACE TO TRY TO GET THE TOOLS THAT ALLOW US TO MONITOR AND MODULATE CIRCUIT ACTIVITY IN THE BRAIN. AND THE IDEA IS THAT WE HAVE SEEN AN EXPLOSION IN MOLECULAR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT TH NERVOUS SYSTEM OVER THE LAST 20 OR 30 YEARS, BUT HOW THESE MOLECULAR -- HOW THESE DIFFERENT MOLECULES INTERACT TO FUNCTION IN THE NERVOUS SYSTEM REQUIRES REALLY UNDERSTANDING HOW BRAIN ACTIVITY AND INFORMATION PROCESSING OCCURS IN THE BRAIN THROUGH THE CIRCUITS THAT BE INCREDIBLY COMPLEX FROM THE MULTIPLE SCALES OF GOING FROM, YOU KNOW, NANOSCALE OF RECEPTORS INTERACTING WITH LIGANDS, TO INTERACTIONS BETWEEN GLIA AND NEURONS, ONE NEURON TO ANOTHER, NUCLEI TO NUCLEI AND THEN ACROSS THE BRAIN, AND WHAT IS, YOU KNOW, THE MOST COMPLICATED INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM ANYBODY HAS EVER SEEN OR IMAGINED, AND WE HAVE NEVER HAD THE TOOLS TO ACTUALLY SEE THIS KIND OF ACTIVITY. WE DON'T HAVE -- BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE ACTIVITY, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE FOR HOW THE BRAIN PROCESSES THIS KIND OF INFORMATION, AND SO THIS FOCUS ON TECHNOLOGY, NEUROTECHNOLOGY, THE HOPE WAS THAT THIS WOULD KIND OF OPEN THE DOOR TO A MUCH MORE SOPHISTICATED WAY OF LOOKING AT CIRCUITS. THEN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE NIH WHERE THE H STANDS FOR HEALTH, WE STAND BY THE FACT THAT THE MORE WE KNOW ABOUT HOW THE BRAIN WORKS, THE MORE WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HELP PEOPLE WHO HAVE DISORDERS OF THE BRAIN AND THESE DISORDERS, NEURAL, MENTAL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDERS ARE THE MAJOR CAUSE OF DISABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES, THEY HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY OF CONCERN TO THE PUBLIC AND THE CONGRESS. THE SYMPTOMS ARE DUE TO CIRCUIT DYSFUNCTION, AND THE HOPE IS BY SEEING THESE CIRCUITS IN ACTION, BY THEN UNDERSTANDING, TAKING THESE TOOLS TO DISEASES, WE'LL UNDERSTAND HOW THESE DIFFERENT DISEASES AFFECT CIRCUIT FUNCTION AND ALLOW US TO TARGET TREATMENTS THAT WILL EITHER COMPENSATE OR NORMALIZE FOR THE ABNORMAL CIRCUIT BEHAVIOR THAT GIVES RISE TO DEPRESSION, SCHIZOPHRENIA, CHRONIC PAIN AND PARKINSON'S DISEASE, WHERE THERE'S A NICE EXAMPLE OF HOW THE KNOWLEDGE HAS LED TO DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION WHICH HAS BEEN A VERY EFFECTIVE TREATMENT FOR THAT CIRCUIT PROBLEM IN THAT OCCURS IN PARKINSON'S. THAT'S KIND OF THE EARLY SUMMARY OF WHAT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE WAS ABOUT. NOW, WE HAVE ALL ALONG COLOR CODED EXACTLY WHERE OUR MONEY GOES AND WHERE THE DIFFERENT BUNDLES OF SCIENCE ARE, AND SO YOU SEE HERE THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDING INTO THESE DIFFERENT AREAS OF RESEARCH, SO CELL TYPES, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE PARTS LIST IN THE BRAIN, GET A CENSUS OF ALL THE CELL TYPES OF THE BRAIN, SEEMED VERY INTERESTING. MAYBE WE COULD MAKE SOME PROGRESS THERE, WHEN WE STARTED THAT WAS THE IDEA, BUT THAT TECHNOLOGY TOTALLY HAS EXPLODED. AND NOW HAS GOTTEN TO THE POINT WE THINK, AND WE HAVE ACTUALLY, FUNDED A LARGE PROJECT THAT WOULD GET US A CELL CENSUS OF HOPEFULLY ALL THE NEURONS IN THE MOUSE BRAIN. THE KEY TO KNOW IS THAT THIS IS GIVEN THE TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE NOW, THIS IS NOT JUST A LIST OF CELLS BUT THIS ANALYSIS GIVES US GENETIC ACCESS TO PARTICULAR CELL TYPES, WHICH IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR THE NEXT THING WHICH IS TRYING TO DEVELOP THE TOOLS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THESE CELLS INTERACT IN CIRCUITS AND SO CELL ANALYSIS LEADS QUICKLY TO THESE GENETIC TOOLS THAT HAVE BEEN SO POWERFUL THAT ALLOW CELL TYPE SPECIFIC MODULATION AND MONITORING, AND THEN TOOLS TO RECORD AND MODULATE FROM LARGE NUMBER OF CELLS. PEOPLE ARE NOW WRITING PAPERS ABOUT CAPTURING THE FIRING RATES OF A MILLION CELLS SIMULTANEOUSLY IN AWAKE BEHAVING ANIMALS OVER THE CORTEX. AGAIN, YOU KNOW, 20 YEARS AGO IT WAS RECORD FROM A SINGLE NEURON, MAYBE TWO NEURONS IN A BEHAVING ANIMAL, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE CIRCUIT IS. BUT THIS WHOLE AREA IS REALLY TRANSFORMATIVE BY THE ABILITY NOW TO OPTICALLY SEE TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF NEURONS FIRING IN AWAKE BEHAVING ANIMAL. YES, DR. MARDA? >> THERE'S NO COMPUTATIONAL STUFF SPECIFICALLY THERE BUT YOU MUST BE FUNDING, SO -- AND WHERE'S THE TRAINING? DOES THAT MEAN YOU HAVEN'T FUNDED ANY TRAINING THINGS UNTIL NOW? >> THAT'S CORRECT. SO THE TRAINING BUDGET IS RAMPING UP NOW, RIGHT. THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU CAN SEE NUMBERS DOWN BELOW. >> THESE ARE THOUSANDS. >> I DON'T SEE ANYTHING CALLED TRAINING DOWN THERE. >> TRAINING DISSEMINATION, THE BLUE, THE LIGHT BLUE. >> OH THERE IT IS. >> THERE'S AWARDS, THE FELLOWSHIPS AND SMALL THINGS, SMALL DOLLAR AMOUNTS SO THEY ARE NOT GOING TO SHOW UP IN THE GRAPH VERY STRONGLY. >> EVE, I THINK YOU'RE POINTING TO SOMETHING THAT'S ABSOLUTELY TRUE. WE HAVE NOT INVESTED HEAVILY IN TRAINING AND DISSEMINATION OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES YET, AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO THINK HARD ABOUT AS WE MOVE FORWARD. >> SO AT SOME POINT CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE EXTRA BURDEN OF THE RAIN ON THE PROPOSALS THAT ARE COMING IN FOR TRAININ? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REALIZE, AND MAYBE IT'S NOT FOR NOW, BUT TO JUSTIFY K99, PART OF THE BRAIN, THERE'S A LOT OF EXTRA WRITING BURDEN, HAVING LIVED THROUGH A K99 SUBMISSION IT'S ACTUALLY CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. IT'S NASTY. SO I THINK YOU MAY BE LOSING PEOPLE WHO JUST GET DISCOURAGED. IT'S PRETTY DISCOURAGING. >> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DIVERSITY K99 WHERE WE HAD OUR FIRST RECEIPT DATE, AND ACTUALLY I'M ONE OF THE PROGRAM CONTACTS, AND SO I'VE BEEN ENGAGED IN A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH APPLICANTS REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THEIR PROPOSAL IS APPROPRIATE FOR BRAIN VERSUS ONE OF THE INSTITUTES. YOU KNOW, IT'S A TRICKY QUESTION THAT REQUIRES US TO HAVE PEOPLE JUMP THROUGH SOME EXTRA HOOPS, BUT WE COULD DISCUSS WAYS IN WHICH WE COULD REDUCE THE BURDEN. >> THE BURDEN IS QUITE APPRECIABLE BECAUSE IT'S EVERYWHERE. SO WE SHOULD TALK. >> OKAY. CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT THAT. I THINK THE K99 FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, YOU KNOW, IT IS THE FIRST EXAMPLE, NOT PROUD OF THE FACT WE HAD SO FEW WOMEN IN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE BUT WE WERE ABLE, AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME ANYBODY HAS DONE THIS, IS TO INCLUDE GENDER AS A DIVERSITY CHARACTERISTIC FOR THAT K99/R00 AWARD. SO YOU'RE JUMPING THROUGH HOOPS, WE JUMP THROUGH HOOPS, ULTIMATELY THE GOAL TO BE GOOD ONE. WE SHOULD SIMPLIFY. >> HOW MANY APPLICATIONS DID YOU GET? >> IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE TYPICALLY DISCUSS IN OPEN SESSION. >> OKAY, TELL ME LATER. >> AND THEY JUST CAME IN, SO ... >> IF WE CAN SIMPLIFY THINGS, WE SHOULD SIMPLIFY. WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT APPLICATION PROCESS IS LIKE. WE'LL DO OUR BEST. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT, OKAY? OKAY. SO THE BLUE AREA IS THE HUMAN WORK THAT'S BEEN GOING ON IN TRYING TO DEVELOP WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN MONITOR THESE SIGNALS THAT WE KNOW ARE COMING OUT OF THE BRAIN AND KNOW MORE DEEPLY WHAT THEY MEAN FROM THE ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS, BUT DIFFICULT TO GET OUT OF THE HUMAN BRAIN AND SO THESE PROJECTS ARE IN PATIENTS HEAVILY, SOME OF THEM ARE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS TO DEVELOP NEW TOOLS THAT COULD BE USED IN PEOPLE, AND THEY ARE CERTAINLY MANY OF THE ONES THAT REQUIRE NEUROSURGERY ARE MORE EXPENSIVE SO THE DOLLARS THAT HAVE GONE TO THAT SPACE HAVE INCREASED. WHAT YOU'RE SEEING, ANOTHER THING WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT LATER, THE STIPPLED AREA, AREAS OF RESEARCH WE FUNDED FULLY IN A GIVEN YEAR. JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT WE GENERALLY DO, NIH, TO FUND YEAR BY YEAR. BUT WE HAVE SPECIAL AUTHORITY IN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE FOR GRANTS THAT SEEM LIKE THERE'S NOTHING THAT COULD GO WRONG WITH THEM, CLEARLY MULTI-YEAR HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE GRANTS, THAT WE CAN USE, WE CAN FUND ALL OF THOSE YEARS IN A SINGLE YEAR. AND THIS HELPS US PRIMARILY IN BUDGETING FOR OUT YEARS BECAUSE WE CAN USE THE FUNDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE WITHOUT INCURRING OUT-YEAR COSTS WHICH AS THEY GROW CUT INTO THE ABILITY TO FUND ANY NEW GRANTS BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY NEW MONEY LEFT UNLESS YOU WORK THIS -- TRY AND SMOOTH OUT THIS PROCESS OF FINANCING. TRAINING DISSEMINATION, AS EVE MENTIONED, SOMETHING BEING RAMPED UP. DATA COORDINATION INFORMATICS BEING RAMPED UP, NEUROETHICS, FIRST FORRAY INTO THAT SPACE AGAIN BEING RAMPED UP. THESE ARE THE NUMBERS YOU SEE IN THE DIFFERENT AREAS. NOW, THIS IS -- EVE ALSO MENTIONED, WHERE IS THEORY AND COMPUTATIONAL WORK? SOME OF THAT IS CLEARLY IN THE UNDERSTANDING CIRCUITS SPACE, AND WE ALSO ARE NOW WORKING WITH THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FOR THE COMPUTATIONAL RESEARCH IN NEUROSCIENCE AND BRINGING THOSE GRANTS INTO THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, AND THERE ARE ALSO P.R. COMPUTATIONAL AND THEORY GRANTS. AND WITH THOSE BEING TO UNDERSTAND CIRCUITS, YEAH, WE COULD BREAK THOSE OUT IF PEOPLE WANT, PARTICULARLY COMPUTATIONAL THEORY STUFF. >> YEAH, ACTUALLY FOR THE WORKING GROUP THAT'S DOING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PORTFOLIO, WE DID BREAK IT OUT AND PROVIDED A FULL BREAKDOWN OF WHAT THE DIFFERENT RFAs ARE PRESENTING, WHAT CATEGORIES THEY FALL INTO, IN THESE GENERAL CATEGORIES. >> OKAY. SO LET ME SPEED UP HERE A BIT. OVER THE YEARS NOW WE HAVE FUNDED PEOPLE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, ALL OVER THE WORLD, AND WE GENERALLY KIND OF FOR THE PEOPLE ON THE WEBCAST MAYBE AROUND THE TABLE HIGHLIGHT ONE OR TWO THINGS THAT HAVE COME OUT OVER THE LAST YEAR. THERE'S LOTS OF EXCITING RESEARCH, AND WE ACTUALLY ARE TRACKING IT ON OUR WEBSITE. SO WE'RE TRACKING THE PUBLICATIONS ON THE NIH BRAIN INITIATIVE WEBSITE. THIS IS A NEW TECHNIQUE TO DEVELOP, AGAIN, GENETICALLY ENCODED SENSORS THAT PERMIT ULTRA FAST IMAGING OF DOPAMINE IN THE BRAIN, SO THE ENGINEERING HERE IS TO DEVELOP A RECEPTOR THAT EMITS PHOTONS WHEN DOPAMINE BINDS TO US. YOU SEE EXPERIMENTS IN THE WAKE OF THE BEHAVING ANIMAL IS CHANGES YOU CAN SEE IN THE BOX WHERE REWARD CAUSES A PHASIC INCREASE AND THERE'S ALSO BASELINE TONIC DOPAMINE RELEASED IN BASAL GANGLIA, SO WITH PAIN YOU ACTUALLY SEE A DROP IN THAT, AND WITH LEARNING AGAIN YOU CAN FOLLOW DOPAMINE PHASIC RESPONSES, SO INTERESTING AREA IN AND OF ITSELF, IT KIND OF OPENS THE DOOR TO THE IDEA WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THESE KIND OF OPTICAL IMAGING OF RECEPTOR ACTIVITY FOR MANY, IF NOT ALL, RECEPTORS IN THE BRAIN WHICH OPENS UP A WHOLE NEW AREA OF BASIC RESEARCH. THIS IS ANOTHER ONE, A BREAKTHROUGH TECHNOLOGY USING RABIES VIRUS WHICH HAS BEEN DEVELOPED TO DO RETROGRADE TRACING IN THE BRAIN, SO INJECTED INTO THE BRAIN IT WILL LABEL THE CELLS THAT HAVE THEIR AXONS AND SYNAPSES GOING INTO THE SPACE, WHERE THE INJECTION OCCURS THE ISSUE IN THE PAST HAS BEEN THE RABIES VIRUS ALTHOUGH WOULD ALLOW YOU TO PICK UP THESE RETROGRADE CONNECTIONS, IT WOULD KILL THE CELLS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, AND SO YOU COULD GET THE ANATOMICAL CONNECTIONS BUT IF YOU WANT TO DO THE PHYSIOLOGY WITH THE ANATOMY THAT WAS A PROBLEM. BUT NOW WICKERSHAM'S GROUP HAS BEEN ABLE TO MODIFY THE RABIES VIRUS TO MAKE IT SUCH THE CELLS LIVE OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIMES UP TO 124 DAYS IN THE EXPERIMENT AND SHOWED THAT THE PHYSIOLOGY SEEMS TO BE UNAFFECTED BY THE RABIES VIRUS, SO NOW YOU CAN DO PHYSIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS ON CELLS THAT YOU KNOW ARE GOING TO A PARTICULAR BRAIN AREA. SO I THINK A NICE EXAMPLE WITH THE BRAIN INITIATIVE HAS LED TO IN TERMS OF TECHNOLOGIES THERE FOR TRACING, BUT ALSO TO INTEGRATE WITH THE PHYSIOLOGY. A COUPLE THINGS IN THE PATIENT SPACE, THIS IS WORK DONE BY A GROUP THAT RECORDS ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY FROM PATIENTS WHO ARE UNDERGOING MONITORING PRIOR TO EPILEPSY SURGERY TO THE RESEARCH HERE TO UNDERSTAND HOW DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE BRAIN ACT, HOW ACTIVITY IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE BRAIN LEADS TO THE VERY KIND OF EXQUISITE VOCALIZATIONS THAT ARE CAUSED BY REALLY COMPLEX CONTRACTION AND RELAXATION OF ABOUT 100 MUSCLES IN YOUR MOUTH AND PHARYNX AND LARYNX TO SPEAK, ECoG ACTIVITY OVER THE BRAIN, LOOKING AT ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH PARTICULAR LEADS AND PLACES WITH THE ACTUAL PROTECTION OF PHONINES. AN EXAMPLE BETWEEN BASIC NEUROSCIENCE AND IN HUMAN BRAIN THAT'S ALLOWED BY THESE PATIENTS WHO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH. AND YESTERDAY'S NEUROETHICS MEETING WHICH HANK WILL TALK ABOUT FOCUSED HEAVILY ON THE ETHICS AND HOW DO WE ETHICALLY DO THIS KIND OF RESEARCH IN PEOPLE WITH THESE INVASIVE RECORDING DEVICES. THIS IS A STUDY OF THE FIRST, MAYBE SECOND CLOSED LOOP DEVICE. THIS IS FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE, IT'S A DEEP BRAIN STIMULATOR, THE DEEP BRAIN STIMULATOR IS NOW NOT ONLY ALLOWING YOU TO STIMULATE THE BRAIN BUT THEY ALLOW YOU TO RECORD FROM MULTIPLE DIFFERENT RECORDING SITES ON THESE ELECTRODES AND MANY OF THE RESEARCHERS ARE ALSO SLIPPING A SERIES OF THESE STRIPS OF ELECTRODES OVER THE SURFACE OF THE BRAIN SO NOT ONLY GETTING INFORMATION FROM DEEP BRAIN ACTIVITY WHERE THE STIMULATION IS GOING ON BUT ALSO OVER THE CORTEX. NOW, THE REASON WHY THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IN THIS SPACE IS BECAUSE WHAT THIS GROUP HAS FOUND AND OTHERS HAVE FOUND IS THAT THERE'S A HIGH GAMMA BAND WHICH IS VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE BUT IF YOU LOOK IN THE BLUE ON THESE, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A THIN YELLOW LINE THAT COMES AND GOES. THAT'S THE GAMMA ACTIVITY. THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH DYSKINESIA, WHEN PEOPLE ARE OVERSTIMULATED. WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS A CLOSED LOOP DEVICE THAT AUTOMATICALLY DECREASES THE VOLTAGE IN THE DEEP BRAIN STIMULATOR, THE DROP IN THE BLUE LINE. ANYTIME THEY SEE THIS GAMMA ACTIVITY. SO WHAT THEY HAVE SHOWN IS THIS CLOSED-LOOP DEVICE IS EFFECTIVELY TREATING THE PARKINSON'S AND ALSO PREVENTS THE STIMULATION FROM GOING INTO THE SPACE WHERE IT WOULD CAUSE THE DYSKINESIAS. INTERESTING EXAMPLE BUT THEORETICALLY PUTS ON THE TABLE THIS IDEA THAT THROUGH THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AND OTHER WORK THE IDEA THAT STIMULATION. BRAIN COULD BE TIED TO ACTIVITY ITSELF, BRAIN ACTIVITY ITSELF, IN A CLOSED LOOP FASHION IS KIND OF A THEORETICAL BREAKTHROUGH THAT HOPEFULLY WILL BE HELPFUL IN MANY DIFFERENT DISORDERS. THAT'S THE SPACE WHICH WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT TODAY ABOUT WHERE THEY ARE. I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO JOSH TO TALK ABOUT THE FUNDING AND SOME OF THE NEW FOAs COMING OUT. >> YOU'VE SEEN THIS CURVE BEFORE, FUNDING FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, BOTH PAST LEADING TO 2018, THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, AND FUTURE PROJECTIONS. THE OLIVE PORTIONS OF THE BARS ARE THE FUNDING THAT IS SET ASIDE IN THE 21ST CENTURY CURES ACT, AS YOU CAN SEE THAT SUPPLEMENTS THE BLUE PORTION OF THOSE BARS LOOKING FORWARD, WHICH IS THE BRAIN INITIATIVE FUNDING THAT IS BUILT INTO THE BASE BUDGET OF THE NATIONAL -- OF THE INSTITUTES THAT SUPPORT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. A COUPLE THINGS ABOUT IT. ONE, YOU CAN SEE WE'VE ACHIEVED OR AT LEAST THE PLAN IS TO ACHIEVE THE 400 TO $500 MILLION RANGE SUGGESTED BY THE INITIAL 2025 REPORT, INCLUDING ALLOCATIONS IN THE BASE REMAIN STEADY THROUGH 2026. THE OTHER THING YOU'LL NOTICE OF COURSE IS THAT THE RAMP-UP THAT WENT FROM 2014 TO 2018 HAS COMPLETED, AND THAT HAS BUDGET IMPLICATIONS AT LEAST THROUGH 2022. IN 2023 DUE TO VAGUARYING OF THE BUDGET PROCESS WE HAVE A LARGE INFLUX IN FUNDS WHICH HOPEFULLY WILL ALLOW US TO CARRY OUT BIGGER IDEAS THAT COME OUT OF THE WORKING GROUP 2.0 PROCESS YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT LATER. SO, THIS IS MY NOTE ABOUT THAT WORK GROUP. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, YOU KNOW WE HAVE NOW SET UP AN ADVISORY WORK GROUP OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE NIH, THAT IS TO FRANCIS, WORKING GROUP 2.0 TO HELP US PLAN FOR THE FUTURE DOLLARS. COMING BACK TO THE NEAR FUTURE, BEFORE 2023, LEVELING OFF CREATES COMPLICATIONS. IT'S EASY TO SHOW YOU HERE BY LOOKING AT THE BUDGET, PARSING IT OUT INTO WHAT WE CALL NON-COMPETING AWARDS, THAT IS THE OUT YEARS OF AWARDS MADE IN PRIOR YEARS, THAT'S THE GRAY PORTION OF THE BARS IN THE UPPER HALF, AND THEN COMPETING AWARDS IN BLUE. WE'VE SEPARATED THE TOP GRAPH IN TWO PORTIONS, THE DARKER BLUE ON THE TOP GRAPH IS WHAT WE CALL COMPETING FIRST YEAR AWARDS, MEANING THESE ARE AWARDS THAT WE GIVE IN THE TYPICAL WAY THAT MOST NIH GRANTS ARE GIVEN, WHICH IS WE GIVE THE INSTITUTES ONLY THAT FIRST YEAR'S WORTH OF MONEY. IN THE BLUE, WE USE AUTHORIZATION WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE BRAIN INITIATIVE TO FUND -- FULLY FUND GRANTS IN THEIR FIRST YEAR, MEANING THE INSTITUTE WILL HAVE ALL THREE TO FIVE YEARS OF FUNDING DEPENDING UPON THE LENGTH OF GRANT GIVEN TO THE INSTITUTION, DURING THE FIRST YEAR. AND WHY ARE WE DOING THAT? ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE DOING THAT IS TO AVOID WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN YOU GET A LEVELING OFF OF FUNDS IN THE GIVEN PROGRAM. IF WE DID NOT MULTI-YEAR FUND, THAT IS FORWARD FUND THE OUT YEARS OF A PORTION OF THE GRANTS, WE WOULD HAVE THE ENTIRE BUDGET FOR, LET'S SAY, 2020 OR 2021 COMMITTED TO OUT-YEAR FUNDS IN WHICH CASE WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AWARD VERY MANY IF ANY GRANTS FOR THOSE YEARS. SO WE FUNDED FEWER GRANTS IN FY 18, THAT'S THIS BAR HERE, FEWER GRANTS OVERALL, ACTUALLY STILL MORE THAN WE FUNDED LAST YEAR BUT FEWER NEW GRANTS THAN WE COULD HAVE FUNDED BUT INSTEAD FORWARD FUNDED, IF YOU WILL, MULTI-YEAR FUNDED APPROXIMATELY I THINK IT'S ABOUT $60 OR $70 MILLION WORD OF WORTH OF GRANTS TO NOT CARRY OVER TO ALLOW US TO CONTINUE FUNDING COMPETING GRANTS AT AROUND THE SAME LEVEL AS FY17 AND FY 18 FOR FY19 AND FY 20. YOU KNOW THERE'S A DIP IN 21. WE CAN ADJUST THAT DIP DEPENDING HOW MUCH MULTI-YEAR FUNDING WE PLAN TO DO IN FY 20. THIS IS ONE PARTICULAR MODEL, WE'LL ADJUST THAT MODEL DEPENDING UPON A COUPLE THINGS. NUMBER ONE WHAT WORKING GROUP 2.0 COMES UP WITH. MAYBE THEY WILL COME UP WITH NEW IDEAS WE WANT TO TRY TO GET STARTED IN FY 20 OR 21, IN WHICH CASE WE'LL FUND MORE GRANTS HERE, MEASURE IN 20, AND FEWER IN 21, MAYBE IT WILL TAKE US A WHILE TO WORK ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS SO WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO MULTI-YEAR FUND MORE GRANTS IN 20 AND KEEP A LARGER NUMBER OF NEW GRANTS IN 21. SO THIS MODEL ALLOWS US TO GENERALLY KEEP FAIRLY STEADY IN TERMS OF THE NEW GRANTS WE'RE ABLE TO OFFER, AND THEN IN 2023 THE BALL GAME IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE THAT INFUSION OF NEW FUNDS FROM THE CURES ACT. BUT THE MESSAGE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE GETS OUT TO OUR BRAIN GRANTEES IS THAT THIS ERA OF INCREASING DOLLARS SPENT ON NEW GRANTS, THAT IS INCREASED MONIES, INCREASED NUMBERS OF NEW RFAs, ET CETERA, IS AT LEAST IN A PAUSE, RIGHT? WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO OUR BEST TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENT NUMBERS OF NEW GRANTS OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS BUT AS ANY PROGRAM LEVELS OFF, THAT MEANS THAT THE NUMBER OF NEW GRANTS HAS TO LEVEL OFF, OR ACTUALLY EVEN DECREASE A LITTLE BIT TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE OUT-YEARS PREVIOUSLY COMMITTED. THAT'S THE NEAR--TERM BUDGET OUTLOOK. I'M GOING TO PAUSE IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS BEFORE I MOVE INTO THE REST OF IT. >> WHAT IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ROAD MAP FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE DIRECTOR MIGHT -- >> RIGHT, SO OBVIOUSLY IMPLICATIONS WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO NECESSARILY START ANYTHING REALLY BIG IN 20 OR 21, WITHOUT INCREASING -- YOU KNOW, DECREASING THE AMOUNT WE'RE SPENDING IN FY19 ON NEW GRANTS, RIGHT? WE CAN DO IT BY MULTI-YEAR FUNDING EVEN MORE IN FY19 BUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THAT 2.0 WORKING GROUP ARE DUE, FINAL VERSION, NEXT JUNE. WHICH MEANS THE FIRST RFAs FROM THAT WOULD BE MAKING IT OUT BARELY INTO FY 20 AND MORE LIKELY INTO FY 21 DEPENDING HOW QUICKLY WE WANT TO ACT ON IT. IF WE GO BACK TO THIS BUDGET WHAT WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO IS BIG STUFF IN 2023, UNLESS THE BUDGET PICTURE CHANGES. OKAY. THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS IN A POSITION TO BE SPENDIN THE RECOMMENDED AMOUNT OF DOLLARS. SO REALLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE 2.0 WORKING GROUP AND YOU ALL TO DO IS TO HELP MAKE SURE WE'RE SPENDING IT ON THE RIGHT STUFF. AND THIS MULTI-YEAR FUNDING STRATEGY THAT WE'VE OUTLINED ONE MODEL OF WHICH I'M SHOWING YOU HERE IS AIMED AT MAKING SURE WE CAN CONTINUE MAKING ADJUSTMENTS EVEN BEFORE THE 2023 BOLUS COMES IN. THESE NUMBERS ARE STILL PRETTY BIG FOR NEW GRANTS. WE'RE TALKING, YOU KNOW, $100 MILLION A YEAR OR MORE IN FY19 AND 20, $60 MILLION, BACK UP TO $100, $120 IN FY 22, STILL -- MUCH MONEY IN NEW GRANTS ESSENTIALLY, AS WE'VE BEEN PUTTING OUT IN FY17 AND FY 18. IT'S JUST THAT THE INCREASE IN THAT IS REALLY SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO -- THAT WE CAN'T EXPECT ANYMORE. OKAY. SO JUST UPDATES ON THE WORKING GROUP OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE DIRECTOR, THEY HAVE HAD THREE CONFERENCE CALLS, PUBLIC WORKSHOPS SCHEDULE AUGUST 24 IN BOSTON, SEPTEMBER 21 IN CHICAGO, OCTOBER 4 IN HOUSTON. AND AT THE SOCIETY FOR NEUROSCIENCE MEETING IN SAN DIEGO NOVEMBER 4 THERE WILL BE A TOWN HALL THAT WILL BE OPEN TO ANYONE WHO CARES TO COME. WE ALSO HAVE A PUBLIC REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OUT TO SUPPLY THE WORKING GROUP WITH ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT AND ENCOURAGE EVERYONE WHO HAS IDEAS ABOUT WHERE THEY'D LIKE TO SEE "BRAIN" GO TO SUBMIT THROUGH THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION. THERE'S ALSO BEEN A NEUROETHICS SUBGROUP OF THIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, ADVISORY COUNCIL WORK GROUP, AND DR. JIM EBERWINE AND JEFF KAHN HAVE BEEN NAMED CO-CHAIRS. THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP 2.0 ALSO ON THIS SUBGROUP, THAT'S TO ENSURE ANYTHING ANYTHING 2.0 WORKING GROUP IS COMING UP WITH IS -- THAT THE NEUROETHICS IMPLICATIONS OF THOSE IDEAS ARE ADDRESSED IN THE SAME DOCUMENT AND AT THE SAME TIME. SOME UPDATES ABOUT ACTIVITIES, THESE PAST FEW MONTHS SINCE WE LAST MET, THERE WAS A VERY WELL-ATTENDED BRAIN INITIATIVE SYMPOSIUM FEATURING JANG, WHITMAN, I'M BUTCHERING THE NAMES, DONAHUE, THERE'S INTEREST GLOBALLY IN THE ACTIVITY, A SATELLITE ALSO HOSTED BY THE KAVLI FOUNDATION, AND YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT ON THIS SLIDE, INTERNATIONAL BRAIN INITIATIVE IS MOVING AHEAD, CURRENTLY A NON-BINDING ALLIANCE AMONG GLOBAL BRAIN INITIATIVES TO TRY TO COORDINATE AND SPEED PROGRESS, U.S. BRAIN INITIATIVE PARTICIPATION IS LED BY OUR COLLEAGUES AT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, THEY HAD A WORKSHOP ON JULY 23 AND 24, LED BY MELINA HALEE PATRICK HOH AND CAROLINE MONTOGO AND SCIENTISTS FROM AROUND THE GLOBE. WE'RE TRYING TO CATALOG BRAIN INITIATIVES GLOBALLY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING BUT THERE ARE OTHER GROUPS AS WELL WORKING ON NEUROETHICS DATA SHARING, TRAINING AND TOOL DISSEMINATION. THERE'S A GLOBAL SUMMIT IN OCTOBER IN SOUTH KOREA, PARTICULARLY FOCUSED ON NEUROETHICS. WE HAVE BRAIN EVENTS AT MANY UPCOMING MEETINGS THEY ARE LISTED HERE, THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE FALL. AND EVEN INTO THE WINTER. A COUPLE PROGRAMS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF THAT HAVE BEEN STARTED, SOME OF WHICH WERE INSPIRED BY CONVERSATIONS HERE IN THIS MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP. WE HAVE OF COURSE THE BRAIN INITIATIVE FELLOWS PROGRAM, F32 PROGRAM FOR POSTDOCS, AND THIS IS AIMED AT POSTDOCS WHO ARE REALLY JUST STARTING OUT, AND WE'LL HAVE THREE RECEIPT DATES IN THE COMING YEAR-AND-A-HALF OR SO. AND THEN WALTER MENTIONED THIS EARLIER, WE HAVE THE K99, R00 AWARD, SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT IS NIH-WIDE TO SUPPORT TRANSITION FROM POSTDOCS TO FACULTY, AIM THIS ONE PARTICULARLY TO PROMOTE DIVERSITY. AS WALTER MENTIONED, GIVEN THE GENDER DISPARITIES AMONGST BRAIN-FUNDED INVESTIGATORS, IN ADDITION TO UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES, WOMEN ARE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS AWARD ELIGIBLE FOR THIS -- FOR THESE APPLICATIONS. WE JUST HAD OUR FIRST DUE DATE AND WE'RE EXCITED TO BEGIN REVIEWING THOSE APPLICATIONS. ONE OTHER THING ABOUT THIS, AGAIN, THANKS TO DISCUSSIONS THAT TOOK PLACE HERE, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE TIMELINE FOR THE K99/R00, THE BRAIN ALLOWS MORE FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF TIME FROM FINAL PROFESSIONAL DEGREE IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE VARYING TRAJECTORIES PEOPLE HAVE, NOT ONLY MAYBE BECAUSE OF DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS BUT ALSO THE CHALLENGE TRYING TO COMBINE -- TRYING TO DEVELOP NEW SKILLS AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES DURING THE COURSE OF A POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE. WE WANT TO ALSO POINT OUT THAT RESEARCHERS ON ACTIVE BRAIN AWARDS ARE ELIGIBLE AS THOSE ON ANY RESEARCH GRANTS THROUGH NIH, TO APPLY FOR RESEARCH SUPPLEMENTS TO PROMOTE DIVERSITY IN HEALTH-RELATED RESEARCH, TO SUPPORT INDIVIDUALS REALLY AT ANY ACADEMIC LEVEL TO WORK ON BRAIN-FUNDED GRANTS, IF THEY ARE MEMBERS OF UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I'LL GIVE YOU AN UPDATE REGARDING THE SEARCH FOR THE NIH BRAIN DIRECTOR. THE SEARCH COMMITTEE LED BY MYSELF AND NORA VOLKOW SUBMITTED TO WALTER WHO WILL MAKE THE FINAL SELECTION IN CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DIRECTORS AND DR. COLLINS, SHORT LIST FOR LEADERSHIP TO REVIEW, AND SO WE HOPE TO HAVE A DIRECTOR FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IN PLACE IN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME. RIGHT, WALTER? SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE FOR YOU TODAY. WE WENT JUST A FEW MINUTES OVER BUT I SUPPOSE WE COULD TAKE A FEW QUESTIONS BEFORE MOVING TO THE PRESENTATIONS FROM THE WORK GROUP LEADERS OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL. >> EITHER WE WERE INCREDIBLY BORING OR INCREDIBLY CLEAR, OR MAYBE BOTH. WE'RE GOOD. >> ONE QUICK QUESTION. >> PLEASE, DAVID. >> OUT OF CURIOUSLY HAS NIH SCOPED THE PREVIOUS -- YOU KNOW, CUMULATIVE TILL NOW AND ANTICIPATED FUTURE COST OF DATA STORAGE AND COMPUTER RESOURCES AS A FRACTION OF THE TOTAL BRAIN FUNDING? >> NIH HAS NOT. WE HAVEN'T DONE THE CALCULATIONS EXPLICITLY BUT DO HAVE THE DATA CENTERS. I DON'T KNOW IF NED OR GREG, YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE GRANTS MADE FOR THE DATA CENTERS. >> YEAH, I THINK OVERALL IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A VERY LARGE FRACTION OF THE BRAIN FUNDING. YOU KNOW, IT WILL BE SOMETHING, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE SORT OF 10% NUMBER YOU MIGHT LIKE TO SEE. THAT'S MY SENSE. >> FRANCES? >> I'M WONDERING IS THERE A GROUP LOOKING TO COORDINATE INTRAMURAL SCIENTISTS WITH THE EXTRAMURAL SCIENTISTS THAT ARE WORKING ON THE BRAIN INITIATIVE TO REALLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE VERY UNIQUE AND ACCESSIBLE RESOURCES THAT ARE PRESENT IN THE INTRAMURAL ENVIRONMENT? >> IT'S A GREAT, GREAT QUESTION. WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS, A SMALL NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS, THAT EITHER INCLUDED OR WERE EXCLUSIVELY INTRAMURALLY BASED. I THINK IN GENERAL, THEY HAVEN'T DONE ALL THAT WELL. WE FUNDED A FEW. NO, THEY HAVE DONE WELL? >> THEY HAVE DONE MODERATELY WELL. >> MODERATELY WELL. >> GIVEN THE INTRAMURAL INVESTIGATORS HAVE LESS EXPERIENCE BUT APPLYING FOR NIH GRANTS IS GOOD. >> I THINK IN THE CLOSED SESSION TODAY, MAYBE IT WAS LAST TIME, WE DEFINITELY HAD SOME THAT HAVE DONE QUITE WELL. >> IF WE COULD INVENTORY SOME OF THE REALLY UNIQUE NEUROIMAGING, OTHER, YOU KNOW, CORE RESOURCES THAT ARE HERE IN INTRAMURAL PROGRAMS, AND SORT OF THINK ABOUT ARE ANY OF THOSE -- ARE ANY OF THOSE OPPORTUNITIES THAT COULD BE USED MORE WIDELY AND KIND OF TARGET THOSE AND INCENTIVIZE THE USE OF THOSE UNIQUE TARGETS AND IT MIGHT BE A GOOD WAY, AN INTERESTING ELEMENT OF THIS, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME VERY UNIQUE, YOU KNOW, AND VERY ACCESSIBLE RESOURCES. >> I THINK THAT'S AN IDEA THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED OVER TIME TO MAKE SOME MORE FORMAL ROLE FOR USING THE INTRAMURAL RESOURCES IN, SAY, DISSEMINATION EFFORTS AND/OR DIRECT RESEARCH EFFORTS. THUS FAR WE HAVEN'T PLANNED THOSE INITIATIVES BUT THOSE IDEAS HAVE BEEN FLOATING AROUND. AND I THINK WE CAN EVALUATE THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE 2.0 WORKING GROUP. >> SPECIFIC GROUP MAY BE REALLY GOOD, BECAUSE WE -- EVERYBODY HAS LIKE A FINGER IN EACH OF THE INSTITUTES AND EACH OF THE INSTITUTES HAVE AN INTRAMURAL COMPONENT. WE CAN PUT OUR HEADS TOGETHER AND THINK ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE UNIQUE IN EACH OF THEM. >> YEAH. I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT. THE ISSUE IS HOW TO BALANCE THE INVESTMENTS, WHAT THE UTILITY -- ALSO THE BIGGER QUESTION FOR THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM COULD IT SERVE A USEFUL SERVICE FUNCTION FOR THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY IF THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS, YOU KNOW, NATIONAL LABORATORY LEVEL FACILITIES ARE NEEDED WHERE WOULD WE PUT THEM? WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, WHICH HAVEN'T REALLY BEEN FRUITFUL IN TERMS OF DEVELOPING THE KIND OF PARTNERSHIPS WE WANTED. SO THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM WOULD BE A POTENTIAL PLACE TO PUT THOSE, BUT YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE MONEY COMES FROM OTHER THINGS. THE OWN OTHER THING I'D THROW OUT, YEAH, THAT THE INCREASE IN INVESTMENT INTO NIH OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIAL. THE BIGGEST GROWTH HAS BEEN IN DEGENERATIVE DISEASES RESEARCH WHERE THE INCREASE HAS BEEN ABOUT $1.2 BILLION A YEAR OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS. PAIN RESEARCH WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, BUT CONGRESS DID PUT IN $250 MILLION A YEAR ADDITIONAL FOR PAIN RESEARCH, BRAIN INITIATIVE NOW $400 MILLION, SO MOST OF THE NIH BUDGET, ABOUT 9% GOES TO THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM. OF THOSE BUCKETS, HARDLY ANYTHING -- WELL, ALMOST NOTHING HAS GONE TO THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM SO THERE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, DISCONNECT NOW OVER THE PAST. WE WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING. >> DR. DULAC HAS A FIRM TIME COMMITMENT AT 10:15 SO WE SHOULD MOVE ON. >> CATHERINE, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE? >> YES, HI, EVERYONE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO AS MENTIONED, CATHERINE DULAC IS CO-CHAIR WITH JOHN MANSEL -- OH, YOU DO THAT. >> DR. DULAC IS THE HIGGINS PROFESSOR AND MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOLOGY AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT CHAIRVE 2007 TO 2013, RESEARCH ON THE MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR ARCHITECTURE OF NEURONAL CIRCUITS UNDERLYING SOCIAL INTERACTION IN THE MOUSE BRAIN, CO-CHAIR OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE DIRECTOR, BRAIN 2.0 WORK GROUP, SHE'S GOING TO FILL US IN A LITTLE BIT ON THEIR PROGRESS TO DATE. DR. DULAC? >> THANK YOU. SO THE FIRST FEW SLIDES, TO GIVE YOU -- OH, I HEAR TERRIBLE ECHO. >> YOU SOUND FINE ON OUR END SO IF YOU CAN WORK THROUGH IT, WE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM YESTERDAY AND IT SEEMED TO WORK OUT. >> OKAY. SO I SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT THE ECHO ON MY SIDE. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO REMOVE THE ECHO ON MY SIDE? >> ACTUALLY I THINK WE CAN MUTE ON OUR END AND IT WILL END IT, BUT THAT MIGHT NOT BE LOGISTICALLY APPROPRIATE. IF YOU CAN IGNORE IT ON YOUR END, THEN IT SOUNDS FINE ON OUR END. >> OKAY. MAYBE YOU CAN MUTE UNTIL YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY? >> THAT'S FINE. >> WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND PRESENTING. >> THANK YOU. SO THE FIRST FEW SLIDES JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE SUMMARY, JOE MANSFIELD PRESENTED SLIDES TO REMIND YOU THE CHARGE OF BRAIN IS TO REVIEW THE BRAIN INITIATIVE THAT HAVE BEEN INITIATED ALREADY. AND THESE HAVE TAKEN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OUR WORK TIME SO FAR, ALSO IDENTIFIED SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITIES THAT EITHER ARE DUE TO THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE INITIATIVES FOUNDED BY BRAIN HAVE MOVED WAY FASTER THAN ANTICIPATED SO I THINK THERE'S REALLY EXCITING OPPORTUNITIES GENERATED FROM THIS. AND THEN SOME OF THE LANDSCAPE MIGHT HAVE BEEN CHANGED, MIGHT BE NEW GOAL THAT CAN BE DRAFTED BUT OVERALL REVIEW BRAIN 1.0, WITH POSSIBLY SOME EXCITING NEW IDEAS COMING UP FROM OUR WORK. SO THE NEXT SLIDE IS JUST TO REMIND YOU WHO THE VARIOUS MEMBERS ARE, MYSELF, JOHN MAUNSELL CO-CHAIR, (READING NAMES). THE GROUP IS VERY ENGAGED. I THINK WE HAD SOME TREMENDOUS DISCUSSION, REALLY GREAT IDEAS, PEOPLE REALLY SPENT A LOT OF TIME, MENTAL TIME AND PHYSICAL TIME, TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS WORK, SO THIS IS QUITE EXCITING. NEXT SLIDE. THE TIMELINE PRESENTED TO US IS A BIT TOUGH SO WE DO OUR BEST. WE STARTED ON APRIL. WE'RE NOW MID-AUGUST. IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS WE HAVE THREE WORKSHOPS, TRAINING WOULD BE ESSENTIAL FOR US TO COME AT THIS DRAFT OF THE INTERIM REPORT IN DECEMBER. THESE WOULD THEN BE OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN WINTER AND SPRING, AND THEN WE PLAN TO HAVE A FINAL VERSION IN THE SUMMER OF 2019. SO, SO FAR WE HAD EIGHT TWO-HOUR WEBEX MEETINGS WITH THE WORKING GROUP. THESE HAVE BEEN VERY INTENSE. SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN EVEN MEETING EVERY DAY IN WEEK OF JUNE, PRETTY TOUGH ON EVERYONE, BUT WE REALLY ACHIEVED SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK. REVIEWED ALL THE AREAS THAT WERE DELINEATED BY BRAIN 1.0. INTERESTINGLY, SOME AREAS HAVE PROGRAMS FAST, SOME ARE BEHIND, VERY UNDERSTANDABLE, AND THEN WE'VE DISCUSSED THE TOPICS AND THE QUESTION WE WANT TO ADDRESS FOR THE WORKSHOP, I COME BACK TO THIS IN A FEW SLIDES. SO WE'VE PLANNED THREE WORKSHOPS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. ONE AT HARVARD, ONE IN CHICAGO, ONE IN HOUSTON, AND A TOWN HALL AND ANOTHER MEETING WITH WORKING GROUP IN SAN DIEGO, SO WE TRY TO DISPERSE GEOGRAPHICALLY, THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS HAVE A CHANCE TO BASICALLY DO -- HAVE SOME VERY SHORT TRIPS TO GO TO THESE WORKSHOPS AND SOME LOCAL ONES. SO, THE WORKSHOP FORMAT IN THE MORNING WE HAVE OPEN SESSION WITH PRESENTATION FROM EXPERTS, AND QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. WE THEN HAVE A CLOSED SESSION, JUST FOR THE SPEAKERS, AND THEN JUST THE WORKING GROUP TO DISCUSS WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED. AND THEN TOWN HALL WOULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY I THINK TO HEAR FROM THE NEUROSCIENCE COMMUNITY. THE FIRST WORKSHOP IS NEXT WEEK AT HARVARD. WE DECIDED TO START WITH HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE. THERE ARE MANY GENERAL AND MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF THINKING WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH. SO THE GENERAL QUESTION FOR HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE, WHAT ARE THE BIG SUCCESSES FROM THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, WHAT ARE THE NEXT BIGGEST OPPORTUNITIES IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE, WHAT ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS THAT CAN ONLY BE ANSWERED USING HUMAN SUBJECTS, HOW AGGRESSIVE SHOULD WE BE ON DATA AGGREGATION AND TASK STANDARDIZATION, HOW SHOULD WE BALANCE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT VERSUS DISCOVERY SCIENCE, HOW SHOULD WE MEASURE SUCCESS OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE? THE KEY DELIVERABLE FROM THE WORKSHOP IS COMPENDIUM OF SUCCESS AND PROMISING RESULTS FROM THE BRAIN INITIATIVE SO FAR IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE AND THEN A LIST OF GAPS AND AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY TO GUIDE OUR APPROACH. NEXT SLIDE. SO THERE ARE FOUR SESSIONS IN THIS WORKSHOP, VERY DIFFERENT TOPICS, WE TRIED TO COVER ALL ISSUES RELATED TO HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE. ONE IS RECORDING AND STIMULATION, THIS WILL BE CHAIRED BY KRISHNA, YOU CAN SEE THE SPEAKERS AT THE BOTTOM. THE QUESTION WE WANT THE EXPERT TO ADDRESS, AN EXAMPLE OF THE QUESTIONS, WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY FOR GATHERING NEUROSCIENCE DATA, HOW INVASIVE IS PERMISSIBLE? WITH OPEN ACCESS TO THE HUMAN BRAIN DURING NEUROSURGERY, WHAT ELSE COULD WE LOOK AT, MEASURE, THAT WE'RE NOT CURRENTLY DOING? SO ET CETERA, ET CETERA. SO WE HAVE A LIST OF QUESTIONS. AND SO WE DON'T WANT TO STICK TO TELL US ABOUT THEIR RESEARCH, SO THE CHAIR OF THE SESSION HAS -- IS INTERACTING WITH THE THREE SPEAKERS, THREE OR FOUR SPEAKERS OF HIS OR HER SESSION BEFORE HAND TO DISCUSS WITH THEM WHAT IS EXPECTED FROM THEM, EACH PRESENTATION IS ABOUT 15 MINUTES. AND WE REALLY WANT THEM TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE KEY QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE DELINEATED OR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THEY HAVE SOMETHING ELSE IN MIND. SO SEVERAL OF THESE, ALL OF THESE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE CHAIR AND SPEAKERS HAVE BEEN ONGOING, AND SO WE THINK WE ARE REALLY PREPARING THESE VERY CAREFULLY. NEXT SLIDE. IT IS ON SOCIAL IMAGING, THIS IS CHAIRED BY BRUCE ROSEN, YOU CAN SEE THREE SPEAKERS, LARRY WALD, JACK GALLANT, MARIA-ANGELA FRANSESCHINI, WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM HEMODYNAMICS, WHAT NEW TECHNOLOGY COULD ACHIEVE THIS FAST ERR AND CHEAPER? A REALLY INTERESTING QUESTION HOW WILL HUMAN NEUROIMAGING MAP INTO THE BRAIN, CELL CENSUS, AN INITIATIVE OF THE BRAIN 1.0, HOW THE CELL CENSUS WILL HELP US WITH NEW CLASS OF MOLECULAR STUDIES, AND WIDELY USED BY THE RODENT COMMUNITY, A SET OF QUESTIONS. NEXT SLIDE. THIRD SESSION ON BRAIN CONNECTIVITY, THIS IS CHAIRED BY DORIS T.S.A.O, THE SPEAKERS ARE ANDERSON, VAN ESSEN, LICHTMAN. HOW WELL DO WE UNDERSTAND CONNECTIVITY OF THE HUMAN BRAIN,ING WHAT IS THE STATE OF THE ART FOR HUMAN CONNECTIVITY IN VIVO, WHAT ARE THE LILTS OF EXISTING TECHNOLOGY, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. NEXT SLIDE. SESSION 4 IS MORE TECHNICAL, TRANSLATION FROM MOUSE TO HUMANS. THE CHAIR HUDA ZOGHBI, SPEAKERS ED LEIN, JUNGHAE SUH, SERGIU PASCA AND FENG ZHANG. WE WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT CELL SAMPLE, ALSO AT THE LEVEL OF ISOFORM, DISEASE IS NOT CAUSED BY RNA, BUT BY PROTEINS, AND WE REALLY HAVE TO HAVE A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN PARTICULAR CELL TYPES, OTHER CELL TYPES UNIQUE TO HUMANS THAT WE'RE MISSING IN THE HOUSE, TO WHAT EXTENT ARE VARIOUS NEUROLOGIC AND PSYCHIATRIC DISEASE OF CELL TYPES, CELL TYPE IS THE OPERATIVE UNIQUE INTERVENTION SAND AND WHAT WILL BE THE OUTCOME OF THE CELL CENSUS, ACCESS TO SYNTAX. THAT MOVES TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WHICH IS THE SECOND SET OF QUESTIONS IN THE SESSION, IN WHICH WE CAN REALLY TRY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FLOURISHING OF THE NEW TECHNOLOGY AND, CAN WE USE DNA AND RNA EDITING, WHAT TOOLS TO TARGET SUBTYPES AND WHAT ARE VIRAL OR NON-VIRAL DELIVERY CAN WE USE, THE DELIVERABLE HERE, COMPARISON OF CELL TYPES AND MOLECULES IN MICE AND HUMANS, WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON ACCESS TO THOSE CELL TYPES FOR DELIVERY AND CLINICAL INTERVENTION. NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS IS ALSO WORKSHOP 1. WORKSHOP 2, WE HAVE SIMILAR SET OF SPEAKERS, SET OF QUESTIONS, THAT HAVE BEEN DELINEATED. WON'T GO INTO MUCH DETAIL BUT THE WORKSHOP IN CHICAGO IS CALLED LOOKING AHEAD, EMERGING OPPORTUNITIES. AND WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS, DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGY, AND REVOLUTIONIZING CIRCUIT-TO-BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS. WE HAVE OUR INVITATION OUT FOR SPEAKERS, AND I SHOULD MENTION ACTUALLY THAT THE WORKSHOP 1 I THINK IT'S ONE SPEAKER, ONE INVITEEE WHO WAS A SURGEON THAT HAD SURGERY SCHEDULED THAT PARTICULAR DAY, WE GOT EVERYONE ACCEPTED BASICALLY TO COME, WE HAVE A VERY HIGH ACCEPTANCE RATE ALSO SO FAR. WORKSHOP 3 IN HOUSTON WILL BE FINAL WORKSHOP, AND WE WANT TO HAVE THE FINAL SESSION FOCUSED ON EXPERIMENTAL THREERY AND BACK, BUILDING UNDERSTANDING OF BRAIN FUNCTION, DATA TOOLS AND LAB SCIENCE. NEXT SLIDE. I THINK AS WAS MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION, SUBGROUP CHAIRED BY EBERWINE AND KAHN, I HAVE BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH JIM AND JEFF, VERY INTERESTING CONVERSATION, WE DECIDED THAT WE WOULD HAVE OVERLAPPING MEMBERSHIP, PART OF THE WORKING GROUP, PART OF THE NEUROETHICS SUBGROUP, WE WILL HAVE MEMBERS OF THE NEUROETHICS SUBGROUP PARTICIPATE IN OUR WORKSHOP AND MEMBERS OF OUR GROUP PARTICIPATE IN A NEUROETHIC SUBGROUP. WE STAY IN TOUCH AND ARE DELIGHTED THEY ARE HANDLING THE QUESTIONS, ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS AS PART OF THE BRAIN 2.0, IT'S GOOD THE LARGE SUBGROUP DEDICATED TO THIS. NEXT SLIDE, JUST THE SAME TIME WE HAVE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION GOING ON, WE HOPE TO GET INPUT FROM THE LARGER PUBLIC. REGARDING THE WORKSHOP, WE HAVE VERY, VERY -- TOO MUCH SIGN-UP, SO WE'RE NOW DOUBLING THE SIZE OF THE ROOM WHERE THE WORKSHOP WILL OCCUR. WE THINK WE'LL HAVE A VERY EXCITING EVENT NEXT WEEK. I THINK THAT'S ABOUT IT FOR MY PRESENTATION. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS WE HAVE TO ASK. >> DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS? >> I THINK EVERYONE IS MUTED RIGHT NOW. >> VERY GOOD, CATHERINE. >> IT'S CAROL MASON. I WANT TO APPLAUD YOU AND JOHN AND THE GROUP FOR MOUNTING THE WORKSHOPS, UNLIKE THE FIRST VERSION YOU'RE GOING TO GET A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM THOSE WHO HAVE GRANTS AND THOSE WHO DON'T. IT SHOULD BE VERY EXCITING PROSPECTUS. >> WE EXPECT A LOT OF FEEDBACK, MAYBE TOO MUCH. VERY DIFFERENT IDEAS. >> MY QUESTION, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ORGANIZE. >> YEAH, WE'LL SEE. LET'S GET THE INPUT AND LARGE IDEAS. IN GENERAL, MEMBER OF THE WORKING GROUP, HAVING TOO MUCH TRAVEL, THAT'S WHY WE STARTED THE FORMAT WITH WEBEX WHICH HAS MADE EVERYONE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THEIR OWN OFFICE. WE'LL LIKELY HAVE QUITE A NUMBER OF WEBEX WHEN WE'RE PREPARING OUR REPORT, AND DISCUSS THE DESIGN OF FEEDBACK. MEMBERS OF THE GROUP HAVE BEEN VERY ENGAGED, SO I THINK THAT WE JUST HAVE TO BE ORGANIZED AND HAVE MEMBERS OF THE SUBGROUP HANDING VARIOUS PARTS OF THE FEEDBACK AND GETTING BACK TO US A RECOMMENDATION. I KEEP RECEIVINGE MAILS OF COLLEAGUES WITH CONFIDENTIAL FEEDBACK. >> CATHERINE, THIS IS EVE. IT LOOKS WONDERFUL. SO ONE QUESTION I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE IN THE BACK OF YOUR MIND AND MAYBE DISCUSS WITH PEOPLE IS -- >> I CAN BARELY HEAR YOU. IS THERE ANY WAY THE SOUND CAN BE INCREASED OR SOMETHING. >> IS THIS BETTER? >> YES. >> ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HEAR FROM PEOPLE BOTH REVIEWERS AND AUTHORS AT E-LIFE AND ALSO THAT CAME UP AT OUR LAST MEETING IS WHEN PEOPLE DEVELOP EXPENSIVE TECHNOLOGIES, SUCH AS MICROSCOPES WHICH IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TAKE A MILLION DOLLARS OR MILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS TO BUILD OR OTHER VERY EXPENSIVE TECHNOLOGIES, THE QUESTION IS AND/OR WHEN PEOPLE MOVE THINGS INTO INDUSTRIAL PLACES WHERE THEY ARE EXPENSIVE TO BUY, A LOT OF PEOPLE FEEL THAT WE SHOULD BE MOVING MORE TO FORCING PEOPLE TO MAKE ALL OF THEIR DESIGN PLANS OPEN, SO THAT ANYBODY AROUND THE WORLD WHO WANTS TO BUILD CAN BUILD ON THE BASIS OF PLANS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SPECIFICALLY IN THE BRAIN PLAN BUT THERE'S SOME VERY COMPLICATED ISSUES AROUND DISSEMINATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES, WHEN THE TECHNOLOGIES ARE EXPENSIVE. SOME ARE EXPENSIVE INITIALLY AND BECOME CHEAP RAPIDLY, BUT SOME STAY EXPENSIVE. AS PART OF THE ISSUE OF HAVEs AND HAVE NOTES NOT -- NOTS, IT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT, WONDERFUL THING HAPPEN TO MAKE EXPENSIVE TECHNOLOGIES MOVE INTO AFFORDABLE AND FASTER. >> YES, ACTUALLY WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS AS A SPECIFIC QUESTION WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS IN WORKSHOP 2, AND WE HAVE AN ENTIRE SESSION ABOUT DISSEMINATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY, AND THAT IS THE KEY QUESTION. AND WE HOPE TO HAVE SPEAKERS WHO HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY GOOD AT DISSEMINATING THEIR OWN TECHNOLOGY, WOULD HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE HELPING THE MOVE OF TECHNOLOGY FROM BASIC SCIENCE INTO BIOTECH, SO WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS QUESTION IN A LOT OF DEPTH. BUT THANK YOU. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT. >> CATHERINE, THIS IS EMORY. I WAS WONDERING, GREAT PRESENTATION, WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE FINAL WORK PRODUCT FOR THE WORKING GROUP? >> WELL, AGAIN, WE SEE TWO PARTS. ONE IS AN IN-DEPTH REVIEW ON THE VARIOUS AREA OF 1.0, WHAT HAS GONE WELL, WHAT HAS GONE NOT THAT WELL, WHAT HAS REMAINED UNDERDEVELOPED. AND WE ALREADY HAVE SEVERAL -- SOME IDEAS ON ALL THESE THREE CATEGORIES, THAT'S A BIG PART OF 2.0. THE OTHER ONE REALLY IS TO SUGGEST SOME PIN-UP TO 1.0, SOME MIGHT BE MINOR, SOME MIGHT BE MORE MAJOR IDEAS OF MORE OPPORTUNITIES. AT THIS POINT I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT THEY ARE, BUT I THINK THE WORKSHOP WILL REALLY HELP US TO DEFINE IT. TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED, THE CELL CENSUS DEVELOPED SO QUICKLY. SO THE BRAIN 1.0 SUCH THAT MAYBE ONE BRAIN AREA COULD HAVE A CELL CENSUS, I THINK RELATIVELY -- YEAH, WHAT WOULD BE A SIMPLER BRAIN AREA. YOU KNOW, TWO PAPERS HAVING CELL CENSUS OF THE ENTIRE BRAIN OR MOST OF THE BRAIN AREAS, SO I THINK WE ARE IN THE POSITIVE REALLY TO THINK ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH THE CELL CENSUS, HOW DOES IT RELATE TO THE HUMAN BRAIN, HOW DOES IT RELATE TO WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE SINGLE CELL LEVEL, PROTEIN LEVEL, THE SLICING LEVEL, WHICH IS REALLY WHERE THE DISEASE ARE HEATING. AGAIN, ONCE WE'RE DONE WITH THE WORKSHOP WE'LL HAVE WAY MORE IDEAS WHERE WE'LL BE GOING. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS WAS REALLY HELPFUL AND INFORMATIVE AND WE HOPE TO CONTINUE TO GET FEEDBACK FROM THE GROUP AS WE MOVE FORWARD, AND WE'RE CERTAINLY VERY INTERESTED IN THE WORKSHOPS THAT ARE GOING TO BE HELD. >> OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> THANKS, EVERYONE. >> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. SO WE'RE MOVING ON TO AN UPDATE FROM THE NEUROETHICS WORKING GROUP. >> THAT'S ME. >> DR. HANK GREELY. >> THANK YOU. NO SLIDES. ANAPHYLACTIC SHOP, I'M NOT WILLING TO TAKE THE RISK. I'LL TRY TO KEEP US ON TIME. I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT FOUR THINGS, REMIND YOU WHO WE ARE, TALK ABOUT RECENT EVENTS FROM THE NEUROETHICS WORK GROUP, YESTERDAY'S MEETING AND OUR FUTURE PLANS. SO TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTIONS, WE'RE A 10-MEMBER WORKING GROUP OF THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP. WE'VE HAD SIX IN-PERSON MEETINGS. I CO-CHAIRED A GROUP WITH DR. CHRISTINE GRADY. OUR MEMBERS ARE WINSTON CHONG, JIM EBERWINE, NITA FARAWNNI SID JOHNSON, BRAD HYMAN, STEVE HYMAN FROM THE BROAD, KAREN ROHMELFINGER AND ELVIS SERRANO FROM NEW MEXICO UNIVERSITY, FOUR PEOPLE ON THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP, MYSELF BRAD HYMAN, JIM EBERWINE AND ELVIS SERRANO, TEN PRIMARILY NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCHERS, A COMBINATION OF PEOPLE DOING THE RESEARCH AND PRIMARILY FROM LAW OR ETHICS. THE WHOLE THING IS ACTUALLY RUN BY DR. KARA RAMOS, OUR EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, FROM NINDS, WHO IS SITTING BACK THERE. SO ANY COMPLAINTS, TAKE THEM TO KARA. I GET THE COMPLIMENTS. GIVE THE COMPLIMENTS TO CHRISTINE WHO NEEDS THEM BECAUSE SHE'S FINISHING A MONTH SERVICE ON A D.C. GRAND JURY INDICTING MURDERS. -- MURDERERS, SHE SAYS IT MAKES BIOETHICS LOOK LIKE FUN BY COMPARISON. OUR NEWS, NAME AND STATUS. WE ARE ONCE AGAIN A WORKING GROUP. MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. THEN SOMEBODY DIDN'T LIKE THE WORKING GROUP, WE GAME THE NEUROETHICS DIVISION. PEOPLE COULDN'T CALL US A DIVISION WITH A STRAIGHT FACE, DISCUSSIONS INVOLVED MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS FROM THE LEGAL PROFESSION WHICH PROBABLY DIDN'T HAPPEN, SHOULD WE REPORT TO THE WORKING GROUP, TO SOMEBODY ELSE, NOBODY LIKED MY IDEA THAT WE SIMPLY COULDN'T BE A DIVISION, WE COULD BE A REGIMENT OR BATTALION, EVENTUALLY BACK WHERE WE STARTED, NEUROETHICS WORKIN GROUP OF THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP OF THE NIH BRAIN INITIATIVE, SERVICE MARKS AND TRADEMARKS THERE AS APPROPRIATE. WE'VE DONE SOME WORK. THIS APRIL A PUBLICATION OUT OF A WORKSHOP WE CO-SPONSORED IN DUKE, A COMMENTARY IN "NATURE" ARE BRAIN ORGANIZE, CHIMERAS AND ETHICAL ISSUES, THAT'S GOTTEN A LOT OF TRACTION PARTICULARLY THE ORGANOIDS PART OF IT. AGAIN, I WAS REALLY PLEASED THERE WERE A FEW ETHICISTS AS AUTHORS OF THAT, THERE WERE 14 -- 13 OR 14 WORKING NEUROSIGNISTS, CHRIS COOK AND OTHERS WERE SIGNED ON, RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANT ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOME OF THAT WORK, BASIC IDEA MAKE BRAIN SURROGATES TO DO RESEARCH ON HUMAN BRAIN TISSUE IN NON-HUMANS, CLOSER TO BEING LIKE A HUMAN BRAIN THE MORE YOU'RE BACKING INTO ETHICAL ISSUES TO BEGIN WITH. A HIGHLY RESPECTED NEUROSCIENCE JOURNAL SUBMISSION, YOU'LL LIKE IT. IT'S OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON NEUROETHICS, AFTER A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN THE WORK GROUP, WORKING GROUP, WE CAME UP WITH EIGHT CATCHY SHORT, FOR THE MOST PART, TITLED GUIDING PRINCIPLES, IT'S ABOUT A 2,000-WORD DOCUMENT, WE'RE AIMING TO HIT A SWEET SPOT MORE SPECIFIC TO SCIENCE THAN THE BELMONT REPORT OR OVERALL COMMON RULE BUT BROAD ENOUGH SO THAT IT'S NOT JUST A CONSULT ON A PARTICULAR TOPIC. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A GOOD PUBLICATION, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED ALONG WITH COMMENTARY FROM IT THE TEN I.C. DIRECTORS, ASSOCIATED WITH THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, AND WE ARE HOPEFUL, ALWAYS HOPEFUL, BUT WE'RE HOPEFUL THIS WILL BE PUBLISHED SOMETIME IN THE FALL. WE THINK IT WILL BE A USEFUL PIECE OF WORK. WE DID A WORKSHOP THAT CHRISTINE GRADY RAN, MAINLY ON INFORMED CONSENT, THERE'S A DOCUMENT IN PREPARATION FROM THAT. FROM SPECIAL ISSUES AND INFORMED CONSENT IN NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH THAT WILL, WE HOPE, BE PUBLISHED SOMETIME I WOULD SAY LATER THIS YEAR BUT I THINK PRACTICALLY PROBABLY SOMETIME IN 2019. SO, THAT'S RECENT PAST WORK. YESTERDAY'S MEETING WAS OUR SIXTH MEETING. WE STARTED WITH A REPORT VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONE WE JUST HEARD FROM WALTER AND JOSH ON THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. AND TO SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ACD COMMITTEE. WE DID SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY VALUABLE BUT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT. WE HAD A ROUNDTABLE WHERE ALL THE PEOPLE AROUND THE TABLE TALKED ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN NEUROETHICS AND CROSS-FERTILIZING. THERE'S A LOT OF GLOBAL INTEREST HERE. I THINK YOU'VE HEARD A MENTION OF THE GLOBAL NEUROETHICS SUMMIT SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER IN SEOUL, KOREA. THE INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY, CONFLICT OF INTEREST WARNING, I'M ITS PRESIDENT, ANNUAL MEETING NOVEMBER 1 AND 2 IN SAN DIEGO, TWO DAYS BEFORE SfN. STEVE HYMAN WAS THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE CO-CHAIR AND WE PUT TOGETHER A GREAT PROGRAM. YOU'RE ALL INVITED. THERE IS AN OECD MEETING ON THE ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, THE RICH COUNTRIES CLUB, A MEETING IN SHANGHAI NEXT MONTH. IEEE ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION HAVING A BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACE MEETING WITH A GLOBAL NEUROETHICS COMPONENT IN JAPAN IN OCTOBER. IT'S A HOT TOPIC RIGHT NOW AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO STAY ABREAST OF IT AND ON TOP OF IT. ONE OTHER PARTICULAR NOTE THAT MAY BE OF INTEREST TO SOME OF YOU, SOME OF YOU ARE ON THIS FORUM AND MAYBE ON THE PLANNING COMMITTEE, NEUROFORUM OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICINE IS HAVING WHAT SHOULD BE A VERY INTERESTING WORKSHOP ON OCTOBER 4, HERE IN D.C. AT THE NEW NAS BUILDING ON FIFTH STREET ON RESEARCH WITH TRANSGENIC AND CHIMERIC GENE EDITED AND CHIMERIC GENE PRIMATES, EXPLAINING WHAT WE KNOW THAT'S GOING ON. WE HAD TWO INTERESTING PRESENTATIONINGS FROM NEUROSURGEONS DOING ADDITIONAL MONITORING ON NEUROSURGERY PATIENTS, SO PUTTING STRIPS IN AN ECoG ON PEOPLE WHO ARE IN FOR EPILEPSY OR DBS, DBS RESEARCH ON PATIENTS GETTING DBS, FROM UCLA AND MARK RICHARDSON FROM PITT, CONCERNING ABOUT GENUINE ETHICALI AND SOME IRB PROBLEMS THEY HAVE RUN INTO DOING THIS RESEARCH, TO WHAT EXTENT, WHEN THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL RISK, NOT GREAT RISK BUT SOME ADDITIONAL RISK AND NO PROSPECT OF ANY POSSIBLE DIRECT BENEFIT FOR THE PATIENTS INVOLVED, THEY ARE WORRIED THAT SOMETIMES THE PATIENTS SAY THEY ARE DOING IT ALTRUISTICALLY BUT THEY ARE DOING IT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR DOCTORS HAPPY. EVEN LITTLE QUESTIONS LIKE SHOULD THE NEUROSURGEON BE THE ONE TO GET THE CONSENT. SOME IRBss TOLD THEM YOU HAVE TO BE THE ONE, SOME HAVE TOLD THEM YOU CAN'T BE THE ONE. SO THERE'S SOME INTERESTING QUESTIONS THERE THAT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW UP. TWO OTHER THINGS, WE HAD A DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS OF ASKING BRAIN FUNDING APPLICANTS TO CONSIDER NEUROETHICS ISSUES IN RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES AND HUMAN FOAs, ASKING PEOPLE IN THE APPLICATION TO TALK ABOUT NEUROETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS. THE PROGRAM OFFICERS WHO WERE REVIEWS THOSE TALKED ABOUT WHAT THEY SAW AS A RESULT OF THAT, IN GENERAL TERMS, OBVIOUSLY, THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS, BUT THEY LOOKED AT 20 APPLICATIONS, AND THEY HAD SOME INTERESTING GENERAL INSIGHTS ABOUT WHETHER THAT HAD CHANGED PEOPLE'S -- AT LEAST CHANGED WHAT -- CAN'T TELL WHETHER IT CHANGED THEIR THINKING BUT WHETHER IT CHANGED WHAT THEY WROTE AND I THINK I TOOK AWAY FROM THEM THE SENSE THAT THIS HAD BEEN A GOOD THING AND THEY ARE GOING TO WANT TO TRY TO CONTINUE IT AS A WAY TO ALERT PEOPLE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT NEUROETHICS CONSIDERATIONS. FOR THE FIRST TIME, FINALLY, OUR GROUP DISCUSSED THE PAY PLANS FOR THE NEUROETHICS GRANTS. WE HAVE A NEUROETHICS RFA, AND WE DID NOT OF COURSE GIVE ADVICE BECAUSE WE CANNOT GIVE ADVICE. RIGHT, SUSAN? BUT WE GAVE OUR THOUGHTS AND CONSIDERATIONS WHICH WILL THEN FEED INTO THIS GROUP'S THOUGHTS AND CONSIDERATIONS, BUT NOT ADVICE, WHICH WILL FEED INTO COUNCIL'S ADVICE, WHICH WILL THEN FEED INTO DIRECTOR'S DECISIONS AT SOME POINT. THAT WAS AN INTERESTING ENTERPRISE. THAT WAS YESTERDAY'S MEETING. FOURTH AND FINALLY GOING FORWARD, CHRISTINE GRADY, KARA AND I TALK AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH VIA SKYPE ABOUT WHERE THINGS ARE GOING TO GO. OUR GROUP PLANS TO MEET TWICE A YEAR. WE'RE PLANNING TO MEET NEXT WINTER AND NEXT AUGUST, PROBABLY EITHER -- I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE DATES ARE FIRMLY SET BUT EITHER THE DAY BEFORE OR DAY AFTER THIS GROUP MEETS IN BOTH THOSE MEETINGS. WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE ANOTHER WORKSHOP AT SOME POINT, I THINK IT'S QUITE LIKELY TO BE SOMETHING COMING OUT OF THE CONCERNS THE NEUROSURGEONS EXPRESSED YESTERDAY ABOUT CONSENT AND RISK ISSUES IN THAT KIND OF WORK, BUT KARA, CHRISTINA AND I HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT AND PRESENT SOMETHING TO THE GROUP AS A WHOLE. I SAY WORKSHOP, SOMETIMES WORKSHOPS ARE FULLY NIH FUNDED WORKSHOPS. SOME HAVE BEEN OTHER ENTITIES, DUKE, STANFORD COULD PROBABLY DO ONE WITH SOME NIH SUPPORT, BUT A WORKSHOP THAT'S AT LEAST INSPIRED AND TO SOME EXTENT GUIDED, PROBABLY NOT ADVISED BUT GUIDED BY OUR WORKING GROUPS OF COURSE EVERYTHING WE DO IN THE FUTURE MAY WELL BE AFFECTED BY THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE NEUROETHICS SUBGROUP OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE DIRECTOR'S WORKING GROUP ON 2.0 WHICH I THINK WE HEAR FROM NEXT. SO THAT'S MY REPORT. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. QUESTIONS? YEAH, CARLOS? >> THANKS FOR THE UPDATE, HANK. ON THE INTRAOPERATIVE MONITORING, IN THOSE CASES WHERE NOVEL TECH IS USED, OR MARKETED TEXT IS USED IN A NEW WAY, THERE MAY BE A CHANGE TO THE RISK, AS YOU KNOW. >> YEP. >> AND THERE MAY BE NOT IMMEDIATE DESIRE BUT MAYBE A FUTURE DESIRE TOE MARKET SUCH TECHNOLOGY, SO WE'RE SORT OF LOOKING AT THAT BASIC PHYSIOLOGIC RESEARCH OR SHOULD THAT BE UNDER SOME TYPE OF OVERSIGHT, UNDER REGULATORY OVERSIGHT, SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO SHARE WITH FOLKS IF WE CAN BE OF HELP TO INVITE US WHERE IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE WEIGH WOULD LIKE TO WALK THROUGH THOSE TYPES OF QUESTIONS WITH THEM OR INVESTIGATORS. >> FDA-RELATED ISSUE CAME UP YESTERDAY, NOT THAT IN PARTICULAR, BUT IT'S A GOOD ONE WHETHER PEOPLE ARE PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION TO WHETHER IT'S A NOT SIGNIFICANT RISK OR SIGNIFICANT RISK. IT WASN'T ENTIRELY CLEAR. I THINK IN SOME FOA APPLICATIONS, WHETHER PEOPLE HAD THAT DISTINCTION IN MIND, BUT YOU REMINDED ME OF SOMETHING ELSE THAT CAME UP. LOOKING AT THE PAY PLANS, THERE WAS SOME VERY PROMINENT NEUROETHICS RESEARCHERS WHOSE APPLICATIONS DIDN'T GET SCORED. THAT LET US TO SOME DISCUSSION, PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT GROWN UP DOING NIH GRANTS, I DON'T HAVE TO TELL THIS GROUP, THERE'S AN ART, SOMEWHAT ARCANE AND DARK ART TO WRITING THINGS IN WAYS AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE IS FOR PEOPLE TO TALK TO PROGRAM OFFICERS. I SAID IT'S LIKE THE FDA, FDA WANTS PEOPLE TO COME WITH THINGS, IT'S YOUR JOB TO MAKE THEM SUCCEED PROGRAM OFFICERS WANT YOU TO SUCCEED. WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET THE WORDS OUT THROUGH THE INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY AND OTHER CONNECTIONS AND OTHER NEUROETHICS GROUPS THAT TALKING TO PROGRAM OFFICERS ABOUT GRANTS LIKE TALKING TO FDA ABOUT FDA ISSUES IS A REALLY GOOD THING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE HORNS OR TAILS, FOR THE MOST PART. >> FOR THE MOST PART. >> HANK, AT THE RISK OF CREATING MORE WORK FOR US, WE OFTEN DO SORT OF MOCK STUDY SECTIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AT VARIOUS MEETINGS. >> YEAH. >> SO IF YOU THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE NEUROETHICS MEETING WE CAN PROBABLY FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. >> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH I WANT TO UPSET STEVE HYMAN, CO-CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE, WE HAVE AN OPEN LUNCH DATE ON THE THURSDAY OF THE INS MEETING. WE MENTIONED YESTERDAY MAYBE WE CAN FIT IN A PRIMER ON HOW TO WRITE AN NIH GRANT FOR NEURO ETHICISTS, NIH FOR DUMMIES, BUT ETHICAL DUMMIES. OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. I'M AFRAID I WENT TWO MINUTES OVER. WITHIN THE CONFIDENCE INTERVALS. >> OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO DR. EBERWINE ISN'T ABLE TO JOIN US BUT DR. KAHN IS. JEFFREY KAHN IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS INSTITUTE OF BIOETHICS AND ALSO THE ROBERT HENRY LEVI AND LETA HECHT LEVY PROFESSOR OF BIOETHICS AND PUBLIC POLICY. DR. KAHN, I BELIEVE YOU'RE ON. HE'S GOING TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON THE NEUROETHICS SUBGROUP OF ACD WORKING GROUP 2.0 WITH YOU YOU HEARD ABOUT PREVIOUSLY FROM DR. DULAC. >> HI. CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES. >> GREAT. I'VE BEEN LISTENING A LITTLE BIT. I HEARD HANK TALKING. I UNDERSTAND KARA RAMOS IS IN THE ROOM. IS ELLEN ALSO THERE? >> YES, SHE IS, UH-HUH. >> SHE IS? OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. YOU HEARD IT SOUNDS LIKE A VERY BASIC INTRODUCTION. I DON'T WANT TO REITERATE WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD. BUT SUBGROUP THAT JIM EBERWINE AND I WERE ASKED BY FRANCIS COLLINS TO CO-CHAIR HAS THE CHARGE OF CRAFTING A ROAD MAP FOR NEUROETHICS RESEARCH, RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH IN THE AREAS OF TOPIC IMPORTANT GROWING FORWARD REVIEWING THE 2025 REPORT AND UPDATE FROM IT. THE METHODS THAT WE'RE USING RELY ON ATTENDING THE WORKSHOPS THAT 2.0 GROUP IS ALREADY HOSTING, HOSTING SEPARATE WORKSHOP THAT WILL BE SPECIFIC TO NEUROETHICS THAT OUR SUBGROUP WILL HOST, OUTREACH TO THE GROUPS YOU ALREADY HEARD HANK MENTION INCLUDING NEUROETHICS WORKING GROUP, COORDINATING AT THE NIH STAFF LEVEL VIA KARA AND ELLEN AND OTHERS. SO WE'RE CHARGED WITH DOING THIS WORK BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT JUNE AND OUR COMMITTEE SUBGROUP WILL CEASE TO EXIST AFTER WE SHARE OUR REPORT WITH THE ACD 2.0 WORKING GROUP, AND WE'LL GO BACK TO OUR REGULAR LIVES. SO I THINK THAT'S THE VERY QUICK THUMB NAIL. I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU ALL HEARD FROM CATHERINE ALREADY BUT HAPPY TO TALK, ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS OR WHATEVER YOU HAVE. >> I THINK EVERYTHING'S VERY CLEAR. NO QUESTIONS. >> GREAT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US. >> I'LL LEAVE YOU TO THE REST OF YOUR BUSINESS. THANK YOU ALL. >> SO OUR NEXT TALK IS BY DR. RAGHAVACHARI, PROGRAM DIRECTOR AT NSF INTEGRATIVE AND ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEMS DIVISION, HE'S GOING TO TALK ABOUT DEVELOPING A NATIONAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE FOR NEUROSCIENCE. >> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. THANKS FOR HAVING US OVER TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING AT THE NSF. SO NSF IS SORT OF A BROAD UMBRELLA PROGRAM OF NEUROSCIENCE, WHICH IS A FEW YEARS AGO CONGRESS WANTED US TO INVEST IN NEUROSCIENCE IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE WERE ALREADY DOING. SO THEY MADE US SORT OF GO THROUGH THE WHOLE EXERCISE OF PRIORITIZING WHAT WE WANTED TO SPEND IN NEUROSCIENCE. WE CAME UP WITH A CATCH-ALL, NSF IS DIVERSE. SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW THIS. I'LL JUST RUN THROUGH QUICKLY WHAT WE DO AND HOW WE THINK ABOUT NEUROSCIENCE ACROSS ALL OUR DISCIPLINES WE SUPPORT. AND BRAIN INITIATIVE CAME ALONG A YEAR LATER, SO THAT WAS ROLLED INTO THIS UMBRELLA PROGRAM OF UNDERSTANDING THE BRAIN. SO, AGAIN, NSF OF COURSE SUPPORTS A NUMBER OF SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES, NOT JUST BIOMEDICINE, WE HAVE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, MATH AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE, SOCIAL, BEHAVIORAL, ECONOMIC, COMMUTER AND INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES. SO BOTH NEUROSCIENCE SORT OF UNDERSTANDING THE BRAIN AS WELL AS BRAIN INITIATIVE LIVES ACROSS ALL OF THESE DIRECTORATES, REPRESENTATIVES SUPPORT DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF NEUROSCIENCE BASED ON THEIR SPECIFIC INTERESTS. AND WHEN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE WAS ROLLED OUT IN 2013, 2014, WE HAD A WORKING GROUP THAT ESSENTIALLY DECIDED TO CARVE OUT SPECIFIC AREAS FOR WHAT WE WANTED TO SUPPORT, WHICH MESHED WITH SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES THAT NSF SUPPORTS. SO OVERARCHING THEMES WERE BASICALLY SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD LOOK AT MULTI-SCALE INTEGRATION OF BRAIN DYNAMIC ACTIVITY AND STRUCTURE AND AS PART OF THIS, SINCE WE INVEST HEAVILY IN INFRASTRUCTURE ACROSS VARIETY OF DISCIPLINES, SOME OF YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR, ICE CUBE IN THE NEWS RECENTLY, NSF SUPPORTED INVESTMENT, NEUROTECHNOLOGY IS A PORTION THAT IS HEAVILY PART OF "BRAIN" AT NIH. SINCE WE HAVE COLLEAGUES AND RESEARCHERS WHO ARE THEORISTS, MATHEMATICIANS, PHYSICISTS, ANOTHER EMPHASIS AREA WAS THEORY AND MODELING OF BRAIN FUNCTION. ENGINEERS REALLY WANTED TO TAKE THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM NEUROSCIENCE AND TURN THEM INTO ACTUAL DESIGNED WORKING SORT OF STRUCTURES AND ENGINEERED ENTITIES, SO BRAIN-INSPIRED CONCEPTS AND DEVICES. SINCE NSF HEAVILY INVESTS IN GRADUATE EDUCATION AND TRAINING, THE NOTION OF BRAIN WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT IS AGAIN PART OF ALL OUR BRAIN ACTIVITIES. SO, ONE OF THE ACTIVITIES, I DID NOT GET THIS SLIDE JUST TILL THIS MORNING, SO I'M AFRAID I DON'T HAVE THAT LOADED UP. IN FY17 NSF SPENT ABOUT $89 MILLION ON BRAIN, AND ABOUT $129 MILLION ON NEUROSCIENCE, A LITTLE BIT IN THE COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SCIENCE. ONE ACTIVITY IN FY17 WAS THE PROGRAM NEURONEX TO START REALLY INSTITUTIONALIZING THE VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES COMING OUT OF BRAIN INITIATIVE MAKING SURE THESE COULD BE DISSEMINATED ACROSS A VARIETY, MADE AVAILABLE TO AS MANY RESEARCHERS AS POSSIBLE. AND ALSO, WE REALIZED SINCE AGAIN WE HAVE LONGSTANDING INVESTMENT IN THEORY CENTERS IN PHYSICS FOR INSTANCE AND MATHEMATICAL INSTITUTES IN MATH AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE, THE IDEA WAS TO START THINKING ABOUT THEORY TEAMS OR THEORY SORT OF HUBS OR CENTERS WHERE PEOPLE COULD BE ESSENTIALLY BRAIN THINK TANKS. IN FY17 THERE WAS A COMPETITION, NEURONEX TO DISSEMINATE AND TEAMS, FUNDED NINE HUBS, TWO TEAMS, $2 MILLION A YEAR FOR FIVE YEARS, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS. ONE REQUIREMENT FOR DISSEMINATION WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE TECHNOLOGIES COULD BE TURNED INTO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR AS MANY POTENTIAL SPECIES AS POSSIBLE, SO MY PROGRAM I FUND RESEARCH ACROSS FROM PRAYING MANTIS, MOTOR AND SENSORY SYSTEMS, MAKING SURE THE TOOLS ARE AVAILABLE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO AS WIDE A SPECTRUM OF NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCHERS. THESE ARE SOME AWARDS. ONE OF THE AWARDEES IS IN THE ROOM. SO WE HAVE TRANSGENIC -- SORT OF BROAD THINKS OF HUBS, TRANSGENIC AND MOLECULAR APPROACHES, MANIPULATING CIRCUIT ACTIVITY, AND JUST QUICKLY RUN THROUGH THESE. MORE TRANSGENIC, OPTICAL AND COMPUTATIONAL APPROACHES FOR STRUCTURE ANALYSIS, SO WE HAD -- SOME CONNECTOMICS WORK, AGAIN SORT OF A MICRO CONNECTOME AND MESO CONNECTOME FOR C. ELEGANS, AGAIN FOR LARGE SCALE DEVICES DID NOT GET THAT MANY APPLICATIONS BUT WHATEVER WE GOT, THIS WAS AMONG THE FEW THAT BOBBED TO THE TOP. AND THIS IS FROM UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN. AND THIS OF COURSE SINCE THE BRAIN INITIATIVE HAS BEEN EXTREMELY GENEROUS IN SUPPORTING A LOT OF LARGE SCALE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES THAT EMERGED, THIS IS AT THE FOREFRONT. WE GOT SEVERAL VERY STRONG APPLICATIONS AND THESE WERE THE THREE WE SUPPORTED, WHICH WERE SORT OF MULTI-PHOTON WIDE FIELD IMAGING FROM SPENCER SMITH, THREE PHOTON FROM CHRIS SHUE AND MINI SCOPES FROM PAM AND UCLA. THOSE WERE THE TWO THEORY TEAMS, ONE FOR LARRY ABBOTT AND COLUMBIA AND (INDISCERNIBLE) AT UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON ALONG WITH HIS TEAM, TEXAS AND INDIANA. OKAY. SOME OTHER PROGRAMS, WE HAVE THREE FLAGSHIP PROGRAMS, ONE WAS THE NEURONEX. THE SECOND HAS BEEN AROUND SEVERAL YEARS, WHICH IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE FIRST OF ITS KIND TO SUPPORT COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE, NIH IS VERY MUCH A PART OF THIS, AND ALSO WE HAVE SEVERAL INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS, AND THIS IS, AGAIN, COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE WRIT LARGE OF BOTH DISEASE AND NORMAL FUNCTION AND ALSO TO THINK ABOUT IMPLICATIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL AND ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, AND TWO KINDS OF PROPOSALS, CORE RESEARCH AS WELL AS DATA SHARING SO ESSENTIALLY SEVERAL DATASETS HAVE BEEN COLLECTED OVER THE YEARS, NOW RESEARCHERS IS WRITE PROPOSAL, HOST, CURATE THEM, WIDELY AVAILABLE TO A LARGE NUMBER OF COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENTISTS TO ACT ON THIS. AND MANY OF THESE, ABOUT 40% TO INTERNATIONAL TEAMS, AND WE HAVE INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS INCLUDING FRANCE, GERMANY, ISRAEL, AND SPAIN BEING THE MOST RECENT ONE, AND SOMETIMES EVEN MULTI-LATERAL PARTNERS, WE CAN HAVE TEAMS BETWEEN U.S., SO ONE TEAM HAS TO BE U.S., OTHER INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS COULD BE ANY ONE OF THESE COUNTRIES OR MORE THAN ONE. A SECOND PROGRAM THAT'S CONTINUALLY EVOLVING AS WE GO ALONG IS WHAT'S CALLED INTEGRATIVE STRATEGIES FOR UNDERSTANDING NEURAL AND COGNITIVE SYSTEMS. NCS PROGRAM. AND THESE ARE MORE THEMATIC, SO ALL THE NEURONEX AS WELL AS CRCNS ARE PRETTY MUCH WIDE OPEN, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A GOOD IDEA AND SUBMIT, THAT'S FINE. THE NCS PROGRAM HAS FOUR VERY SPECIFIC EMPHASIS AREAS, SO ONE OF THEM IS NEUROENGINEERING AND BRAIN-INSPIRED CONCEPT AND DESIGN, A THEME WE TALKED ABOUT. THIS PROGRAM IS SUPPORTED BY THE COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SCIENCES, SBE, SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, AND ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE, ENGINEERING AND HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTORATE. SOME THEMES ARE SHOWING UP IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY ARE INTERESTED IN. THERE'S A NEURAL ENGINEERING AND BRAIN INSPIRED CONCEPTS, SBE FOLKS ARE INTERESTED IN HOW INDIVIDUALITY AND VARIATION ARISES IN NEURAL CIRCUITED AND MANIFESTS IN BEHAVIOR, AND FINALLY SINCE COMPUTER SCIENCE IS BIG ON BIG DATA, AND NEUROSCIENCE IS TRANSITIONING TO BIG DATA, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A REAL BIG DATA ENDEAVOR, WE HAVE DATA IN TERMS OF NEUROSCIENCE AND COGNITIVE SCIENCE. SO THE MOST RECENT SET OF AWARDS ARE ABOUT TO BE MADE, COMPETITIONS WE'RE STILL GIVING VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SHENANIGANS IN WASHINGTON, WE'RE ONLY NOW ABOUT TO MAKE THESE AWARDS BUT THEY ARE ABOUT TO GO OUT. OKAY. SO, AS I SAID, THIS PROGRAM IS EVOLVING. SO FAR MOST OF THESE AWARDS HAVE BEEN FOR SMALLISH TEAMS, TWO TO THREE INVESTIGATORS, AND TOTAL COSTS OF ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS MAXIMUM, AND NOW IN FY19 NEW SOLICITATIONS OUT, THESE WILL BE LARGER AWARDS, FOR MULTIPLE SORT OF LARGER TEAMS WITH BIGGER CHALLENGES. AND THESE -- THE PLAN IS TO -- THE FOCUS WILL BE ON THESE LARGEST SCALE FRONTIERS PROJECTS, WHICH HAVE A TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET OF ABOUT $10 TO $15 MILLION, AND WE ANTICIPATE ABOUT 3 TO 5 AWARDS IN THIS CASE. AGAIN, THESE ARE THE TOTAL COSTS FOR THESE AWARDS. SO NCS, THE NEXT ROUND OF NCS IS ANTICIPATING THESE LARGER PROJECTS TO COME TOGETHER. SO FAR WE'VE BEEN SUPPORTING INDIVIDUAL OR ONE OR TWO INVESTIGATORS, THE GOAL IS TO GET THESE TO MOVE UP IN SCALE. NOT UNLIKE SOME OF THE INTEGRATIVE WORK HERE, U19s. >> IS THAT TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET PER YEAR? >> THIS IS -- TYPICALLY WE HAVE -- WELL, IT DEPENDS. IF WE END UP WITH COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PLAN IS. IF THESE ARE COOPERATIVE IT WILL BE PER YEAR. IF IF REGULAR PRACTICE, STANDARD AWARDS, THEY WILL BE A MIX OF SORT OF ALL THE MONEY AT ONCE OR STAGGERED OVER THREE YEARS. BETWEEN $15 MILLION TO $30 MILLION. OKAY. THE OTHER THING WE THINK A LOT ABOUT IS TO START MOVING NEUROSCIENCE INTO NOT NECESSARILY BIG SCIENCE BUT REALLY START THINKING ABOUT SHARED CHALLENGES AND THE CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS NEUROSCIENCE WILL FACE. NSF HAS BEEN SUPPORTING CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR SEVERAL YEARS, SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE USED THIS. THE EXCEED PROGRAM ALLOWS YOU TO GET TIME ON LARGE SCALE SUPERCOMPUTERS THAT NSF HAS OR CLOUD COMPUTERS THAT NSF SUPPORTS. THE DATA CHALLENGE IN NEUROSCIENCE AND ANALYSIS CHALLENGE ARE LARGE ENOUGH NOW THAT WE NEED TO SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE IS ACTUALLY NEEDED. ONE ACTIVITY WAS TO SUPPORT SMALL PILOT AWARDS TO START THINKING ABOUT DESIGNS AND CONCEPTS FOR CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR NEUROSCIENCE. SO THERE WERE THREE AWARDS MADE, IN VARIOUS STAGES OF -- VARIOUS DESIGN STAGES. AND THE IDEA IS -- I'LL COME TO THAT, WHY WE'RE THINKING ABOUT HOW THIS MESHES WITH THE DIRECTION OF NSF'S INFRASTRUCTURE-RELATED ISSUES. SO AS I MENTIONED, ONE OF THE -- IN FY16, FY17 ONE OF THE BIG IDEAS THAT CAME OUT, ONE OF THE IDEAS THAT CAME OUT OF NSF NEW SETS OF DIRECTIONS, TEN BIG IDEAS. AND THESE ARE SIX SCIENTIFIC IDEAS, AND AGAIN THEY ARE RELEVANT TO DIFFERENT DIRECTORATES, FOR BIOLOGY TRACING FROM GENOTYPE TO PHENOTYPE HOW CAN YOU MAKE PREDICTIVE MODELS OF LOOKING AT GENOTYPE AND PREDICTING PHENOTYPE. AGAIN BRAIN WILL BE VERY MUCH PART OF THAT. BUT THEN FOUR PROCESS IDEAS. ONE OF THEM WHICH IS RELEVANT HERE IS MID-SCALE INFRASTRUCTURE. SO NSF SUPPORTS A MAJOR RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION PROGRAM, ABOUT $4 MILLION, YOU CAN BUY A BIG MAGNET OR INSTRUMENT OR MICROSCOPE PERHAPS, ON THE OTHER HAND THERE ARE THESE VERY LARGE CONGRESSIONALLY MANDATED SEPARATE BUDGET PROJECTS WHICH HAVE A VERY SOLID SCHEDULE, THRESHOLD IS $100 MILLION A YEAR. THAT'S THE MAJOR RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION, RATHER MAJOR RESEARCH FACILITY PROGRAM. AND IN BETWEEN THERE'S THIS BIG HOLE AS SYMBOLIZED WITH THE BROKEN BRIDGE. AND THE QUESTION IS, ARE THERE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS THAT FALL IN THIS SPACE? MANY SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES HAVE THEM. AT LEAST IN NEUROSCIENCE WE HAVEN'T CAUGHT UP TO IT YET. I THINK THERE'S A BIG GAP OF WHAT THESE MID-SCALE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS MIGHT BE, WHAT MID-SCALE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ARE. AND THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION THAT WAS SENT OUT IN FY17 OR FY 18, AND THESE WERE COLLATED, BASICALLY NOTHING FROM NEURO, VERY HANDFUL FROM BIO. MAJORITY WERE PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, GEOLOGIC SCIENCE. SECOND IS DATA NEUROSCIENCE, RUBRIC, HARNESSING DATA EVOLUTION. MANY ARE MAKING THE CLAIM OF BIG DATA BEING IMPORTANT TO SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, AND WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH BIG DATA FOR A LONG TIME IN NEUROSCIENCE BUT THE LEAP HASN'T BEEN MADE IN SYSTEMATIC WAY PROVIDING TOOLS TO THE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF SOFTWARE AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SO THAT NEUROSCIENCE, BIG DATA CAN BE WORKED WITH. SO, AGAIN THESE ARE ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE BEING ROLLED OUT IN FY 18 AND FY19 AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE ENOUGH NEUROSCIENCE AND BRAIN PARTICIPATION IN THAT BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR. IT DEPENDS ON THE P.I.s. AND FINALLY THE OTHER ACTIVITY THAT WE'RE GEARING UP TO LAUNCH IS NOW THAT WE HAVE THESE HUBS WE'RE TRYING TO SUPPORT -- AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS, WE'RE TRYING TO THINK ABOUT BRINGING USERS INTO THE FOLD TO LOOK AT LARGER QUESTIONS AND SUPPORT LARGER TEAMS TO PLUG INTO THE NEUROTECHNOLOGY HUBS AND MAYBE MAKE USE OF THESE RESOURCES AND THE ONCE COMING OUT OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE TO THINK ABOUT LARGER QUESTIONS AND SUPPORT, SO OUR GOAL IS TO START SUPPORTING LARGER TEAMS ON WORK ON SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. AGAIN SOME COULD BE PART OF THE NCS TEAMS, FRONTIERS TEAMS I MENTIONED, BUT WE'RE ALSO THINKING ABOUT PUTTING THESE WITH INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS TO PUT TOGETHER A MUCH LARGER SCALE ACTIVITY. SO THAT'S SORT OF THE QUICK UPDATE OF WHAT NSF HAS BEEN UP TO. ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH? >> THIS IS NOT ONLY TO DO WITH NSF BUT ALSO TO BRAIN. AND THAT IS -- ALSO TO ETHICS. AND I IMAGINE THAT YOU REQUIRE YOUR GRANTEES TO SAY THEY WILL MAKE ALL THEIR DATA PUBLICLY AVAILABLE OR DO YOU DO THAT IN A QUALIFIED WAY? >> SO CNS REQUIRE ALL DATA TO BE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, THAT'S ONE OF THE REVIEW CRITERIA IN FACT. NEURONEX, ALL THE REGIONS OR TOOLS MUST BE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. IN AS MUCH AS ANY PROJECTS ARE PART OF DATA, DATA ASSOCIATED NEEDS, YES, THEY MUST BE. >> BECAUSE -- I IMAGINE MANY THINGS THAT BRAIN SAY THE SAME THING BUT ON THE OTHER HAND AS AN EDITOR OF A JOURNAL WE GET PUSHBACK FROM AUTHORS WHO SAY, OH, YOU CAN'T MAKE ELECTROPHYSIOLOGIC DATA PUBLICLY AVAILABLE BECAUSE NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND IT, I STILL WANT TO USE THIS DATA FOR THE NEXT 8 YEARS, IT'S NOT FAIR, NOT FAIR, NOT FAIR. SO THERE'S A LACK OF BOTH TRANSPARENCY WHEN FOLLOW-THROUGH BETWEEN I THINK WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HAPPEN AND WHAT MANY JOURNALS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HAPPEN, AND AUTHORS WHO ARE IN AN INTERMEDIATE ZONE. THE QUESTION IS, I THINK THIS IS A QUESTION FOR EVERYBODY, TO WHAT EXTENT DO JOURNALS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ENFORCE NSF AND NIH ISSUES WHEN DO YOU DO WHEN AUTHORS STONE WALL AND SAY NO? >> I CAN OFFER AN ANSWER, I'M SURE ANYBODY ELSE WHO THOUGHT ABOUT THIS CAN OFFER UP AN ANSWER. PART IS NOT JUST MAKING THE DATA AVAILABLE. IT'S ALL THE METADATA THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT. YOUR METADATA MIGHT BE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM MINE. THAT MEANS ALSO -- >> (INAUDIBLE). >> ABSOLUTELY. WHAT MIGHT BE MORE RELEVANT IS TO START THINKING ABOUT STANDARDS FOR METADATA RATHER THAN DATA STANDARDS, START CATALOGING THOSE. AND THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION, SHARED BY A FEW, THE BETTER WAY IS START THINKING ABOUT TEAMS THAT HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER TO SOLVE SOME QUESTION THEY ARE INTERESTED IN, RIGHT? THEY HAVE TO SHARE THEIR DATA OR EVOLVE META STANDARDS FOR DATA TO SHARE ACROSS THEIR TEAM, INTERNATIONAL BRAIN LAB IS ONE POSSIBLE EXAMPLE, A TASK TO COME UP WITH WAYS OF SHARING METADATA. THE OTHER PROBLEM WHO IS GOING TO PROVIDE BANDWIDTH AND STORAGE FOR ALL OF THESE? PAYING AMAZON TO DO THIS LIKE DAVID'S DONE IS ONE SOLUTION, RIGHT? IT'S EASY TO PUT THE DATA IN, REALLY HARD TO GET THE DATA OUT 20 OR 15 YEARS FROM NOW, PROVIDING DATA IS OF ANY USE. WE HAVE SOME WAYS OF DOING THIS, CRCNS IS SORT OF A DATA PORTAL THAT DOES DO THAT. WE'VE HAD SORT OF A FEW HIT OR MISS PROJECTS THAT WE'VE SUPPORTED IN COMPUTE R THAT PURPORT TO COME UP WITH DATA STANDARDS THAT CAN BE USED. IT'S A SOCIOLOGICAL AND TECHNICAL PROBLEM. BEFORE WE CHARGE JOURNALS OR AUTHORS TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT I THINK WE NEED TO START SETTING UP SYSTEMS AND CHANGE THE CULTURE BEFORE WE GET THERE. DAVID I'M SURE CAN GIVE A FAIRLY INFORMED OPINION ABOUT HOW THEY MANAGED TO DO IT FOR MICRONS. YEAH? >> IT'S CLEAR JUST LISTENING TO YOUR TALK THERE'S, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST SYNERGY WITH BUT A LOT OF REAL OVERLAP COMMON INTEREST BETWEEN WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HERE AND WHAT THE NSF IS THINKING ABOUT, LISTENING ON THE BRAIN 2.0 NIH CONVERSATIONS. IT'S ALSO CLEAR SOME OF YOUR FUTURE IDEAS ARE ALSO QUITE SYNERGISTIC WITH IDEAS WE'VE BEEN BATTING AROUND. REALLY A QUESTION FOR BOTH SIDES, OBVIOUSLY YOUR PRESENCE HERE SUGGESTS THERE'S SOME EFFORT TO TRY TO AT LEAST BE INFORMED ABOUT WHAT EACH SIDE IS DOING, BUT ARE THERE KIND OF BROADER LEVEL OF EFFORTS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SYNERGY AND THINK IN A COMPREHENSIVE WAY? ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES THERE THAT WE SHOULD BE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT MAYBE WE HAVEN'T BEEN SO FAR IN TERMS OF COORDINATION BETWEEN OUR RESPECTIVE INTERESTS BECAUSE IN MANY CASE THOUGH COMPLEMENTARY THERE'S ALSO AREAS OF GREAT SYNERGY. >> DO YOU WANT TO CHIME IN? >> I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU TO CHIME IN. [LAUGHTER] >> SO I MEAN, I THINK I CAN GIVE AN EXAMPLE, A CONCRETE EXAMPLE OF SYNERGY. AND THAT IS LAST ROUND WE FUNDED THE PITTSBURGH -- AN AWARD AT THE PITTSBURGH COMPUTER CENTER FOR CONFOCAL, AN INVESTMENT AT THAT FACILITY, THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THIS. THERE ARE A LOT OF FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL WAYS TO MAKE USE OF NSF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR NIH-SUPPORTED WORK. I DON'T THINK THERE'S PROBABLY A GENERAL ANSWER. I THINK THESE ARE ONE-OFF TYPES OF SITUATIONS, BUT MY SENSE IS THE NSF INVESTIGATORS ARE VERY INTERESTED IN FINDING WAYS TO PARTNER WITH NIH AWARDEES BECAUSE IT HELPS EVERYONE. >> ARE THERE WAYS TO ACTUALLY KIND OF FACILITATE THAT AND PERHAPS WITH MECHANISMS THAT HAVEN'T YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED? >> WELL, SO CRCNS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE, AND BRAIN IS NOW PUTTING FUNDS INTO -- DIRECTLY INTO CRCNS GRANTS. THIS IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, NOT JUST WITH NIH BUT WITH FUNDING ORGANIZATIONS ALL OVER THE WORLD. AND IT'S REALLY BEEN, YOU KNOW, A GEM IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S GOTTEN EVERYBODY IN COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE INTO A PARTICULAR FORUM WHERE THEY CAN GET FUNDED BUT IT'S BEEN ALSO A TON OF EFFORT BY NIH AND NSF STAFF, SO IT'S NOT -- THESE KINDS OF COOPERATIVE EFFORTS CAN'T REALLY BE DONE, UNDERTAKEN LIGHTLY, BUT WHAT WE DO IS, YOU KNOW, LIKE SO FAR THE NEURONEX PROGRAM WE WERE ENGAGED FROM THE BEGINNING WHEN THEY WERE JUST COMING UP WITH THE CONCEPT THROUGH THE REVIEW, AND, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE FUNDING AND WHAT THOSE PROPOSALS ARE DOING, SO WE KNOW WHERE THE OVERLAP IS, AND, YOU KNOW, ADJUST OUR FUNDING STRATEGIES ACCORDINGLY. >> BUT I DO WANT TO ADD ON TO THAT BECAUSE WHILE CRCNS IS REALLY A GOOD EXAMPLE, IT'S AT THE INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATOR LEVEL, MAYBE LARGER, THAT ROUGH LEVEL. ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND WE END UP I THINK BETWEEN US WE HAVE GOOD CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN NSF AND NIH. I THINK WE TEND TO HELP MAKE MARRIAGES IN PLACES WHERE THERE ARE INFRASTRUCTURE AT NSF WHO IS LOOKING FOR PARTNERS AT NIH AND VICE VERSA. THAT REALLY DOES HAPPEN. BUT IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE DOZENS OF EXAMPLES. WE HAVE ONES AND TWOS OF EXAMPLES BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. >> REALLY, THE QUESTION, DO YOU THINK THAT'S KIND OF COVERING THE NEED OR IS THERE SOME OPPORTUNITY TO DO -- TO CREATE MECHANISMS IN A MORE SYSTEMATIC WAY? >> I HAVE A FEELING I'M NOT SURE THAT SRI AND I WOULD HAVE THE SAME ANSWER. MY SENSE WE'RE MORE OR LESS COVERING WHAT CAN BE DONE AT THIS POINT, BUT THERE PROBABLY ARE AREAS WHERE WE COULD TRY TO SPIN PEOPLE UP TO BE MORE INTERESTED IN EACH OTHER'S WORK. THOSE THINGS TEND TO HAVE A BIT OF A SORT OF TEA AND COOKIES TYPE OF FLAVOR. IN ORDER TO GET PEOPLE IN THE ROOM AND TALKING TO EACH OTHER, AND WE'VE HAD MIXED SUCCESS AT NIH WITH THOSE TYPES OF PROGRAMS. >> (INAUDIBLE) GRADUATE TRAINING, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THE BRAIN INITIATIVE NEEDS IS PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CHANGE FIELDS AND MAKE TRANSITIONS, AND IT WOULD BE INTERESTING, THE BRAIN F32s CAN DO SOME OF THAT BUT THEY ARE VERY LIMITED TO EARLY STAGE POSTDOCS AND I WONDER WHETHER NSF OR MAYBE NSF AND BRAIN TOGETHER WOULD BE ABLE TO CREATE A POSTDOC MECHANISM FOR THOSE FIELD TRANSITIONING PEOPLE, MUCH LIKE THE OLD SLOAN AND SCHWARTZ GRANTS WHICH ARE NOW VAGUELY DISAPPEARING, BECAUSE ALL OF THIS WORKING REQUIRES THAT CADRE. >> WE'VE KICKED AROUND THAT IDEA, NSF DOES NOT EXPLICITLY HAVE A BIG POSTDOC PROGRAM, WE HAVE RELATIVELY SMALL POSTDOC PROGRAMS. ONE IS A NEURONEX POSTDOC FELLOWSHIP IS ON THE TABLE. WE HAVEN'T DONE MUCH WITH IT YET BUT WE SORT OF HAVE TO FLESH IT OUT. BUT YES, THERE IS MORE AND MORE INTEREST FROM GRADUATE RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM, TOWARD THE BRAIN-ASSOCIATED AREAS. AND IN FACT THERE ARE MORE GRADUATE TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES THAT I DID NOT MENTION FROM EHR, FROM THE PAGE, PULLING PEOPLE FROM MATH AND NEUROSCIENCE TO THE THE BRAIN. >> MOST ARE GOING INTO INDUSTRY, IF YOU WANT TO RETAIN A FRACTION FROM GOOGLE AND FACE BOOK IT MIGHT BE NICE TO HAVE A NEW FELLOWSHIP. >> SURE, BUT THE PROBLEM IS GOOGLE AND FACESBOOK IS A SYSTEMIC ISSUE. >> I HAVE A QUESTION, I WAS WONDERING I'M SURE THIS MUST HAPPEN, THE BRAIN INITIATIVE RFAs THAT ARE COMING INTO NIH MAY ACTUALLY BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR NSF AND VICE VERSA. DO YOU -- HOW DO YOU MANAGE THAT? DO YOU COAX AND INVESTIGATOR WHEN THEY CAN'T -- THEY ARE NOT SCORING AS WELL AS YOU WOULD THINK THEY WOULD IN THE OTHER REVIEW PROCESS? HOW IS THAT MANAGED? I IMAGINE THERE MAY BE A FEW OPPORTUNITIES WHERE SOMEBODY JUST IS GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, YOU KNOW, JUST PRESENTING THEIR CASE TO THE NSF WHEN IT SHOULD BE NIH OR VICE VERSA, HOW DO YOU MANAGE THAT? >> SO WE HAVE -- WE'RE PART OF THIS BRAIN INITIATIVE SO WE HAVE PROGRAM OFFICERS, A GOOD TRACK RECORD OF EXCHANGING OR SUGGESTING THIS PROJECT MIGHT BE MORE SUITABLE FOR NIH OR NSF. IT'S RARE THAT WE GET PROJECTS THAT ARE -- WE EXPLICITLY MANDATED NO BIOLOGICAL RELEVANCE, CAN STEER P.I.s TO THE OTHER SIDE AND HAVE A REASONABLE NUMBER OF PROJECTS COMING OVER. FOR INSTANCE NED OR GREG OR JIM OR OTHER PEOPLE WILL DEFER THEM TO US AND THEY PICK UP. >> I WOULD THINK ESPECIALLY WITH EMERGING EMPHASIS ON HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE THERE MIGHT BE SOME AREAS WHERE YOU GET -- DO GET THINGS WITH BIOMEDICAL RELEVANCE AS A COROLLARY. >> SURE, ENGINEERING AND DIRECTORATES HAVE NO PROBLEMS FUNDING BIOMEDICAL PROJECTS, SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, ECONOMICS. NED? >> YEAH, I WAS GOING TO SAY FOR THE REGULAR INSTITUTE APPROPRIATIONS, THIS IS A CONSIDERATION WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SORT OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DISEASE MECHANISMS AND FUNDAMENTAL NEUROBIOLOGY BUT FOR BRAIN SINCE WE'RE GOING AFTER THE FUNDAMENTALS IT'S LESS OF AN ISSUE. WHERE IT MATTERS, NSF HAS A GRANTING MECHANISM WITH FLEXIBILITY TO GIVE R21-SIZE AWARDS TO INVESTIGATORS BASED ON THE KERNEL OF AN IDEA AND THE PROGRAM MANAGER ACTUALLY HAS A LOT OF DISCRETION IN THAT, AND I CAN THINK OF AT LEAST A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES WHERE I'VE JUST SAID, OKAY, YOU SHOULD CONTACT THEM AND THEY GOT FUNDED THAT WAY. IT'S SOMETHING WHERE NIH MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FUND IT BUT IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN QUITE A FEW MONTHS AND, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T CERTAIN ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT NIH WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT. >> AND JUST MANY OF THESE NEURONEX PROJECTS THAT GOT FUNDED STARTED AS AN R21-LIKE IDEA, SOME CAME FROM SUGGESTIONS FROM NED, FOR INSTANCE. GRACE? >> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A QUICK COMMENT, YOU SEE A LOT OF SRI'S PRESENTATION SHOWS SIMILAR TOPICS GOING BACK TO BRUCE'S COMMENT FOR EXAMPLE IN TERMS OF THEORIES AND MODEL THERE'S A LOT OF CLOSE CONNECTION, USUALLY WE HAVE P.I.s DOING MORE FOUNDATIONAL THEORIES, THAT TYPE OF PROJECTS, GO TO NSF, AND THEY MAY ACTUALLY APPLY TO BOTH, AND WE WOULD ALLOW -- WOULD PARSE OUT THE MORE FOUNDATIONAL RISKY PROBLEMS FOR NSF, NIH FOR DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION. SRI AND HIS GROUP HAVE BEEN ATTENDING OUR TEAM REVIEWS AS WELL SO THEY ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE NUANCES AND CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE GRANTS THAT ARE REVIEWED IN OUR BRAIN TEAM. >> I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE ON. THANKS A LOT, SRI. AGAIN, THANKS FOR THE CLOSE COORDINATION BETWEEN OUR PROGRAM AND YOUR PROGRAM. THAT'S REALLY BEEN VERY IMPORTANT. OKAY. SO WE USED UP OUR BREAK. >> HANK ONCE TO MAKE ONE VERY QUICK -- >> THIRTY SECONDS, EFFICIENCY OF NEUROETHICS WORKING GROUP SOMETIMES SURPRISES ME, INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY IS HAPPY TO HOST AN NIH THING-Y ON GRANT WRITING. IT'S UNCLEAR WHETHER IT'S THURSDAY LUNCH OR FRIDAY LUNCH BUT, GREG, LET'S BE IN TOUCH. >> OKAY. YOU YOU WANT TO BREAK FOR MAYBE FIVE MINUTES OR SO, AND WE'LL COME BACK. THANKS. WE'RE NOW INTO CLOSED SESSION