>> SO WHILE WHEER WE'RE WAITING FOR WALTER TO ARRIVE I THOUGHT WE COULD DO SOME OF THE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, I THINK WALTER KNOWS ALL OF THIS BY HEART, AND THEN IF WE STILL HAVE TIME, IF ANYBODY HAS A GOOD JOKE TO TELL, WE'D BE HAPPY TO HEAR THOSE. NATIONAL JOKE DAY? OH, PERFECT! OKAY! WE'LL EXPECT ONE FROM WALTER THEN. SO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW ME, I'M SUSAN WEISS, AND I'M SERVING AS THE DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL FOR THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORK GROUP. I WORK AT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH BUT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH BRAIN SINCE IT STARTED, I'VE BEEN ON THE COORDINATING COMMITTEE, AND IT IS AN HONOR AND A PLEASURE TO SERVE IN THIS ROLE FOR THE WORKING GROUP. SO AFTER A FEW OPENING REMARKS, I'M GOING TO ASK IF WE COULD HAVE BRIEF INTRODUCTIONS BECAUSE WE HAVE A FEW NEW MEMBERS JOINING US TODAY. CAROL MASON IS HERE REPRESENTING THE EYE INSTITUTE, AND ELBA SERRANO, I'M NOT SURE IF SHE'S ON THE PHONE OR NOT, SHE'S AN AT LARGE MEMBER BUT SHE'S ALSO NEW TO THE GROUP. WE WILL HAVE MARK SNITZER ROTATING OFF THE WORKING GROUP AND HE'LL SAY A FEW WORDS IN HIS OPENING REMARKS ON THE STATE OF THE BRAIN. SO FOR THE NEW MEMBERS AND ALSO AS A REMINDER TO THE REST OF THE GROUP, I JUST WANT TO MENTION A COUPLE OF PRINCIPLES THAT GOVERN THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP ACTIVITIES. AS YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW, THIS IS NOT A FORMAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, IT DOESN'T FALL UNDER THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT SO THE ROLE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE INSTITUTE ADVISORY COUNCILS DO. TECHNICALLY IT IS AN ADVISORY GROUP TO THE BRAIN IC COUNCILS, AND FOR THAT REASON, IT CONTAINS MEMBERS OF THE COUNCILS FROM THE VARIOUS -- FROM THE 10 INSTITUTES AND CENTERS THAT COMPRISE THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, AS WELL AS SOME AT LARGE MEMBERS SO BROADEN AND COMPLEMENT THE EXPERTISE OF THE GROUP. THE WORKING GROUP WAS CREATED WHEN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE GOT STARTED BECAUSE OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE 10 INSTITUTES AND CENTERS AND THE RECOGNITION THAT THE BREADTH AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SCIENCE MERITED ADDITIONAL EXPERTISE AND GUIDANCE MORE THAN WHAT COULD BE GOTTEN FROM A SINGLE IC'S ADVISORY COUNCIL. SO YOUR ROLE IS TO PROVIDE SCIENTIFIC WISDOM AND GUIDANCE RELATED TO FUNDING STRATEGIES, INITIATIVE PLANNING AND PROGRESS IN ACHIEVING THE GOALS LAID OUT IN THE BRAIN 2025 VISION. TODAY'S MEETING WILL INCLUDE BOTH -- OH, AND HERE'S WALTER -- WILL INCLUDE BOTH AN OPEN AND CLOSED SESSION. THE OPEN SESSION IS WHAT WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW. IT WILL BEGIN WITH AN OVERVIEW OF THE STATE OF THE BRAIN BY WALTER, AND IT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY A DISCUSSION OF TWO CONCEPTS, ONE OF WHICH YOU HEARD ABOUT LAST TIME AND HAS BEEN MODIFIED BASED ON THE FEEDBACK OF THE WORKING GROUP, AND THE OTHER ONE IS A NEW ONE BUT IT'S ALSO BEEN DISCUSSED TO SOME DEGREE AT PREVIOUS WORK GROUP MEETINGS. I WANT TO MENTION THAT THE OPEN SESSION IS BEING RECORDED AND IT WILL BE POSTED ON THE BRAIN WEBSITE, SO BE AWARE THAT YOUR COMMENTS ARE NOT OFF THE RECORD. THEN WE WILL TAKE A BREAK AFT OPEN SESSION AND GO TO THE CLOSED SESSION, WHICH WILL HAVE A SEPARATE WEBEX LINK AND DIAL-IN NUMBER ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. DURING THAT SESSION, WE'LL BE DISCUSSING THE REMAINDER OF THE FUNDING PLANS PROPOSED BY THE VARIOUS TEAMS FOR FUNDING IN EARLY FY17 OR EARLY FY18. THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE ALL CONSIDERED CONFIDENTIAL. IF ANYBODY ASKS YOU ABOUT ANY OF THEM, THEN PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SEND THEM TO ME. ALSO WE'RE AWARE OF SEVERAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT WORK GROUP MEMBERS HAVE, AND IF A MEMBER IS LISTED ON AN APPLICATION FOR ONE OF THE RFAs, THEN THEY ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE ENTIRE RFA AND SO THEY WILL BE ASKED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES DURING THOSE PARTS OF THE DISCUSSION. IF THEY HAVE AN INSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT, THEN IF THERE IS A SPECIFIC DISCUSSION ABOUT AN APPLICATION FROM THAT INSTITUTION, THEN WE WILL ALSO ASK YOU TO RECUSE YOURSELVES BUT IF IT'S JUST PART OF THE GENERAL DISCUSSION, THEN IT'S FINE TO STAY AT THE MEETING. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE FUNDING PLANS, BUT THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP WEIGH SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE FINAL DECISIONS MADE BY THE IC ADVISORY COUNCILS AND THE IC DIRECTORS IN CONSULTATION WITH DR. COLLINS. AND FINALLY, I WANT TO THANK SAMANTHA WHITE, KHARA RAMOS, KRISTEN DUPREE AND AMY ADAMS IN ALL THEIR HELP FOR PREPARING FOR THE MEETING. THERE IS A LOT THAT GOES ON BEHIND THE SCENES TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN, AND THEIR OUTSTANDING ATTENTION TO DETAIL AND TO THE BIG PICTURE MAKE THIS A SUCCESS. SO WITH THAT, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK EACH OF THE PEOPLE AT THE TABLE IF THEY COULD GO AROUND AND DO A VERY BRIEF INTRODUCTION. STARTING WITH SAM. >> HI. THIS IS SAM WHITE FROM NINDS. >> THIS IS NED TA LEA FROM NINDS. >> I'M GREG FARBER FROM NIMH. >> PERUSE BRUCE ROW ROSEN FROM THE MGH. >> EVE MARTIN, I'M AT LARGE. >> DAVID TANK FROM PRINCE UNIVERSITY, ALSO AT LARGE. >> GOOD MORNING, JIM EBERWINE FROM UNIVERSITY OF PANCREATIC ADENOCARCINOMA AND PENNSYLVANIA, REPRESENTING MIAA COUNCIL. >> I'M CAROL MASON REPRESENTING NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE COUNCIL. >> I'M FRANCES YENTZEN FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA REPRESENTING NICHD. >> JIM OLDS, BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, NSF. >> JIM DUTCHLER, NSF. >> WALTER KOROSHETZ, NINDS, AND I'M REPRESENTING GREG FARBER AND NED TALLY. [LAUGHTER] >> HANK GREELY, STANFORD LAW SCHOOL. I'M AT LARGE. AND LARGE. >> -- UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA. >> CHRIS -- UC SAN FRANCISCO, REPRESENTING THE -- COUNCIL. >> OKAY. THANK YOU ALL. AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO WALTER. >> THANKS VERY MUCH. AND SORRY TO BE A LITTLE LATE. WE HAVE IC DIRECTORS' MEETING ON THURSDAYS AND I HAVEN'T TO 10 MY USUAL BREATHER TIME TO BE ABLE TO RESET MY HIPPOCAMPUS TO DOWNLOAD THOSE MEMORIES THAT ARE IN MY HEAD SO I COULD MAKE A GOOD PRESENTATION HERE, BUT SO GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT OFLY OF LEEWAY HERE. BUT I WANT TO START OFF BY SAYING THAT THIS MEETING IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR A WHOLE BUNCH OF REASONS. AS YOU'LL SEE, IT'S VERY BUSY, BUT AT THE CORE OF IT, THERE ARE SOME REALLY AMBITIOUS PROPOSALS NOW THAT ARE GOING OUT THAT WERE, WE THINK, AT THE CORE OF WHY THE BRAIN INITIATIVE WAS PUT TOGETHER. AND SO WE OBSESS ABOUT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, WE HAVE FANTASTIC PEOPLE HERE INSIDE THE INSTITUTE, THINK ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME, BUT THIS IS REALLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET FEEDBACK AND THIS GROUP IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO US. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES IN OUR DISCUSSIONS IT COMES UP, WELL, MCWG SAID THIS OR MCWG SAID THAT. SO THESE MEETINGS AND THE THOUGHT THAT YOU PUT INTO THEM IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO US. SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH KIND OF A BRIEF SUMMARY OF WHERE WE ARE. BEFORE THAT, I WANT TO THANK MARK S SCHNITZER WHO WAS ON THE COMMITTEE, WE HAVE OBLIGATION TO ROTATE PEOPLE OFF SO WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING THAT, REPLACING HIM WITH REALLY GOOD PEOPLE, AND MARK WAS A TREMENDOUS THOUGHT LEADER FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. I STILL HAVE IN MY MEMORY THE ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES THAT HE HAS DRILLED INTO MY HIPPOCAMPUS ON HOW WE SHOULD BE GOING ABOUT OUR CIRCUIT -- BRAIN CIRCUIT CHARACTERIZATION PROCESS. YES. >> WALTER, SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU BUT I GOT A TEXT FROM EMORY BROWN AND HE WANTED A REMINDER THAT THERE ARE FOLKS FROM THE COUNCIL ON THE PHONE, MAYBE THEY NEED TO BE INTRODUCED. >> OH, I'M SORRY! >> BEFORE WE SAY GOODBYE TO ANYBODY, MAYBE WE SHOULD SAY HELLO TO SOME PEOPLE. SO COUNCILMEMBERS ON THE PHONE? EMORY? >> THAT'S WHY I CALLED. >> HE'S UNDER ANESTHESIA RIGHT NOW. HI, EMORY. >> HEY, WALTER, HOW YOU ARE? >> I'M GOOD. I'M GOOD. >> EMORY BROWN FROM MGH. MIT. >> GREAT. >> LARRY ABBOTT, I'M ON THE PHONE TOO FROM COLUMBIA REPRESENTING NINDS. >> LARRY. GREAT. OKAY. SO AS I SAID, WE'RE HAPPY TO BE ABLE TO RECOUP REALLY GOOD PEOPLE AROUND THE TABLE, SO CAROL MASON IS HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME, AND SO SHE COMES WITH A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE IN MULTIPLE DIFFERENT AREAS, HEAD OF NEUROSCIENCE AND I'M SURE WILL GANG UP WITH FRANCIS TO GET US TO DO MORE DEVELOPMENT WORK. THEY'RE ALREADY CONSPIRING. AND ELBA SERRANO IS JOINING FROM UNIVERSITY NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY, WHERE SHE IS PROFESSOR OF NEUROSCIENCE AND HAS SPECIAL EXPERTISE IN NEUROETHICS, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO SEE IS GOING TO BE REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT REPRESENTATION OF THE DIVISION OF NEUROETHICS ON THIS COMMITTEE CONTINUE FORWARD. SO WELCOME TO CAROL AND ELBA. OKAY. SO FOR PEOPLE WHO POTENTIALLY ARE ON THE PHONE AND HERE OR WATCHING THIS ON THE VIDEOCAST, THIS IS KIND OF OUR SUMMARY OF WHAT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS ALL ABOUT. AND THE KEY THING IS TO FOCUS ON DEVELOPING THE TOOLS THAT WILL ALLOW SCIENTISTS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE INFORMATION PROCESSING THAT GOES ON IN CIRCUITS OF THE BRAIN. AND THIS IS A DAUNTING EXERCISE BECAUSE OF THE MULTIPLE SCALES AND COMPLEXITY OF THE BRAIN AND ITS CIRCUITS, BUT WE THINK THAT BY INCENTIVIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF TOOLS THAT ATTACK THESE BRAIN CIRCUIT PROCESSES, THAT COULD POTENTIALLY REALLY TRANSFORM OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE BRAIN WORKS AND PARTICULARLY ALSO WE THINK THIS IS GOING TO HAVE TREMENDOUS PAYOFF FOR DISEASES OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN WHICH WE REALLY HAVE NO GOOD PATHOLOGY TO GO ON, AND WE'RE REALLY TIED TO THE DISEASES OF BRAUN CIRCUIT BRAIN CIRCUI T DISORDER AND LIMITED BY OUR ABILITY TO INTERROGATE OR MODULATE THOSE BRAIN CIRCUITS, BUT THAT ALSO HOLDS FOR DISORDERS WHERE WE HAVE PATHOLOGY BECAUSE WE'RE STILL FACED WITH THE FACT OF UNDERSTANDING HOW THAT PATHOLOGY AFFECTS THE CIRCUITS, TRYING TO CHANGE THE PATHOLOGY OFTENTIMES IS FRAUGHT WITH UNSUCCESS, AND THE REAL GOAL IS TO TRY TO EITHER NORMALIZE OR COMPENSATE FOR CIRCUITS THAT HAVE GONE AWRY. WE CAN'T DO THAT WITH THE TOOLS WE HAVE, THE UNDERSTANDING WE HAVE, SO THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS REALLY DRIVING TO UNDERSTAND BRAIN CIRCUIT FUNCTION, DEVELOPING THE TOOLS, DEVELOPING THE MAPS AND GETTING TEAMS TO FORM TO REALLY COME DOWN AND TRY AND UNDERSTAND CIRCUITS IN A VERY DEEP WAY. NOW WE STARTED OUT HERE ON THIS TIMELINE IN 2013 WHERE THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, AS FOLKS WHO ARE ON THE PHONE WHO MAY NOT KNOW, THE BRAUN 2025 REPORT RELEASED IN JUNE OF 2014 IS OUR ROAD MAP FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, AND IT'S A VERY SCHOLARLY DOCUMENT THAT WAS PUT OUT BY PEOPLE AROUND THE COUNTRY PROVIDING INPUT ON HOW NIH SHOULD ROLL THIS OUT, AND WE HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPENT FOR RESPECT FOR TH IS DOCUMENT. BUT AS WE -- I WANT TO NOTE NOW, THAT WAS FROM JUNE OF 2014, AND THE ISSUE IS WHEN DO WE TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND REDIRECT BASED ON WHAT'S HAPPENED AND WHERE WE GO IN THE NEXT PHASE. SO WE ARE GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT TODAY BECAUSE WE'RE COMING UP TO 2019, WHICH WOULD BE THE FIVE-YEAR POINT. OKAY. NOW THERE HAVE BEEN TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RESULTS THAT HAVE COME OUT OF FUNDING FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, WE TAKE CREDIT FOR ANYTHING THAT HAS A BRAIN INITIATIVE GRANT, ACKNOWLEDGE AND ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE BRAIN INITIATIVE WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE, BUT CLEARLY WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT THIS AREA IS A MULTIFACETED PUSH BY THE NEUROSCIENCE COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND BRAIN CIRCUITS AND SO THERE ARE LOTS OF MOVING PIECES HERE AND THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS NOT THE ONLY PIECE THAT'S DRIVING IT, BUT CLEARLY I THINK IT HAS CHANGED THE LANDSCAPE, IT IS THE BIGGEST, MOST WELL FUNDED NEUROSCIENCE PROJECT THAT WE'VE EVER HAD. AND THERE HAVE BEEN REALLY INTERESTING STUFF THAT COMES OUT, SO EVERY TIME WE HAVE A MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP MEETING, I LIKE TO KIND OF PUT OUT ON THE TABLE JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT OUR GROUP HAS FELT IS REALLY AN IMPORTANT ADVANCE THAT'S COME OUT OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. THERE'S HUNDREDS, SO WE USUALLY ONLY DO THREE OR FOUR, AND SO THE TEAMS, THE DIFFERENT TEAMS THAT WORK ON THESE DIFFERENT AREAS OF BRAIN SCIENCE, THEY PICK ONE, AND HE THINK WHAT THEY TRY TO DO IS PICK ONE THAT'S SO COMPLICATED THAT THEY THINK I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT TO THE GROUP. SO LET'S SEE HOW WE DO. SO THIS PROJECT BY THE ECKER LAB CAME OUT, AND IT IS AN EXAMPLE OF LOOKING AT THE DNA METHYLATION PATTERNS IN PATTERNS IN NUCLEI AS A WAY OF CLASSIFYING CELL TYPES. THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS IS THAT AT ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS TO TRY TO DEVELOP A CELL CENSUS OF ALL THE CELLS IN THE BRAIN, AND YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR TODAY ABOUT VERY AMBITIOUS PROJECT TO TRY AND DO THAT IN THE MOUSE AS A SPRINGBOARD TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN THE HUMAN. NOW AS PEOPLE AROUND THE TABLE MAY KNOW, ONE OF THE MAJOR ADVANCES IN THIS AREA OF CELL TYPING HAS BEEN THE HIGH THROUGHPUT ABILITY TO LOOK AT CELLS THAT HAVE BEEN DISASSOCIATED AND LOOK AT THE RNA TRANSCRIPTOME AND THEN CLASSIFY THE CELLS BY THE TRANSCRIP TOMORROW, AND THAT TURNED OUT THETRANSCRIPTOME BEYOND ANYONE'S EXPECTATIONS. TO TRY DO THAT IN THE HUMAN IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REALLY DISASSOCIATE THE CELLS IN THE HUMAN BRAIN, BUT I THINK AS SOMEONE TOLD ME ONCE, IF THE BEGINNING OF THE EXPERIMENT IS YOU PUT THE BRAIN IN A BLENDER, YOU GOT A GOOD PROJECT. AND WHAT YOU CAN DO IS, IF YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO THIS ON THE NUCLEI, IT'S ALMOST LIKE THAT. SO THE FACT THAT YOU CAN IDENTIFY CELL TYPES BASED ON NUCLEUS RNA -- THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO CLASSIFY CELLS IN HUMAN BRAIN TISSUES BECAUSE GETTING THE NUCLEI OUT IS POSSIBLE, DISASSOCIATING ALL THE CELLS CURRENTLY IS NOT POSSIBLE EXCEPT POTENTIALLY IN FETAL BRAIN TISSUE A.SO THIS IS POTENTIALLY SOMETHING THAT WILL COME OUT OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, THIS ABILITY TO CLASSIFY CELLS THAT WILL ALLOW US TO ACTUALLY MOVE TO THE HUMAN MUCH FASTER THAN ANYBODY THOUGHT WE'D BE ABLE TO DO. THIS ONE IS FROM THE MASS GENERAL AND BERKLEY GROUP, I THINK CASE WESTERN IS ALSO INVOLVED TO DEVELOP A MAGNETIC PARTICLE IMAGING SCANNER. THE IDEA OF THIS KIND OF SCANNER IS THAT INSTEAD OF SCANNING LIKE WE DO NOW IN MR, WE'RE LOOKING MOSTLY AT WATER SIGNALS, SOME TYPE OF PARAMAGNETIC SIGNAL FROM, SAY, GADOLINIUM, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF BACKGROUND IN THE CURRENT MR SCANNER SO THAT THE SIGNALS OF BLOOD FLOW AND BLOOD VOLUME WHEN YOU HAVE GADOLINIUM, THEY'RE GOOD BUT THEY'RE NOT FANTASTIC. BUT IF YOU ACTUALLY BUILT A SCANNER FOR THE EXACT PURPOSE OF JUST SCANNING THESE HIGHLY SUPER MAGNETIC PARTICLES, SAY IRON PARTICLES, AND YOU FORGET ABOUT TRYING TO IMAGE THE WATER, YOU COULD GET TREMENDOUS SIGNAL TO NOISE AND BE ABLE TO LOOK AT BLOOD FLOW IN THE BRAIN WITH ONE ACTIVITY PATTERN OR ANOTHER SO THE BOLD TECHNIQUE WHICH HAS VERY POOR SIGNAL TO NOISE COULD -- YOU COULD REALLY KIND OF DEVELOP A COMPLETELY NEW AND MUCH MORE SENSITIVE TECHNOLOGY. BUT THIS WOULD REQUIRE BUILDING AN ENTIRELY NEW SCANNER FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAGNETIC PARTICLE IMAGING. THIS ONE IS A STUDY THAT WAS DONE ACTUALLY UTILIZING SCANS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAKEN AND BROUGHT IN THROUGH THE ADNP PROJECT, PATIENTS WHO HAVE MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT VERSUS CONTROLS, AND SO IN THE ALZHEIMER'S WORLD NOW, THE MOVEMENT HAS BEEN TO TRY TO DEVELOP TREATMENTS PARTICULARLY AGAINST AMYLOID THAT GO EARLIER AND EARLIER IN LIFE, AND TO MOVE TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE WHAT'S CALLED MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT, ONLY A PERCENTAGE OF WHICH WILL GO ON TO DEVELOP ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, BUT IDENTIFYING THESE PEOPLE IN A VERY QUICK, COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER WOULD BE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. RIGHT NOW IT REALLY REQUIRES PET SCANNING FOR AMYLOID. BUT THIS TECH -- SO WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY, WHAT'S BASICALLY AN ANALYTICAL TECHNOLOGY TO DEVELOP NETWORKS, GRAPH THEORY NETWORKS IN FOLKS' BRAINS OF NETWORKS THAT ARE HIGHLY CONNECTED AND BY USING A DIFFERENT TYPE OF ANALYTICAL PROCESS, THEY WERE ABLE TO GET 85% ACCURACY, WHERE PREVIOUS MODELS WERE ONLY 65% ACCURATE IN IDENTIFYING PEOPLE WITH MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT VERSUS CONTROLS. SO THIS KIND OF WORK COULD POTENTIALLY LEAD TO A DIAGNOSTIC TEST FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT AND WHEN AN INTERVENTION IS AVAILABLE, WHICH WE'RE VERY HOPEFUL THAT MIGHT HAPPEN, THAT THAT WOULD THEN ALLOW YOU TO SCAN LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE COST EFFECTIVELY TO TREAT THEM. THIS ONE IS ANOTHER OPTICAL TECHNIQUE, SO AS PEOPLE KNOW, THE BRAIN INITIATIVE HAS BEEN REPLETE WITH NEW METHODS TO LOOK AT NEURAL ACTIVITY USING OPTICAL TECHNIQUES, AND ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS THAT THE REFRACTIVE INDEX OF THE BRAIN TISSUE IS VERY INHOMOGENEOUS, SO IF YOU'RE TRYING TO GET A REALLY CLEAR IMAGE IN A LARGE FIELD OF VIEW, YOU HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING AT AREAS OF BRAIN THAT HAVE DIFFERENT REFRACTIVE INDEXES. THIS TECHNOLOGY IS AN ADVANCE ON PREVIOUS TECHNOLOGIES TO DO A POSITION-DEPENDENT CORRECTION OF THE INHOMOGENEITY IN REFRACTIVE INDICES OVER A LARGER REFRACTIVE AREA. WHAT THEY SHOW, IT'S REALLY HARD TO TELL FROM THE PARAGRAPHS HERE, BUT BASICALLY A IS THE ADVANCED TECHNIQUE, B IS THE STANDARD TECHNIQUE, AND YOU CAN SEE IMPROVEMENT IN RESOLUTION IN SIGNAL, SIMILARLY HERE IN C AND D, C IS THE ADVANCED TECHNIQUE, D IS THE STANDARD TECHNIQUE. HERE IS CALCIUM IMAGING WITH THE TWO DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES, THE ADVANCED, THE STANDARD, AND HERE ARE THE CALCIUM SIGNALS THAT THEY'RE GETTING OUT OF THESE NEURONS SPON SPONTANEOUSLY FIRING WITH THE RED BEING WITH THE ADVANCED TECHNIQUE AND THE BLUE BEING WITH THE STANDARD TECHNIQUE, SO NOT ONLY DO YOU GET PRETTIER PICTURES, BUT YOU GET MUCH MORE -- BETTER SIGNAL TO NOISE DOING YOUR CALCIUM IMAGING. I CAN'T HELP BUT BE MARVELED AT THE BEAUTY OF THE BRAIN IN THE KIND OF OPTICAL IMAGING THAT'S COMING OUT OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. SO THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE FROM THIS GROUP USING THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY LOOKING AT LAYER 5 PYRAMIDAL NEURONS WITH THE NEW TECHNIQUE WHICH YOU SEE HERE AND THEY SHOW YOU WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WITH THE STANDARD TECHNIQUE HERE. SO YOU CAN SEE IMPROVEMENT IN RESOLUTION. THIS IS ONE OF MULTIPLE OPTICAL TECHNIQUES THAT HAVE COME OUT OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE THAT ARE REALLY CHANGING HOW WE LOOK AT BRAIN ACTIVITY. AND CIRCUITS, STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION. SO A COUPLE OF THINGS WITH REGARD TO NIH ITSELF THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE -- ARE GOING TO BE RELEVANT TO THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AND ITS FUNDING. THERE HAS BEEN A WHOLE -- A LOT OF FITS AND STARTS IN TERMS OF HOW NIH IS LOOKING AT ITS PROFILE, PARTICULARLY IN THIS HYPERCOMPETITIVE SPACE THAT WE HAVE NOW, NIH IS VERY FOCUSED ON NOT LOSING INVESTIGATORS. WHO HAVE BEEN REALLY WELL TRAINED, WHO ARE PRODUCTIVE INVESTIGATORS, BUT BECAUSE OF THE DANGERS OF SUBMITTING GRANTS AND PEER REVIEW AND SCORES AND THE HYPERCOMPETITIVENESS ARE BASICALLY LOSING FUNDING ON A FAIRLY REGULAR BASIS. WE'RE ALSO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATORS. SO NIH SHOWS THIS GRAPH OF WHAT'S HAPPENED OVER THE YEARS IN TERMS OF EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATORS SEEN HERE IN THE RED, THE GREEN IS MIDDLE STAGE INVESTIGATORS AND THE BLUE ARE THE OLD TIMERS LIKE ME. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THE GRANT MONEY IS MOVING MORE TOWARDS PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE FIELD FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, WE'RE VERY WORRIED THE NUMBER OF EARLY INVESTIGATORS IS DROPPING, AND ALSO THIS MIDDLE PERIOD OF FOLKS, PARTICULARLY PEOPLE AT THE TIME OF THE FIRST R01, ARE A VULNERABLE PERIOD. SO WHAT NIH HAS DONE IS THEY'VE BASICALLY MANDATED THAT ALL THE INSTITUTES FUND THE EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATORS UP TO EITHER THE 25TH PERCENTILE OR A SCORE OF 35, EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATORS BEING WITHIN 10 YEARS OF THEIR TERMINAL DEGREE, AND THEY'RE ALSO ASKING US NOW TO LOOK AT FOLKS WHO ARE COMING BACK WHO WERE EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATORS, COMING BACK AT THE TIME OF THEIR FIRST R01 AS KIND OF A VULNERABLE GROUP. NOW NINDS, WE LOOKED AT OUR FOLKS AND WE SEE FUNDING GOING TO EARLY STATE YOUR NAME STAGE INVESTIGATO RS AND AT THE FIVE-YEAR POINT, THERE'S A PRECIPITOUS DROP BUT THEN IT COMES BACK UP AGAIN NOT QUITE TO THE PLATEAU BUT THERE'S CLEARLY A MAJOR DROP IN FUNDING GOING TO FOLKS RIGHT AT THAT FIVE-YEAR PERIOD THAT THEY'RE COMING IN. A LOT OF THEM GET BACK AND GET FUNDING AGAIN BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. BUT EVEN THE ONES WHO DO GET FUNDING EVENTUALLY, IMAGINE THAT AS JUST A TERRIBLE PERIOD. YES. THE OTHER THING WHICH NIH IS DOING IS THEY HAVE CHANGEED THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTING HUMAN STUDIES RESEARCH. THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT'S CALLED CLINICAL TRIALS, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT CLINICAL -- NOT NECESSARILY CLINICAL ANYMORE. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT BY NIH TO FORCE INVESTIGATORS TO DO RESEARCH IN HUMAN BEINGS WHERE THE INDIVIDUALS ARE ASSIGNED TO GROUPS, WHERE THERE ISN'T INTERVENTION, THAT THOSE STUDIES NEED TO BE REPORTED INTO CLINICAL KSTRIALS.GOV, AND I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE CALLED CLINICAL TRIALS FROM NOW ON. SO THAT INCLUDES A TRIAL WHERE YOU'RE BASICALLY SHINING A LIGHT IN SOMEONE'S EYES AND LOOKING AT VISUAL CORTICAL ACTIVITY. THE INTERVENTION IS SHINING A LIGHT, THE OUTCOME IS THAT PERSON'S VISUAL CORTICAL ACTIVITY. NOW I MUST SAY THAT THE NEUROSCIENCE INSTITUTES PROTESTED VEHEMENTLY, BUT I THINK NIH'S OPINION IS THAT THE GREATER GOOD IS THIS INCREASE IN REPORTING. SO WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING WITH PEOPLE TO TRY TO DECREASE THE ANGST THAT THIS MAY CAUSE FOLKS. WE ARE ALSO KIND OF INCHING OUR WAY THROUGH TO EXACTLY SEE HOW THIS IS GOING TO PLAY OUT, AND ALSO WORKING WITH NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE, THE CLINICALTRIALS.GOV GROUP SO THAT REPORTING THESE KIND OF RESULTS IS NOT GOING TO BE AS ONEROUS AS IT COULD OTHERWISE BE. IT IS -- THIS IS A BARELY -- THIS WILL REQUIRE A LOT OF WORK BEFORE IT'S MOVED. >> WALTER, CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT? IS THIS A DONE DEAL OR, I MEAN, AS YOU CAN EXPECT -- >> YEAH, THIS IS A DONE DEAL NOW. I'M SORRY, THE QUESTION IS, IS IT A DONE DEAL. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE -- WE HAD TWO MEETINGS OF THE BLUEPRINT IC DIRECTORS, SO 13 IC DIRECTORS, THEN WE HAD A SECOND MEETING WITH LARRY TABAK AND THE IC DIRECTORS, THEN WE HAD A THIRD MEETING, ALL THE IC DIRECTORS WITH FRANCIS COLLINS, AND WE PUT OUR BEST ARGUMENT FORWARD AND THEY HAVE BASICALLY SAID THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THEIR PROCEDURES HAVE CONTINUED. THERE IS AN EMAIL THAT WENT OUT OVER THE WEEKEND FROM MICHAEL LAUER WHICH DETAILS THE NEW PROCESS WHICH HAS ALL THE WEB LINKS TO THEIR FACT SITE AND QUESTIONS AND SO I'D URGE MEEM TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, BUT I'M NOT SURE -- I MEAN, I THINK THAT THE QUESTION IS GOING TO BE OPERATIONAL NOW, HOW DO YOU OPERATIONALLIZE IT, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE THEIR TASK. >> SO I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN GETTING INCREDIBLE PUSHBACK ON THIS, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE PROTESTING, I JUST GOT AN EMAIL A MINUTE AGO AGO, DOCUMENTING HOW THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT UNREASONABLY MANY, MANY STUDIES. SO I'M A LITTLE WORRIED THAT THIS IS GOING TO FALL ON DEAF EARS, BUT PEOPLE ARE REALLY NOT HAPPY. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT PEOPLE, POWERS THAT BE AT NIH, WOULD AT LEAST LISTEN AND SEE WHAT THE ANTICIPATED COMPLICATIONS ARE AGAIN SORT OF UNDERAPPRECIATED, WHAT THIS IS GOING TO DO, AND I THINK THEY NEED TO HAVE AN OPEN MIND ABOUT THIS. >> I THINK ALL THE NEUROSCIENCE DIRECTORS AGREE WITH YOU, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BASICALLY WORK AS HARD AS WE CAN TO OPERATIONALLIZE IT AND DECREASE ITS NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S -- BUT I THINK THAT'S THE BEST WE CAN DO AT THIS POINT. NOW IT COULD BE AS ANYTHING ELSE THAT GOES OUT, IT COULD BE THAT IT GETS RE-LOOKED AT AS PARTICULARLY -- I MEAN, I GUESS MY CONCERN IS THAT CLINICAL TRIALS.GROF IS NOT.GOV IS NOT SET UP YET T O DO THIS, SO THAT IS, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT IF WE CAN'T FIX THAT, THEN THAT POTENTIALLY WOULD CAUSE A RE-LOOK. BUT BUT WE MADE OUR ARGUMENTS, WE'RE STILL MAKING THE ARGUMENTS, BUT IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THE NIH LEADERSHIP HAS MADE THIS DECISION THAT THE GREATER GOOD IS TO GO FOR THE REPORTING. >> WALTER, JUST ON THAT POINT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP, YOU'RE RIGHT, THE BRAIN IMAGING STUDY WHERE THE COGNITIVE TASK IS KIND OF A GOOD EXAMPLE, BUT ONE OF THE FALLOUTS FROM THAT, WHEN PEOPLE DO SUCH WORK, THEY'LL PROPOSE KIND OF A LARGE NUMBER OF KIND OF VARIANTS ON THE THEME, ET CETERA. IS THERE ?I CHANCE, PERHAPS, TO FIND SOME WAY IN CERTAIN CATEGORIES TO BE ABLE TO GROUP THINGS IN A WAY THAT YOU'RE AT LEAST WRITING, YOU KNOW, ONE CLINICAL TRIAL THAT INVOLVES PERHAPS SEVERAL VARIANTS ON A COGNITIE TASK RATHER THAN EACH ONE AS ITS OWN INDEPENDENT CLINICAL STUDY, YOU KNOW, A TYPICAL COGNITIVE SCIENCE GRANT MIGHT HAVE FIVE OR SIX AND THAT WOULD MEAN FIVE OR SIX CLINICAL TRIALS. >> RIGHT. >> THAT COULD EVEN BE REDUCED TO ONE OR A FEW, THAT WOULD BE A BIG HELP. >> RIGHT. NO, I AGREE WITH YOU. THAT WAS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE POINTS WE MADE, AND I THINK IT HASN'T REALLY BEEN THOUGHT THROUGH HOW CLINICALTRIALS.GOV GG TO HANDLE THAT BUT THAT'S SOMETHING ON THEIR RADAR SCREEN THEY NEED TO HANDLE. I GUESS THE GOOD NEWS FROM THE OUTSIDE IS WE'RE GOING TO BE PUSHING ON THE INTRAMURAL PEOPLE TO DO IT NOW, SO WE'LL HAVE A SENSE OF HOW THEY'LL TRY AND MOVE THAT. I MEAN, MARK HALLET WAS THE EXAMPLE I USED, I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE ON THE BOARD OF SCIENTIFIC COUNCILS OF NIH, BUT MARK USED TO HAVE ONE PROTOCOL, AND HE DID EVERYTHING UNDER ONE PROTOCOL AND WE SAID, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. SO THEN HE CAME BACK WITH 72 PROTOCOLS. EACH ONE OF THOSE IS LIKE TWO OR THREE PROTOCOLS. SO IT'S LIKE OVER FIVE YEAR STANDPOINT, IT MIGHT BE 200 EXPERIMENTS. AND SO HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THAT. SO THAT'S OUR TEST CASE, MARK HALLET. OKAY. ON A HAPPIER NOTE, I WOULD SAY THAT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE CONTINUES TO GET TREMENDOUS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, AND A LOT OF INTEREST SO WE HAVE BEEN VERY AGGRESSIVE ABOUT GETTING ON THE LIST TO TALK TO CONGRESSMEN, SENATORS WHEN THEY COME OUT, RICHARD HODES AS WELL. I MUST SAY THAT THESE EXPERIENCES ARE VERY UPLIFTING. SO YOU READ THINGS IN THE PAPER, YOU GET NEGATIVE VIEW OF POLITICS, BUT WE HAVE SOME REALLY GOOD PEOPLE IN CONGRESS AND THE SENATE WHO ARE HIGH LEVEL THINKERS, VERY WELL EDUCATED, AND INTERESTED IN NIH AND REALLY INTERESTED IN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. SO I JUST THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO KNOW. I WOULD ALSO URGE PEOPLE TO SPREAD THE MESSAGE ABOUT WHAT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS DOING AT ANY OPPORTUNITY THAT YOU HAVE BECAUSE CLEARLY THE FUNDING IS BASED ON THIS EP THEUS YASM ENTHUSIASM FRO M CONGRESS, AND WE CAN GENERATE SO MUCH HERE AT NIH, BUT IN FACT, WE DON'T VOTE FOR THESE PEOPLE FROM KANSAS OR NEW YORK, SO THE INFLUENCE FOR YOUR UNIVERSITY, KIND OF EXPLAIN TO THEM THE VALUE OF THIS PROJECT, WHICH IS -- I THINK WE CAN MAKE A GOOD ARGUMENT, BUT FOR THAT TO REALLY KIND OF REALLY SEE IT, BECAUSE IT IS SOMEWHAT COMPLICATED AND BASIC, TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF WORK AND TIME, BUT ONCE THEY GRAB ON TO WHAT WE'RE ABOUT, I THINK IT'S UNIFORMLY ENTHUSIASTIC RESPONSE. THAT HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE FUNDING. SO IN 2017, THE OMNI BUS BILL WAS SIGN INTO LAW SEPTEMBER 5TH, IT GAVE AN INCREASE TO NIH OVER THE FY16 BUDGET AND IT INCLUDED $352 MILLION FROM THE 21ST CENTURY CURES INNOVATION FUND, HAD A MILLION OF THAT WHICH WAS IN THE BILL FOR THAT YEAR, CAME TO NIH FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, BUT IT ALSO INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE BASE OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE BY $100 MILLION IN ADDITION. SO THIS REALLY, I THINK, PUT US -- WE WERE AT 150 MILLION BEFORE, THAT WAS UNDER WHAT THE BRAIN 2025 REPORT HAD ASKED FOR OR RECOMMENDED, BETWEEN 400 AND FILE HUNDRED MILLION A YEAR, 500 MILLION A YEAR BUT THIS GOT US TO $250 MILLION A YEAR INTO THE BASE, SO THAT, I THINK, WAS A REAL LANDMARK FOR US FINANCIALLY. AND THE 21ST CENTURY CURES FUNDS AS WE -- I THINK WE'VE SHOWN THIS BEFORE, SO THIS IS FUNDING THAT'S BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE BRAIN INITIATIVE GOING OUT TO 2026, SO THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, THERE'S THIS BIG PEAK IN THE MIDDLE, BUT THIS IS AGAIN COMMITTED MONEY FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AND WE THINK THERE'S NOTHING SAFE IN WASHINGTON WITH REGARD TO MONEY, BUT THIS IS PROBABLY ABOUT AS CLOSE AS YOU CAN GET. SO I THINK ALSO THAT LOOKING FORWARD TO US MEANS THAT WE'RE REALLY OFF AND RUNNING FINANCIALLY, AND I THINK THE FUNDING -- THE GOALS WE HAVE WILL REQUIRE MORE FUNDING TO HIT THEM, BUT WITH THE FUNDING WE HAVE, I THINK WE'RE REALLY SET TO MAKE SOME GREAT ADVANCES. THE QUESTION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET IS ON THE TABLE BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET FOR 18 IS REALLY WHAT WE HAD IN 16, IGNORING THE INCREASE, CANCELING OUT THE INCREASE WE HAD IN 17, AND THAT, I'LL SHOW YOU WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, BUT AGAIN, CONGRESS WILL LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS COMING TO IT FROM THE PRESIDENT FROM DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND MAKE A DECISION. SO WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW, HERE WE ARE IN 2017 WITH $240 MILLION IN THE BASE, THERE WAS 10 MILLION FROM THE 21ST CENTURY CURES ACT. AN ACTUAL FACT FROM THE BEGINNING, THEY AGREED TO KICK IN $10 MILLION A YEAR UP UNTIL 2017, SO THAT'S WHERE WE GET THAT EXTRA 10 TO GET TO 260. GOING FORWARD, OUR PLAN BUDGET-WISE IS TO COMBINE THE PROJECT THAT WE CO-FUND WITH THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ON COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH IN COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCES, AS WE'LL SHOW MOST OF THOSE GRANTS, I'D SAY ABOUT 80% ARE RIGHT DOWN THE ALLEY OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, SO OUR PLAN IS TO MOVE THOSE GRANTS INTO THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, MOVE THOSE PIs INTO THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AND THE BRAIN PI MEETINGS GOING FORWARD. SO IN 2017, YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR TODAY ABOUT OUR PLANS TO SPEND THE TOTALITY IN '17 OF $168 MILLION. THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET COMES THROUGH, WE WOULD HAVE 66 MILLION MOSTLY MONEY THAT'S COMING BACK FROM GRANTS TO END IT, FOR NEW GRANTS IN '18. THE HOUSE ALSO PASSED A BUDGET THAT GAVE US AN ADDITIONAL -- THEY PUT THE 21ST CENTURY CURES MONEY INTO THE BUDGET, WHICH IN 2018 IS $86 MILLION, SO IF THAT HOUSE BILL GOES THROUGH, WE WOULD END UP WITH $336 MILLION FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IN '18, AND IT WILL ALLOW US TO FUND IN '18 THE SAME AMOUNT OF NEW GRANTS THAT WILL FUND PRETTY MUCH THE SAME NUMBER WE'RE FUNDING NOW IN 17. SO REMEMBER THE HOUSE BUDGET IS GENERALLY A LITTLE BIT BELOW WHAT THE SENATE WOULD SEND AND WE GET SOMETHING THAT'S USUALLY IN THE MIDDLE, THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET MAY POTENTIALLY INFLUENCE THAT, BUT LOOKING FORWARD THIS, IS KIND OF WORST-CASE SCENARIO, POTENTIALLY MORE -- A HOUSE SCENARIO GOING FORWARD. ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MONEY? THE INTRAMURAL MONEY, REMEMBER THAT'S ONLY FOR PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY SEND IN THE APPLICATIONS FOR INTRAMURAL, THERE'S NO MONEY THAT GETS DESIGNATED IN INTRAMURAL FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, THEY HAVE TO APLAY FOR APPLY FOR IT. THE RMS IS THE MONEY USED TO FUND THE REVIEWS, PAY THE STAFF. I DON'T THINK WE USE IT ALL, BUT IT'S ABOUT 4% IS HOW WE CALCULATE IT. THIS IS THE COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH IN COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE I MENTIONED BEFORE, SO IT SUPPORTS EXPERIMENTAL MODELING ACTIVITIES IN UNDERSTANDING NEUROSIS TEM STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION, AND AGAIN THE BEAUTY OF THIS IS THAT IT'S IN COLLABORATION WITH NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AND ALSO THERE'S INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS IN GERMANY AND ISRAEL THAT ARE A PART OF -- AND FRANCE THAT ARE PART OF THIS FUNDING PROGRAM, AND MAYBE JIM CAN TALK ABOUT IT IN A SECOND. THESE ARE JUST A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF THE GRANTS THAT GET FUNDED OUT OF CRCNS, SO YOU CAN SEE THEY REALLY ARE KIND OF DOWN THE ALLEY OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, AND I'D SAY LOOKING THROUGH THEM, IT'S ABOUT 75 OR 80% THAT PROBABLY WOULD REALLY BENEFIT FROM BEING PART OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. I THINK WE'RE COMING TO THE END. THIS IS AGAIN A FOLLOW THE MONEY KIND OF GRANT, COLOR-CODED BASED ON THE TYPE OF GRANT IT IS, SO THE CELL TYPES, CELL TOOLS, RECORDING MODULATION, UNDERSTANDING CIRCUITS, HUMAN IMAGING AND MODULATION, TRAINING, NEUROETHICS AND DATA COORDINATION INFORMATICS, SO THIS IS THE PROPORTION OF FUNDING SO FAR. THE HUMAN STUFF IS MORE EXPENSIVE SO IT IS AND IT HAS GROWN. THE KAY TA COORDINATION INFORMATICS IS NEW AND IT'S CRITICAL, BUT REMEMBER OUR PLAN WAS TO GET THE SIGNS GOING AND THEN TO DEVELOP THE DATA COORDINATION INFORMATICS TO FIT THE SCIENCE AS OPPOSED TO THE OTHER WAY AROUND. SO THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS YOU'LL BE HEARING TODAY, BUT THEY'RE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THEM OFF THE GROUND NOW. NOW THE BRAIN 2025 REPORT, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN THE BEGINNING. OUR PLAN NOW IS TO TRY AND SET UP A GROUP THAT WILL NOT EXACTLY REPRODUCE WHAT THE BRAIN 2025 GROUP DID, BUT TO LOOK AT THE REPORT, LOOK AT THE SCIENCE FIELD AS IT IS NOW, LOOK AT WHAT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO SO FAR, AND TO WRITE A REPORT THAT WILL GUIDE NIH IN THE ENSUEING WHAT WE CALL THE SECOND HALF. SO IF WE START THIS OFF IN 2019, YOU GET THE REPORT END OF 29, EARLY 2020, THAT WILL HELP US MOVE TILL 2026. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO THIS TO REALLY BE SURE THAT WE'RE KIND OF STILL ON FOCUS IN THE IMPORTANT AREAS AND NOT FOR GETTING TO MOVE INTO NEW AREAS THAT WEREN'T REALLY CONSIDERED BY THE INITIAL GROUP, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY A RE-WORKING OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, IT'S MORE I'D SAY A MODERNIZATION ATTEMPT. OKAY. AND ASIDE FROM NEUROSCIENCE, REMEMBER WE HAVE A SATELLITE MEETING, AND PLEASE COME IF YOU CAN, 6:30 TO 9:30 ON NOVEMBER 12TH. WITH THAT, I WANT TO TURN IT OVER TO JIM, WHO'S GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE NSF'S NEURONEXT PROGRAM, MAYBE SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE COMPUTATIONAL PROGRAM. >> SURE. THANKS, WALTER. FIRST OF ALL, TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF PERSPECTIVE, NSF'S BUDGET RIGHT NOW IS JUST A LITTLE SOUTH OF $7 BILLION A YEAR. BRAIN IS FLAT RIGHT NOW AT ABOUT $75 MILLION. I'M GOING TO SET THINGS UP AND THEN I'M GOING TO TURN THINGS OVER TO JIM WHO HEADS UP BRAIN FOR ME, BUT THE KEY ASPECTS OF US, OF COURSE, FOR NEUROSCIENCE ARE BASIC NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH. WHEN I GO BEFORE CONGRESS AND TESTIFY, TALK ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THE HEALTHY BRAIN, BUT I THINK THE ARGUMENT THERE IS IF WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND MECHANISMS OF DISEASE, THEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO HAVE SOME DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN A MECHANISM BEFORE A DISEASE HITS. SO I THINK THAT'S A POWERFUL ARGUMENT WITH CONGRESS, WE'RE FINDING VERY GOOD SUPPORT FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. NOW, WHAT ARE THE AREAS THAT WE'RE EMPHASIZING IN TERMS OF NEUROSCIENCE AND PARTICULARLY BRAIN AT NSF? SO I'VE WRITTEN ABOUT THIS IN NATURE AND NEUROSCIENCE REVIEWS, TEAM NEUROSCIENCE IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO US. WE SEE THAT AS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO THE FUTURE OF THE FIELD. WE'RE EMPHASIZING TOOLS, WE'RE EMPHASIZING THEORY AND WE'RE EMPHASIZING BUILDING THE NEUROSCIENCE WORKFORCE OF THE FUTURE. ALL OF THOSE THINGS, I THINK, ARE POTENTIALLY AT RISK FROM THE STANDPOINT OF BASIC RESEARCH, SO WE'RE REALLY PUSHING ON THAT, AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO JIM TO TALK ABOUT THE NEURONEXT INITIATIVE. >> TWO GYMS. HI, EVERYBODY. WE WANT TO THANK THE OPPORTUNITY AND THANK YOU, WALTER, FOR GIVING US AN OPPORTUNITY TO HIGHLIGHT NEURONEXT. WE WORK CLOSELY WITH NIH, WE ALL KNOW WHO WE ARE, AND WE'VE GOTTEN UP TO ABOUT $75 MILLION A YEAR FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE ONLY. HALF OF THAT GOES TO CORE PROGRAM, FOR EXAMPLE, THROUGH ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE AND HALF OF THIS GEM TO SORT OF OUR FLAGSHIP PROGRAMS FOR BRAIN, WHICH IS A LONG-STANDING PROGRAM, CRC, I DON'T THINK I NEED TO DESCRIBE THAT TO ANYBODY. WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE CALLED INTEGRATIVE STRATEGIES FOR UNDERSTANDING NEURAL AND COGNITIVE SYSTEM, NCS, AGAIN, THAT'S FOCUSED ON BUILDING SMALL TEAMS AROUND REARRILY HARD PROBLEMS IN BRAIN FUNCTION. THEN OUR NEWEST PROGRAM, WHICH IS NEURONEXT, IT'S REALLY BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR A WHILE, WE JUST RELEASED THE FIRST COHORT OF AWARDS. THE CONCEPT BEHIND THESE WERE NOT TO REALLY TO CENTER SCALE INVESTMENT, WHICH WERE ABOUT $5 MILLION A YEEMPLET WE THINK THERE'S SORT OF A SWEET SPOT AT ABOUT $2 MILLION A YEAR WHERE YOU GET A TEAM TO COME IN AND REALLY NOT -- IF YOU THINK ABOUT TECHNOLOGY, YOU NEED TO DEVELOP THEM BUT YOU'VE GOT TO GET THEM TO THE PERSON WORKING ON SQUID OR WHATEVER THAT'S GOING TO MAKE THE BIGGEST IMPACT. SO WE REFER TO THESE INTERNALLY AS NEURAL -- NEUROTECHNOLOGY& DISSEMINATION HUBS. THAT WAS THE SPIRIT OF THE CALL. SO WE REALLY WANTED TO DEVELOP, REFINE AND DISSEMINATE WIDELY AMONG THE SCIENTISTS THAT CAN USE THEM, THE NEWEST DEVELOPED -- NEWEST TECHNOLOGIES. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, AS JIM SAID, WE WANT TO EMPHASIZE THEORIES, SO YOU'LL SEE ON THE NEXT SLIDE, THE FIRST AWARDS THAT WE MADE, THERE'S TWO THEORY TEAMS, NINE HUBS FOR NEUROTECHNOLOGY, AND WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THE NEXT COUPLE YEARS SPENDING MONEY TO CONNECT RESEARCHERS THAT CAN USE THESE RESOURCE, OKAY? THIS IS JUST A HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF THE AWARDS THAT ARE JUST RELEASED THIS MONTH, RIGHT? SO AGAIN, NINE TECHNOLOGY HUBS, SOME OF THE TOPICS THERE, MOLECULAR TECHNOLOGIES, INSTRUMENTATION, NEURAL THEORY TEAMS, ONE OF THE AWARDEES IS ON THE TELEPHONE RIGHT NOW, SO WHILE WE WERE MAKING THESE AWARDS, WE REALIZED THERE WERE SOME THAT REALLY HAD A NICE DEVELOPMENTAL ASPECT TO THEM. TO SOME NEW TECHNOLOGIES THAT WERE JUST EMERGING. BUT THEY DIDN'T SEEM QUITE READY TO MAKE A HUB, BECAUSE THE HUBS ARE $2 MILLION A YEAR FOR FIVE YEARS, AND THAT'S -- AND DURING THAT FIVE YEARS, WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE OUR OVERSIGHT USING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS SO WE CAN INCREASE OUR OVERSIGHT AND MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE RESOURCE THEY NEED TO DISSEMINATE THE TECHNOLOGIES TO THE SCIENTISTS THAT CAN USE IT MOST. WE REALLY CARE ABOUT A WIDE SPECTRUM OF SPECIES BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF INVERTEBRATES AS WELL AS VERTEBRATES, TO GET CONCEPTUAL INSIGHTS INTO THE CIRCUIT FUNCTION. SO WE REALIZED -- THERE WERE SIX OF THESE, SO IN REALTIME, WE DECIDED WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO A HUB OR A THEORY TEAM, WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS OTHER CATEGORY OF AWARDS CALLED INNOVATION AWARDS, AND THESE ARE $40 A YEAR FOR TWO YEARS JUST TO CATALYZE -- >> 400,000. >> $400,000 FOR TWO YEARS, AND HOPEFULLY IN OUR NEXT COMPETITION, WHICH WILL BE PROBABLY IN 2019, THEY'LL BE READY TO DO THE DISSEMINATION PART OF THOSE AWARDS. SO ANYWAYS, THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU GUYS AND DRAW ATTENTION. WE'VE DONE THIS -- I THINK WE HAD SOME FOLKS AT THE TABLE AT THE REVIEW PANELS THAT KEEP AN EYE ON THE -- SO WE KEEP EACH OTHER VERY WELL INFORMED. >> I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE COMMUNICATION WITH NSF DURING THIS PROCESS WAS REALLY OUTSTANDING, SO NIH STAFF WERE ABLE TO ATTEND THE REVIEWS, AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO KEEP AN EYE ON EXACTLY WHAT THE PLANS ARE SO THAT WE ELIMINATE ANY REDUNDANCIES AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SYNERGIES. >> THERE'S ONE THING I FORGOT TO MENTION WHICH IS A FREUDIAN SLIP, BUT AS FOLKS KNOW, WE HAD A SEARCH COMMITTEE FOR DIRECTOR OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, THE TEAMS AND GREG AND NED HAVE BEEN JUST FANTASTIC IN TERMS OF CARRYING THE BRAIN INITIATIVE FORWARD. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW DEDICATED STAFF HAVE BEEN, AND CREATIVE, BUT THEY REALLY DO NEED A LEADER. JOSH AND I DO THE BEST WE CAN, BUT WE'RE JUST NOT UP TO IT, WE'RE JUST TOO BUSY. AND SO WE HAD A CANDIDATE, GREG SORENSEN, BUT HE'S JUST NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET THROUGH THE ETHICS PROCESS BECAUSE HE HAD LEFT ACADEMIA, WENT TO INDUSTRY, AND IT JUST HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET UNTANGLED. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO OPEN UP THE SEARCH AGAIN, AND TRY TO GET A REALLY GOOD PERSON. SO I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT TO FOLKS, AND BECAUSE I REALLY NEED THE PEOPLE AROUND THIS TABLE TO KIND OF BANG THE WOODWORK TO TRY TO GET FOLKS TO APPLY FOR THIS POSITION. I THINK IT'S -- I MEAN IN THE BEGINNING, MAYBE PEOPLE WORRIED IT WASN'T GOING TO BE A REAL THING, BUT THIS IS A REAL THING NOW. THIS IS NOT IMAGINED OR HYPOTHETICAL. THIS IS A REALLY AMAZING PROJECT. SO PLEASE ASK AROUND AND SEE IF WE CAN GET SOMEBODY WHO HAS GOOD VISION, GOOD INTERPERSONAL SKILLS TO COME IN AND HELP THESE TEAMS EXECUTE. THEY'VE DONE A FANTASTIC JOB, BUT THEY REALLY WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE SOMEBODY FULL TIME, ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE OTHER JOBS. SO JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT. NEXT I WANT TO GO OVER TO HANK AND HAVE HIM TALK TO US ABOUT THE MEETING YESTERDAY AND KIND OF UPDATE US ON WHERE THE NEUROETHICS DIVISION IS. REMEMBER MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP SITTING AROUND THE TABLE HAS A DIVISION LOOKING PARTICULARLY AT THE NEUROETHICS ISSUES RELATED TO THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, AND THIS IS A REALLY BIG IMPORTANT TASK, AND HANK AND CHRISTINE GRADY HAVE BEEN LEADING IT WITH KHARA RAMOS, SO HANK, IF YOU'D GIVE AN UPDATE? >> SURE, HAPPY TO. WE STARTED OUT AS A WORK GROUP OF THE WORKING GROUP, BUT FOR REASONS OF FEDERAL KNOW MEN CLAY SEU I NEVER UNDERSTOOD, WE BECAME A DIVISION HOPING TO MOVE UP TO A REGIMENT OR SOMETHING, OR CORE. WE'RE ACTUALLY LESS THAN TWO YEARS OLD. OUR FIRST MEETING WAS IN FEBRUARY OF 2016. THERE ARE MEMBERS ON -- IN THE DIVISIONWHO ARE ON THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP, SO JIM EBERWINE, BRAD HYMAN, ELBA SERRANO ARE ON THE NEUROETHICS DIVISION. THERE ARE ALSO AT LARGE MEMBERS OF THE NEUROETHICS DIVISION, STEVE HYMAN, NITA, WINSTON CHIONG. CHRISTINE GRADY AND I CO-CHAIR IT. CHRISTINE IS THE CHAIR OF THE BIOETHICS DEPARTMENT AND A FORMER MEMBER OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL FOR THE STUDY OF BIOETHICAL ISSUES. WE REALLY HAVE THREE FUNCTIONS. DOCUMENTS, CONSULTS, AND WORKSHOPS. WE MAY DEVELOP MORE, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW. THE DOCUMENTS HAVE RANGED FROM ONE OR TWO PAGE LITTLE BITS ON WHAT IS NEUROETHICS, THERE'S SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO INVASIVE NEUROTECHNOLOGIES, ET CETERA. AT OUR MEETING YESTERDAY, WE DISCUSSED A FIRST DRAFT OF THE PRINCIPLES BOARD OF NEUROETHICS, NOT RULES OR REGULATIONS BUT ISSUES TO THINK ABOUT. ISSUES FOR PROGRAM OFFICER, RESEARCHERS, IRBs AND OTHERS TO CONSIDER. THAT WILL BE COMING BACK TO YOU, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY OUR DIVISION REPORTS TO THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP SO ANYTHING WE DO WILL COME BACK TO YOU AT SOME POINT, AND I SUSPECT THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO YOU AT OR BEFORE THE NEXT MCWG MEETING. WE ALSO DO CONSULTS, SO WE'VE DONE A COWL CONSULT ON ONE PARTICULARLY FASCINATING PROJECT THAT BRAIN FUNDED. I THINK THE RESEARCHER WAS VERY PLEASED WITH THE THOUGHTS AND GUIDANCE THAT HE RECEIVED FROM US YESTERDAY, WE DID OUR FIRST KIND OF PROGRAM CONSULT, CONCEPT FOR A FUNDING OPPORTUNITY, AND WE DISCUSSED WHAT SOME OF THE NEUROETHICS ISSUES IN THAT MIGHT BE. WE'VE ALSO LED TO WORKSHOPS, I NEED TO BE CAREFUL HERE, THE DIVISION ITSELF HAS NOT PUT ON WORKSHOPS. THE DIVISION MEMBERS IN DISCUSSION WITH THE DIVISION HAVE HOSTED A WORK SHOT, NITA AT DUKE, DUKE SCIENCE AND SOCIETY PROGRAM HOSTED ANOTHER REALLY FASCINATING WORKSHOP IN MAY ON EX VIVO HUMAN TISSUE, BOTH EX VIVO BRAIN TISSUE FROM PEOPLE'S BRAINS AND ORGANOIDS AND A VARIETY OF OTHER THINGS THAT RAISE BOTH SERIOUS ETHICAL ISSUES AND MAJOR YUCK FAK FACTOR ISSUES. I SHOULD NOTE HERE, I HAVE A VERY BROAD DEFINITION OF ETHICAL ISSUES. SOME OF THESE ARE INTELLECTUALLY FASCINATING DIFFICULT ETHICAL ISSUES. OTHERS ARE THINGS THAT I THINK EFFECTIVELY BECOME ETHICAL ISSUES BECAUSE THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR A REALLY NEGATIVE PUBLIC REACTION TO SOME OF THE RESEARCH THAT GOES ON. AND THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE -- THAT KIND REEF REACTION IS SOMETHING THE INITIATIVE NEEDS TO BE PREPARED AND TO DEAL WITH. CHRISTINE GRADY IS ORGANIZING A WORKSHOP FOR THIS COMING OCTOBER ON NEUROMODULATION INVASIVE AND NONINVASIVE AND SOME OF THE ETHICAL ISSUES INVOLVED THERE. YESTERDAY'S MEETING, WE GOT UPDATES, WE TALKED ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES DOCUMENT, AND WE HAD PROBABLY ABOUT SIX RESEARCHER, I THINK ALL BRAIN GRANTEES, COME IN AND TALK ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH NONINVASIVE NEUROMODULATION. WE VIEWED IT AS AN EFFORT FOR US TO LEARN MORE ABOUT WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN THOSE CONTEXTS AND FOR THEM TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR ETHICS CONCERNS ABOUT THEM AND FORT PROGRAM OFFICERS PRESENT TO HEAR A LITTLE ABOUT THE ETHICS CONCERNS ABOUT THEM. AT OUR PREVIOUS MEETING LAST SPRING, WE DID SOMETHING SIMILAR WITH INVASIVE NEUROMODULATION. SO END OF LONG REPORT. WE ARE BUSY, WE ARE ACTING, WE ARE TRYING TO EARN THOSE MAGNIFICENT HON RAY YA THAT WE GET FROM NIH BY REALLY BEING -- TRYING TO SPOT AND HELP AND PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON, NOT RULES, WE'RE NOT JUDGE, WE'RE NOT PRIESTS, WE'RE NOT SAYING THIS RESEARCHER GOES TO HELL, THIS RESEARCHER GOES TO HEAVEN. WE'RE TRYING TO HELP THE RESEARCH GET DONE IN WAYS THAT BOTH ARE ETHICAL AND COGNIZANT OF WHAT MAY BE SOME OF THE PUBLIC REACTIONS TO SOME OF THE TOOLS INVOLVED. BE HAPPY TO ANY ANY QUESTIONS NOW, AT BREAKS OR OTHERWISE. THANKS. OH, ONE LAST THING. WE COULDN'T DO ANY OF THIS WITHOUT KHARA RAMOS, WHO'S BEEN GREAT AS OUR EXECUTIVE WHATEVER. >> OKAY. SO WE'RE ABOUT TO GO INTO THE CONCEPT CLEARANCES. BEFORE WE DO THAT, ANYBODY HAVE ANY OVERARCHING QUESTIONS THEY WANTED TO GET ON THE TABLE? I WOULD URGE PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT KIND OF THE BIG PICTURE A LITTLE BIT, AND IF THEY HAVE INPUT, I'LL LIKE TO SEEK YOU OUT AT THE LUNCH BREAK, BUT LET'S MOVE INTO THE CONCEPT CLEARANCE. SO NICK? >> AS SUSAN MENTIONED EARLIER THIS, IS REVISITING OF A CONCEPT YOU HEARD BACK IN MAY FOR THOSE WHO WERE AROUND AT THAT TIME. WEE CHANGED A FEW THINGS. THE FIRST THING BEING YOU CAN NOTICE HERE WE'VE ADJUSTED THE TITLE TO INCREASE THE CLARITY A LITTLE BIF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, THE NEW TITLE BEING THE NEUROBIOLOGY OF NEURAL STIMULATION. WE'RE PRESENTING THIS CONCEPT, I'M PRESENTING THE CONCEPT ON BEHALF OF TEAM B, WHICH IS THE INVASIVE TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGIES TEAM LED PI BY MYSELF AND HOLLY. SO OVERALL, THINKING ABOUT CLINICAL RESEARCH AS WELL AS THEIR THEIR THEIR THERAPIES, SPANNING FROM THINGS LIKE BRAIN STIMULATION, CORTICAL STIMULATION TO VARIOUS DIFFERENT PERIPHERAL NERVE STIMULATION, USING AC/DC OR MAGNETIC STIMULATION TO TRY AND ACTIVATE THE BRAIN. HOWEVER, WE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE EFFECTS THESE TOOLS HAVE ON THE TISSUE INCLUDING THE MECHANISM OF ACTION, THE LOCAL CIRCUIT EFFECTS AS WELL AS THE PLASTIC CHANGES THAT ARE OCCURRING OVER TIME. THINKING ABOUT THE MODELS OF OUR UNDERSTANDING OF SOME OF THESE USING A DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION ELECTRODE AS AN EXAMPLE HERE, YOU MAY HAVE FOUR INDIVIDUAL ELECTRODES THAT YOU MAY APPLY A GIVEN FIELD AND HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF MODELS THAT LOOK AT THE CHANGES IN THE FIELD POTENTIAL LINES AROUND THOSE ELECTRODES. AS YOU CAN SEE IN MOST OF THE CASE, THEY'RE MODELED IN A WAY SUCH THAT WE'RE APPLYING VERY SIMPLISTIC STIMULATION PULSES AND LOOKING AT THEM ALMOST IN A HOMOGENEOUS MEDIA SUCH THAT YOU GET VERY CIRCULAR SORT OF PROPAGATION AND VERY SIMPLE TISSUE MODELS IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO CREATE SOME OF THESE FIELDS. HOWEVER, WE HAVE ON THE MORE GROSS LEVEL, LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE DID THE AC/DC STIMULATION OR MAGNETIC STIMULATION, YOU HAVE MODELS THAT GUIDE US IN THE KIND OF WAYS IN WHICH OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE THOSE FIELDS ACTUALLY COULD PROPAGATE WITHIN THE TISSUES. WE KIND OF COMBINE THOSE TOGETHER TO NOT ONLY LOOK AT THE STRUCTURAL MODELS BUT COMBINE THEM WITH THOSE E FIELD MODELS TO BEGIN TO GET SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE OVERARCHING CIRCUITS, THEIR BEHAVIOR, THAT MAY COME FROM ACTIVATING THESE INDIVIDUAL GROUPS OR THESE AREAS OR REGIONS WITHIN THE BRAIN. HOWEVER, IN THINKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL SIGNALS THAT WE APPLY TO THESE ELECTRODES, WE APPLY VARIOUS DIFFERENT PULSES AND SHAPES THAT ARE EVEN MONOPHASIC OR BIPHASIC WITH DIFFERENT DURATION, DIFFERENT PULSEWITZ, DIFFERENT AMPLITUDES, DIFFERENT SHAPES, AND ALL THESE THINGS TOGETHER CREATE AN ALMOST INFINITE PARAMETER SPACE IN THE WAYS WE CAN ACTIVATE THIS NEURAL TISSUE. FURTHER, WHEN WE STIMULATE TO UNDERSTAND THE BEHAVIOR, MOST OF THE TIME WE'RE NOT JUST STIMULATING WITH AN INDIVIDUAL PULSE, WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH AND PROBE CIRCUITS EITHER IN TONIC STIMULATION OR PROVIDING BURSTS OF STIMULI TO ACTIVATE THOSE INDIVIDUAL CELLS AND CIRCUITS WHICH FURTHER ADDS TO THE COMPLEXITY OF HOW THESE STIMULATION TOOLS WORK. AS AN EXAMPLE HERE, FURTHER HIGHLIGHTING THE UNEXPLAINED EFFECTS, IN A RANDOMIZED DOUBLE CROSSOVER STUDY OF SPINAL CORD STIMULATION FOR PAIN WHERE THEY STARTED WITH CONVENTIONAL STIMULATION FIRST, THEN THEY FOLLOWED BY EITHER SHAM OR HIGH FREQUENCY STIMULATION AND THEN CROSSED OVER INTO THE OTHER DIRECTION, THEIR CONCLUSION IS THAT THEY APPEARED THAT THE HIGH FREQUENCY STIMULATION AND SHAM WERE EQUAL AND ONLY ORDER OF THE SEQUENCE, NOT THE NATURE OF THE EFFECT SO THE HYPOTHESIS FROMHE THE STUDY IS THAT BASICALLY FROM THE CONVENTIONAL STIMULATION THAT WAS HAPPENING FIRST, THERE WERE SOME PLASTIC CHANGES OR LASTING EFFECT GOING ON SUCH THAT WHEN THEY DID THE CROSSOVERS, THE EFFECTS REMAINED AND THEY COULDN'T ACTUALLY TEASE OUT THOSE DIFFERENCES, BUT NOT NECESSARILY KNOWING THOSE PLASTIC CHANGES AND HOW THOSE STIMULATION PULSES INFLUENCED THE OVERALL FUNCTIONING OF THE CIRCUITS LED TO THIS UNEXPECTED RESULT FROM THEIR STUDY. SO WE'RE PLACING THESE REELECTRODES INTO THE NERVOUS SYSTEM, WE'RE NOT JUST PLACING THEM IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ONE INDIVIDUAL NEURON, WE'RE PLACING THEM IN A WHOLE MILIEU THAT INCLUDES BOTH THE TISSUE ITSELF AS WELL AS THE NEURONS, THE NON-NEURONAL CELLS, THE BLOOD-BRIAN BRAIN COMPONENTS AND THE VASCULATURE, AND AFTER THESE DEVICES ARE PLACED, THERE'S A FOREIGN BODY RESPONSE, BUT ACUTELY AND CHRONICALLY THAT ALSO HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON HOW THE DEVICES INTERFACE WITH THE TISSUE. SO WITHIN THE BRAUN INITIATIVE, WE COVERED PROJECTS TO COVER METHODS FOR STIMULATING, RECORDING, AS WELL AS UNDERSTANDING THE CIRCUITS, THE CELL PROCESSES, NEW TOOLS IN THE NONINVASIVE NEUROMODULATION TO UNDERSTAND KIND OF THE LARGER SCALE MECHANISMS OF DOSE-RESPONSE AS WELL AS NEW THERAPY, NEW DEVICES FOR NEXT GENERATION THERAPIES FOR MODULATION IN THE HUMAN CNS. SO OVERALL, ALL THESE FUNDED PROJECTS CREATE A BROAD ARRAY OF TOOLS THAT WE CAN USE TO THEN FEED IN TO POTENTIALLY UNDERSTAND SOME OF THESE MECHANISMS. SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO PROPOSE HERE IS THAT GIVEN THAT WE HAVE THESE DIFFERENT NEW TOOLS THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING AND SOME OF THE LOW RESOLUTION IMAGING AND SOME OF THE MODELS AT THE LARGER SCALE THAT WE V WE WANT TO COMBINE ALL OF THAT TOGETHER TO THEN POTENTIALLY BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND AND MODEL THOSE ELECTRIC FIELDS IN THE COMPLEX NEURAL TISSUE IN THE MILIEU OF ALL THE CELLS THAT ARE THERE, AND THEN LOOK AT THE EFFECT OF THESE VARIOUS DIFFERENT STIMULATION PARAMETERS AND REGIMENS ON THE NEURAL CELL MORPHOLOGY, THE METABOLIC PROCESSES, WHAT'S GOING ON WITH CELL-CELL INTERACTIONS AND PLASTICITY AS A RESULT OF ALL OF THESE PARAMETERS WE'RE FEEDING IN THROUGH OUR NEURAL STIMULATION MODALITIES. HOPEFULLY BY COMBINING ALL THIS TOGETHER, WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND THE TOOLS WE'RE USING BUT WE CAN DEVELOP DIFFERENT STRATEGIES TO BE ABLE TO SYSTEMATICALLY PROBE AND MODULATE THE OVERALL CELL AND CIRCUIT PLASTICITY IN A CONTROLLED WAY, BOTH FOR UNDERSTANDING HOW THE CIRCUITS WORK, AS WELL AS THEN ULTIMATELY TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT FOR DEVELOPING BETTER THERAPEUTIC STIMULATION MODALITIES WITH BETTER RELIABILITY AND BETTER FORESIGHT INTO HOW THOSE TOOLS WILL ACTUALLY WORK TO CONTROL BLI MODULATE THE CIRCUITS. SO THE GOALS HERE, KIND OF TO SUMMARIZE OR TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS APPLIED NEURAL STIMULATION FEELS FIELDS EXHIBIT ACT INTERACT WITH CELLS AND CIRCUITS, MECHANISMS OF ACTIVATION AND HOW NEURAL STIMULATION TECHNOLOGIES AFFECT SURROUNDING NEURONAL AND NON-NEURONAL CELLS BOTH ACUTELY AND CHRONICALLY. THINGS LIKE CELL ACTIVATION THRESHOLD, SUSH THRESHOLD CHANGES TO MEMBRANE VOLTAGE, MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES, METABOLIC CHANGES, CHANGES IN CELL-CELL INTERACTIONS AS WELL AS LOCAL CIRCUIT PLASTICITY IN RESPONSE TO THE STIMULATION. OVERALL WEE, WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THESE TOOLS MANIPULATE, SO THE BEHAVIORAL CONTEXT IS DEFINITELY IMPORTANT AND WILL BE INCLUDED WHERE POSSIBLE, BUT WE'RE REALLY NOT TRYING TO FOCUS ON THE ACTUAL BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES OF THE STIMULATION AS THAT IS BEING COVERED THROUGH SOME OF THE OTHER RFAs WITHIN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. THROUGH THIS, WE'LL PLAN TO SYSTEMATICALLY CHARACTERIZE MODEL AND VALIDATE THESE FIELDS PRODUCED FROM THE NEUROSTIMULATION TECHNOLOGIES TO DEVELOP A GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF THE EFFECTS OF THIS NEURAL STIMULATION ON BOTH THE LOCAL NEUROBIOLOGY AS WELL AS THEN USE THAT TO INFORM FUTURE DEVICE DEVELOPMENT. BY MINING THESE TOGETHER THROUGH THIS SORT OF A CONSORTIUM PROGRAM, WE'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE THE INVESTIGATORS BE ABLE TO SHARE THEIR DATA, CO-DEVELOP MODELS TOGETHER AND DEVELOP STANDARDS FOR BEING ABLE TO THEN UNDERSTAND HOW THE STIMULATION TOOLS WORK AS WELL AS USING THAT COLLABORATION AND THAT INFORMATION TO POTENTIALLY DEVELOP NEXT GENERATION MODELS TO REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW OUR DEVICES INTERFACE WITH THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. SOME OF THE FEW EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT MAY BE OUT OF SCOPE AS WELL AS THE FUTURE ACTIVITIES WOULD BE INVESTIGATING THE EFFECT OF THE MODULATION IN DISEASE MODELS. IF YOU'RE VALIDATING MODELS USING NON-PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASURES OR THEORETICAL MODELS THAT DON'T NECESSARILY INCLUDE ANY SORT OF VALIDATION, OVERALL, YOUR -- SOME OF THESE TYPES OF TECHNIQUES DO NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT RESOLUTION TO REALLY GET AT THAT NEUROBIOLOGY AT THE CELLULAR AND LOCAL CIRCUIT LEVEL HOWEVER WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT SOME INVESTIGATORS WOULD USE THOSE IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER HIGH RESOLUTION TECHNOLOGIES WE HAVE TO POTENTIALLY THEN UNDERSTAND NOT DELLS ACROSS MODELS ACROSS SCALES. SIMILAR LIMOS OF OUR HUMAN TOOLS ARE NOT -- THE MODELS WOULD HELP TO BE DEVELOPED AT LOWER SPECIES FIRST, BUT WE WOULD WANT TO EXPLORE SUPPLEMENTS ONCE THOSE MODELS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED TO ALLOW INVESTIGATORS AND FUNDED HUMAN STUDIES TO BE ABLE TO PARTNER WITH INVESTIGATE INVESTIGATORS, SU CH THAT THEN THEY COULD PROVIDE SOME HUMAN DATA TO VALIDATE THE MODELS AS THEY'VE BEEN DEVELOPED WITHIN THE OVERALL RFA. SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS CAME UP IS WHY IS THIS PART OF THE BRAIN? I THINK OVERALL, THE OVERARCHING GOAL IS THAT WE NEED TO DEVELOP NEW TOOLS TO UNDERSTAND THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. TO DO THAT, WE NEED TO DEVELOP THE TOOLS FOR STIMULATION, INHIBITION AND MODULATION. AND I INTERPRET TOOLS VERY BROADLY THAT, IT ISN'T JUST THE DESTRIES ITSELF, IT'S HOW WE USE THE DEVICE IN THE CONTEXT AND UNDERSTANDING HOW THAT WORKS TO GIVE US A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAYS IN WHICH WE DEVELOP THOSE TOOLS. FURTHER, WE ALSO WAN TO DEVELOP THAT FUNDAMENTAL UNDERSTANDING OF HOW TO USE THAT DATA AND INFORMATION TO INFORM THE NEXT GENERATION OF TOOLS THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BETTER SUIT OUR NEEDS FOR MODULATING THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. LASTLY, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO VALIDATE THE MECHANISMS OF ACTION TO UNDERSTAND OW THEY WORK, A CORE PRINCIPLE OUTLINED IN SEVERAL PLACES WITH THE BRAIN 2025 REPORT. SO AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT ANYBODY MIGHT HAVE AND GO FROM THERE. >> I HAD A QUESTION THAT WAS WOULD THIS BE FOCUSED ON NHP AND HUMAN-ONLY KIND OF SYSTEMS OR ARE YOU ALSO CONSIDERING ROW TENT RODENT MODELS AND THINGS LIKE THAT IN TERMS OF LARGE SCALE SIMULATIONS AND THE PROJECTS IN GENERAL? >> I THINK OVERALL, WE'RE USING THESE TOOLS ACROSS ALL OF THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT ANIMAL MODEL SYSTEMS, SO I WOULD ENVISION THAT VARIOUS DIFFERENT INVESTIGATIVE TEAMS WOULD END UP PROPOSING SCALES ACROSS MODELS BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS INFORMATION -- GIVEN THAT WE'RE DOING A LOT OF OUR MAPPING IN THE MOUSE ORODENT DIFFERENT SPECIES, IT WOULD HELP TOWPPED STAND HOW THESE TOOLS WORK THERE, BUT BEING ABLE TO SPAN SPECIES, THAT THERE ARE LIKELY DIFFERENT ASPECTS THAT WOULD SCALE AND OTHERS THAT WOULDN'T AND THAT WOULD BE PART OF THAT BASIC INFORMATION THAT WE WOULD WANT TO KNOW. THERE ARE LESS TOOLS AVAILABLE IN THE NHP MODEL SO WHEN IT COMES TO SOME OF THE GENETIC TARGETED TECHNOLOGIES, SO OVER TIME, I WOULD ENVISION THAT MORE OF THE INVESTIGATORS AND STUDIES WOULD END UP CREEING TO THE CEDING TO THE LARGER ANIMAL SYSTEMS AS WELL. >> I THOUGHT YOU IMPLIED HUMANS WERE OUT OF SCOPE AS FAR AS A TARGET ORGANISM TO ASSESS THIS. IS THAT YOUR THINKING OR WHERE DO THE HUMANS COME IN? >> I THINK RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE THE TOOLS TO DO IT WITH THAT HIGH RESOLUTION IN THE HUMAN LEVEL. SO I WOULD ENVISION THE MODELS WOULD BE DEVELOPED -- THAT UNDERSTANDING ACROSS THE NON-HUMAN SPECIES, BUT OVER TIME AS THOSE MODELS ARE DEVELOPED AND AS WE DEVELOP THEM, THEN WE COULD EXPLORE TO BRING IN SOME OF OUR HUMAN RESEARCHERS DOING THESE INTRAOPERATIVE RECORDINGS TO HELP ADD SOME MORE DATA TO FURTHER VALIDATE THOSE MODELS. >> ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS, IF WE THINK ABOUT -- IF THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING IN HUMAN, THEN WE NEED TO HAVE SOME PRETTY GOOD SENSE OF WHAT THE ACTUAL KIND OF PHYSICS AND ELECTROMAG NE TICS, OUR STIMULATION PARADIGMS ARE IN THE HUMAN, WHICH COULD THEN, OF COURSE, BE CIRCLED BACK TO THEN BE TESTED AND EVALUATED IN ANIMAL MODELS AND, YOU KNOW, THE CIRCLE CLOSE, BUT WITHOUT THE CAPACITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THE WORK TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO PROPERLY MODEL AND MEASURE THE HUMAN FIELDS, IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT THE ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS YOU WOULD PROPOSE TO DO FIRST ARE ACTUALLY KIND OF TARGETED TO THE RIGHT REGIME. SO IT'S EASY FOR ME TO IMAGINE KIND OF WORKING -- KIND OF BACK AND FORTH ACROSS THE SPECIES TO GET THERE, AND I JUST WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RFA WOULDN'T NECESSARILY EXCLUDE THAT KIND OF APPROACH, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN I'M THINKING ABOUT SOME OF THE -- WHETHER IT'S TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION OR ELECTRICAL, WHERE THE DETAILED MODELING OF WHAT THE FIELDS ARE ACTUALLY BEING ADMINISTERED IN HUMANS IS SO IMPORTANT TO THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS. WITHOUT KNOWING THAT, WITHOUT INVESTING IN THAT DETAILED KIND OF ELECTROMAGNETIC MODELING THAT GOES FROM THAT KIND OF HUMAN SCALE SURFACE INTO WHAT'S HAPPENING AT A CELLULAR LEVEL, I'M NOT SURE YOU WOULD EVEN KNOW HOW TO PROPERLY MODEL THE ANIMAL. SO IS THERE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF HOW YOU COULD IMAGINE DOING THAT? IN OTHER WORDS, MY OWN VIEW WOULD BE BRINGING THE HUMAN IN LATER, MIGHT BE TOO LATE, IN THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME NOT NECESSARILY MODELING THE RIGHT FIELDS IN YOUR ANIMAL MODELS WHEN YOU GOT AROUND TO THE HUMANS. SO AT LEAST TO SOME POTENTIAL FEEDBACK THINK ABOUT SOME FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF HOW YOU ALLOW THE HUMAN TO BE WORKED IN, EVEN IF THE FOCUS IS MEASURING THINGS AT CELLULAR LEVELS WHICH, OF COURSE, WE'RE LIKELY TO NEED TO DO IN ANIMALS. >> ABSOLUTELY. I COMPLETELY AGREE THAT WE NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT IT IN THE HUMAN CONTEXT AS IT GOES ALONG. MY GENERAL THINKING WAS THAT WE NEEDED TO DEVELOP THE MODELS A LITTLE BIT BETTER BEFORE BRINGING IN THE HUMANS AND THAT WAS KIND OF THE SUPPLEMENT IDEA DO THAT, BUT WE COULD STILL KEEP IT OPEN AND JUST KIND OF BETTER FRAME THE RFA IN THAT CONTEXT THAT IT SHOULD BE HUMAN-CENTRIC IN THE MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIALLY EVEN BRINGING THEM IN AT AN EARLIER STAGE WOULD CERTAINLY BE THE POSSIBILITY AND A WELCOMED SUGGESTION, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. >> I WOULD SECOND BRUCE'S COMMENTS AND SUGGESTION BECAUSE THERE'S A WEALTH OF CURRENT YEUS OF MANY OF THESE -- THE LONG LIST BEING APPLIED TO HUMAN, AND THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY GREAT RESEARCH THAT CAN BE ADD-ON, PIGGY BACKING ON TO, YES, MOSTLY DISEASE-RELATED APPLICATIONS AT THIS POINT, BUT THERE ARE SOME BASE UK BASIC MECHANISMS OF DIFFUSION THROUGH TISSUE, THE HUMAN SCALE BEING SO DIFFERENT, THE ANATOMY BEING SO DIFFERENT HOW THESE SIGNALS SPLIT AND PENETRATE THESE CONVOLUTED HUMAN BRAIN SURFACE AND STRUCTURES THAT WE CAN'T EVEN IN A NON-HUMAN PRIMATE FULLY APPRECIATE AND WE ALSO HAVE A BEHAVIORAL READOUT AT THE HUMAN LEVEL TOO, ESPECIALLY IN CASES WHERE THERE ISN'T NECESSARILY A MAJOR ANATOMICAL DEFECT, SAY FOR SOME OF THE PSYCHIATRIC CONDITIONS, AS OPPOSED TO, SAY, BRAIN INJURY WHERE THERE MAY BE A NEURODEGENERATIVE CONDITION OR A PHYSICAL INJURY TO THE BRAIN, WHICH IS ALSO GOING TO BE VERY INTERESTING TO UNDERSTAND AS WELL, HOW DOES THE SIGNAL PROPAGATE THROUGH SCAR TISSUE. IT COULD BE VERY USEFUL AT THE HUMAN SCALE. SO I WOULD STRONGLY SUPPORT THAT THEY BE PARALLEL EXPLORATION OF HUMAN STUDIES AS ADD-ONS TO CURRENT USAGE BECAUSE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TECHNOLOGY THAT'S UP AND RUNNING AND FDA-APPROVED IN A NUMBER OF CASES. >> I WANT TO ADD TWO POINTS. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THIS CONCEPT IS GREAT. I'M WORKING ON NEUROSTIMULATION, I SEE SO MANY -- NEUROMODULATION MODALITY IS LOOKING AT THE SYSTEM LEVEL BY WHAT'S IN FACT TO THE CELL CIRCUIT. THE SECOND I WANT TO ALSO ADD MY SUPPORT, THE POINT BRUCE BROUGHT UP, SOMEHOW, TMS, TDCS, THEY ARE ONLY DEFINED IN THE CONTEXT OF APPLYING TO INTRACRANIAL, TRANSCRANIAL, SO IF YOU WOULD TAKE A WAY OF HUMAN ANATOMY OR THE GEOMETRIC RELATIONSHIP, WHATEVER YOU GATHER IN A CELL TISSUE IS A PREPARATION AND MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TRANSLATE INTO FUTURE APPLICATION TO HUMAN. BUT I SUPPORT STRONGLY THIS MAJOR FOCUS TO LOOK AT CELL CIRCUIT LEVEL NEUROBIOLOGY, BUT PROBABLY WE SHOULD LET INVESTIGATOR TO DECIDE WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST PLAN TO PROPOSE INSTEAD OF MAYBE JUST -- SO IT'S JUST -- >> CAN I JUST COMMENT TOO, I THINK THIS MAY BE A BROADER QUESTION, WHEN YOU COME UP WITH THESE NEW PROPOSALS, DO YOU ENVISION A TARGET AUDIENCE? WHO DO YOU THINK OR DO YOU IDENTIFY PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THESE? IN THIS CASE, I WOULD THINK A LOT OF THE INTEREST WOULD BE FROM PEOPLE WHO STUDY HUMAN, AND WHETHER YOU CAN GET PEOPLE STUDYING RODENTS TO REALLY ENGAGE IN THIS -- IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME, AT LEAST, AND SO HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THAT IS IN GENERAL TERMS, IS THIS SOMETHING YOU THINK ABOUT, ABOUT ALL THESE NEW CONCEPT CLEARANCES? >> YEAH, I THINK OVERALL, TO REALLY MAKE SOME OF THESE MODELS GREAT. WOULD LIKELY INVOLVE SOME OUTREACH AND ALMOST SOME TEAMING BETWEEN SOME OF THESE INVESTIGATORS WHERE YOU HAVE SOME OF THE MORE KIND OF -- THE THERAPEUTIC, THE HUMAN DIRECTION, THE HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE-TYPE INVESTIGATORS, AND TRYING TO GET THEM TO PARTNER WITH SOME OF THE MORE NEUROBIOLOGISTS, THAT SOME OF THESE CHANGES THAT ARE LIKELY HAPPENING MAY BE AT THE CELLULAR LEVEL OR KIND OF THOSE LOCAL CIRCUIT LEVEL OR MAYBE EVEN THE MY TOE CON KOREA OR MITOCHONDRIA LEVEL OR METABOLIC -- PARTNER INTO TEAMS SUCH THAT IT GETS THEM WORKING ACROSS THE SCALES AND THE SPECTRUM WOULD, I THINK, DEFINITELY BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THAT. >> I DID WANT TO SORT OF FOLLOW UP ON THAT. THINK OF COURSE THAT USE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY IS OBVIOUSLY CRITICALLY IMPORTANT, UNDERSTANDING HOW IT WORKS IS IMPORTANT, BUT YOU GET TO THE FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISMS, I THINK YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH MODEL SYSTEMS BECAUSE THOSE YOU CAN MANIPULATE IN A WAY THAT YOU CAN'T THE HUMAN SYSTEM, AND SO I THINK TO UNDERSTAND HOW THESE THINGS WORK IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT, SO I, TOO, LIKE THIS CONCEPT, BUT I ACTUALLY ALSO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT IT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN THE MODEL SYSTEMS AS WELL AS THE HUMAN. BUT WITH SOME WORK IN THE MODEL SYSTEM FOR SURE. >> I WOULD SECOND THAT AS WELL. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES OF USING THESE STIMULATION TECHNOLOGIES IN SMALLER BRAINS, LIKE RODENTS, IS THE RESOLUTION IS NOT EVEN THERE. IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT IT IS IN -- FOR TMS. YOU BASICALLY APPLY MAGNETIC FIELD ACROSS BASICALLY THE WHOLE BRAIN, YOU CAN'T EVEN REALLY RELIABLY GET IT INTO A HEMISPHERE PROPERLY WITH THE CURRENT TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE TO MOST INVESTIGATORS AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE MAGNETIC FIELDS ARE JUST TOO WIDE. SO ACTUALLY POTENTIALLY EXPLORING MORE SIZE-APPROPRIATE SCALED-APPROPRIATE STIMULATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR ALL OF THAT LIST SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE SCALE ISSUE WILL BE REALLY IMPORTANT IN TRYING TO SORT OF CREATE SOME SYNERGY AND PARALLEL TO INFORM ACROSS SPECIES. >> IT'S INTERESTING, I'M MORE WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER WE'RE COLLECTING ALL THE INFORMATION IN THE HUMAN CLINICAL USE THAT CAN INFORM THIS CONVERSATION. IN OTHER WORDS, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S -- YOU HAVE PHYSICIANS ALL OVER THE WORLD DOING HOW MANY VARIANTS OF THINGS. IS THERE ANY ATTEMPT TO ACTUALLY COLLECT ALL OF THAT DATA AND KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT SEEMS TO BE WORKING BETTER CLINICALLY AND NOT? BECAUSE HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DPS IMPLANTED, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GETTING TREATMENTS FOR THIS AND TREATMENTS FOR THAT. IT SEEMS TO ME THERE'S GOT TO BE A LOT OF RICHNESS IN KNOWING WHAT EVERY PHYSICIAN IS DOING AND WHY AND WHAT THEY THINK WORKS AND WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU'VE GOT A 16-YEAR-OLD VERSUS AN 83-YEAR-OLD. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE CAPTURING ANY OF THAT. >> SOME OF IT, WE DO HAVE THROUGH ONE OF OUR OTHER TEAMS, SOME OF THESE RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES, WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO COLLECT SOME OF THAT BAISES IK PHYSIOLOGICAL DATA. WHEN YOU GET TO THE MORE THERAPEUTIC SIDE OF THINGS, I AGREE WE'RE NOT COLLECTING AS MUCH AS WE POTENTIALLY COULD. I HAVE HAD SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH INVESTIGATORS IN THE FIELD TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY SEGHT UP REGISTRIES FOR SOME OF THE DISEASES OR DISORDERS TO START TO BUILD UP THOSE DATASETS ON KIND OF THE MORE THERAPEUTIC SIDE OF THINGS. BUT IT'S VERY HARD TO, I GUESS, GET THEM TO TOWARD YAIT ACROSS COORDINATE ACROSS ALL OF THE DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS, DEVELOPING THOSE STANDARDS AND COMMON DATA ELEMENTS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO AGGREGATE ALL OF THAT IS DEFINITELY A LARGE UNDERTAKING AS MANY OF MY DATA SHARING COLLEAGUES ARE ALL TOO WELL AWARE. >> SO IT'S REALLY INTERESTING, MAYBE IT'S JUST BECAUSE I'M HERE TODAY, BUT I'M A FUNDAMENTAL BASIC SCIENTIST. BUT PART OF ME FEELS THAT GIVEN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BEING DBS IMPLANTED IN VARIOUS THINGS TODAY, THAT AT SOME LEVEL, KNOWING WHAT REALLY WORKS BEST THERAPEUTICALLY IS MORE IT GOES AGAINST EVERY FIBER OF MY BEING, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO LEARN IN A MOUSE IS REALLY GOING TO BE THAT HELPFUL IN MAKING THOSE THERAPEUTIC DECISIONS, SO MAYBE I COULD BE CONVINCED AND NEXT MONTH I MIGHT HAVE THE EXACT OPPOSITE ANSWER, BUT I ALMOST FEEL LIKE BECAUSE OF THE SCALE AND DIMENSIONS AND THE SIZE, IT'S NOT COMPLETELY CLEAR TO ME THAT THAT'S AS IMPORTANT THAN FIGURING OUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN HUMAN. >> I BASICALLY AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS ABOUT SORT OF THE PHYSICS FTD SITUATION IN OF THE SITUATION IN HUMAN, REALLY SORT OF QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT IN MANY OF THE -- SORT OF THE ANIMAL MODELS THAT YOU MIGHT FIRST THINK ABOUT USING. THEREFORE, I HAVE TO SAY I'M A STRONG SUPPORTER IN INCLUDING THAT THINKING IN -- AND THOSE SORTS OF PROJECTS IN THIS RFA. THAT SAID, I THINK THE EXPERIENCE OF THINKING ABOUT KIND OF THE INVERSE PROBLEM OF THIS, WHICH IS HOW DO WE EXPLAIN, FOR EXAMPLE, WAVEFORM AND AMPLITUDES OF EXTRACELLULAR SIGNALS OF NEURONS OF THE BRAIN OF A COMPLEX TISSUE, WHAT DO THE FIELD POTENTIALS LOOK LIKE AND SO ON, THIS IS AN AREA WHERE DETAILED MODELING OF THE KIND -- AND SIMULATION OF THE KIND THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING HAS BEEN DONE AT A SMALL SCALE. I'M THINKING OF THE WORK REALLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AT A DETAILED LEVEL WHAT IS THE FIELD POTENTIAL THAT YOU RECORD WITH AN ELECTRODE IN THE BRAIN. A LOT OF THE TECHNIQUES AND METHODOLOGY THAT GO INTO WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING ALSO GO INTO THOSE KINDS OF SIMULATIONS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS COME OUT OF THAT WORK IS THE DEPENDENCE ON THE EXACT DETAILS OF THE GEOMETRY AND STRUCTURE OF THE TISSUE. AND SO AS MUCH AS I AM AN ADVOCATE FOR INCLUDING HUMAN STUDIES, AT THE SAME TIME, YOU REALLY HAVE TO HAVE THAT DETAIL IN THERE IN ORDER TO REALLY DO A GOOD JOB AT MAKING THESE SIMULATIONS AND PREDICTIONS. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS JUST ISN'T GOING TO DO IT FOR -- IN TERMS OF REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S GOING ON. SO IN SOME SENSE, TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, YOU NEED IT ALL, AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT SO TOUGH. AND SO I THINK THE ONLY REAL SENSIBLE STRATEGY IS TO START OFF DOING BOTH BUT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU REALLY NEED TO COMBINE THESE TWO THINGS ULTIMATELY IF YOU'RE REALLY GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL ABOUT IT. >> YEP. >> AND THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO SAY IS THAT I REALLY WONDER WHETHER THIS SORT OF POINTS OUT A MISSING ELEMENT OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE THAT GOES BEYOND EVEN THIS RFA, AND I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT IN THE CONTEXT OF LARGE SCALE NEURAL REPORTING. MOST SIMULATIONS THAT WERE TALKED ABOUT IN THE 2025 REPORT AND SO ON, THEY LARGELY WERE BASED AROUND THIS IDEA IF YOU HAVE LIKE A LARGE SCALE NETWORK OF NEWER NEURONS, YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DYNAMICS ARE, THE WHOLE CIRCUIT, HOW IT RELATION TO COGNITION, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD CALL SORT OF SIMULATIONS AIMED AT SORT OF AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE BRAIN WORKS. AND THAT'S GREAT, THAT SHOULD BE 90% OF THE EFFORT, BUT IT'S BECOME APPARENT, I THINK, IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY WASN'T IN THE 2025 REPORT, IT'S INTERESTING YOU'RE SAYING, WHAT'S CHANGED IN THE LANDSCAPE, WHAT WOULD YOU THINK ABOUT IF YOU WERE DOING IT AGAIN? ONE OF THE THINGS I CERTAINLY NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT WAS THE NEED FOR LARGE SCALE IN SOME SENSE TISSUE SIMULATIONS OF THE BRAIN, BOTH IN THE CONTEXT OF UNDERSTANDING REPORTED SIGNALS AS WELL AS STIMULATION, AND THERE'S EVEN A NEW AREA WHERE IT'S COMING UP. AND THAT IS IN UNDERSTANDING -- FOR EXAMPLE, IN LARGE SCALE CALCIUM IMAGING, THE ABILITY TO EVALUATE THE ALGORITHMS ON MIXING OF SIGNALS AND INFERENCE OF ACTION POTENTIALS INFERRED FROM CALCIUM IMAGING DATA. THE GROUND TRUTH DATA AVAILABLE EXPERIMENTALLY IS SO LIMITED AND SO HARD TO GET THAT PEOPLE ARE REALLY NOW GOING INTO THE AREA OF LARGE SCALE SIMULATIONS OF THE ACTUAL COMPLEX TISSUE IN ORDER TO GENERATE GROUND TRUTH DATA TO EXAMINE THE ACCURACY AND SENSITIVITY OF THE SEGMENTS OF THE INS INFERENCE ALGORITHMS USED TO ANALYZE THE DATA. SO IN SOME SENSE, THERE'S A NEW CLASS OF SIMULATIONS AND MODELS WHICH IS -- I WOULD CALL THEM SORT OF HIGHLY DETAILED TISSUE SIMULATION OF BRAIN TISSUE IN GENERAL, AND IT GOES BEYOND JUST THIS RFA. IT'S APPLICABLE TO A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT QUESTIONS, AND METHODS THAT ARE PART OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. >> SO I'M SORRY TO END THIS VERY RICH DISCUSSION BUT WE HAVE ANOTHER CONCEPT TO HEAR AND ACTUALLY WHAT I NEGLECTED TO MENTION IN THE INTRODUCTION IS HAT WE DO WANT YOU TO VOTE ON THESE CONCEPTS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD GO FORWARD. SO I'M WON WONDERING IF THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT IT OR POSSIBLY MODIFY IT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE THE ABILITY TO DO RESEARCH IN HUMANS IS PART OF THIS OR THE IDEA OF HAVING TEAMS OF HUMAN AND -- RESEARCHERS WORKING TOGETHER ON THIS PROBLEM, WOULD YOU -- DO YOU FEEL THAT THE CONCEPT IS READY TO GO FORWARD AT THIS POINT WITH THOSE SORTS OF MODIFICATIONS? >> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS PENDING THE MODIFICATIONS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. >> SECOND. >> CHOICE VAGUENESS. >> EXCUSE ME? >> I SAID CHOICE VAGUENESS. >> DO YOU APPROVE ON THIS MOTION TO GO FORWARD? ON THE PHONE? >> YES, I APPROVE. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THEN THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I'M SURE TEAM B WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS. >> YES. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. >> OKAY. SO THE NEXT CONCEPT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS BY STEVE -- STEVE CORN IS GOING TO PRESENT IT, AND IT'S TO DEVELOP A P30 RFA FOR FACULTY RECRUITMENT. >> GOOD MORNING. THANKS, SUSAN. SO MY NAME IS STEVE CORN, I'M THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF TRAINING AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AT NINDS. I'M PRESENTING THIS CONCEPT ON BEHALF OF TEAM D, NANCY DESMOND IS THE LEAD AND THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE ON THIS TEAM. THIS IS A CONCEPT THAT ADDRESSES ONE IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE BRAIN 2025 REPORT. HERE IS THE RECOMMENDATION TAKEN WORD FOR WORD FROM THE BRAIN 2025 REPORT. I WON'T GO THROUGH IT, I WON'T READ IT, BUT LET ME JUST SAY TO ME, THERE ARE THREE COMPONENTS OF THIS RECOMMENDATION. ONE IS TO BRING MORE SOPHISTICATED QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES TO A BROADER SPECTRUM OF NEUROSCIENCE. ANOTHER IS TO BUILD BRIDGES BETWEEN NEUROSCIENCE-RELATED DEPARTMENTS, FACULTY AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS, OTHER FACULTY SUCH AS PHYSICS, MATH, ENGINEERING FACULTY, AND A REALLY IMPORTANT PART OF THIS IS TO ENHANCE TRAINING IN SOPHISTICATED QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES, AND THIS WOULD INVOLVE NOT ONLY TRAINING OF NEUROSCIENTISTS BULL BRINGING BUT BRINGING TRAINEES INTO OTHER QUANTITATIVE DEPARTMENTS INTO NEUROSCIENCE AND BRINGING NEUROSCIENCE TRAINEES IN CONTACT WITH OTHER KINDS OF TRAINEES SUCH AS ENGINEERS AND PHYSICISTS AND MATHEMATICIANS. SO THE GOAL OF THE CONCEPT IS TO FACILITATE HIRING OF FACULTY, THIS WOULD BE JUNIOR FACULTY, THAT USE SOPHISTICATED QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES IN NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH. THIS IS ENVISIONED AS BEING HIRED INTO NEUROSCIENCE OR THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT THAT DOES NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH. THE HIGHER -- THERE ARE THREE TYPES OF APPROACHES LISTED HERE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS AN ALL-INCLUSIVE LIST OF WHAT PEOPLE CAN POTENTIALLY BE DOING. THE POINT IS TO BRING SOPHISTICATED QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES TO NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH. THE INSTITUTION HAS TO HAVE THE ENVIRONMENT, THEY HAVE TO CREATE THE OPPORTUNITIES, THERE HAS TO BE THE FACULTY THAT CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS, AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS -- THE MAJOR REASON WHY THIS SHOULD BE AB INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH AS OPPOSED TO JUST AN INDIVIDUAL HIRE WHERE YOU COULD REALLY CONTROL WHAT THEY KNOW OR WHO THEY'RE GOING DO COLLABORATE WITH. THE INSTITUTION NEEDS TO SET UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THESE COLLABORATIONS TO EXIST AND FOR THIS TRAINING CROSSOVER TO EXIST. AND SO THE FIRST BULLET IS REALLY ABOUT COLLABORATION BETWEEN FACULTY, FACULTY WITHIN NEUROSCIENCE, FACULTY ACROSS DEPARTMENTS. THE SECOND PART OF THIS IS TO DEVELOP CROSS DISCIPLINARY TRAINING AND EDUCATION SO THIS HIRE WOULD BE TASKED WITH NOT ONLY TRAINING NEUROSCIENTISTS BUT CROSS-LISTING OR HAVING COURSES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR TRAINEES IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND THAT WOULD NOT ONLY TRAIN THEM, BUT IT WOULD BRING TRAINEES FROM THESE DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES TOGETHER AND HOPEFULLY FOSTER THAT KIND OF COLLABORATION IN THE FUTURE. SO IT IS AN INSTITUTIONAL AWARD, THE INSTITUTION CREATES THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE PLANS, THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE THE VISION. THERE HAS TO BE BUY-IN FROM ALL THE PARTIES TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. THIS CAN'T JUST HAPPEN BY HIRING AN INDIVIDUAL AND SAYING GO TO IT. THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE FACULTY I MENTIONED. THIS IS, I GUESS, AN OLD -- THAT LAST BULLET WAS TAKEN OUT BUT THE IDEA IS THAT THIS WOULD PROVIDE SALARY AND STARTUP TO GET SOMEBODY GOING WITH THIS APPROACH. SO THAT'S REALLY JUST A BRIEF PRESENTATION OF THE IDEA TO DEVELOP THESE COLLABORATIVE OPPORTUNITIES BETWEEN -- >> WE'RE CONFUSED BY THE LAST LINE. >> SAY AGAIN? >> WE'RE CONFUSED BY THE SALARY RECOVERY -- IT SEEMS TO BE CONFUSING. >> DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. THIS WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE MOST RECENT SLIDE SET AND I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS LEFT IN. IT'S THE WRONG SLIDES THAT WERE UPLOADED. YOU CAN JUST IGNORE THAT BULLET. >> I'M STILL NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND, I GUESS I JUST DON'T GET IT. WHAT IS IT THAT IS PROVIDED TO THE INSTITUTION OR THE INVESTIGATORS? >> SO THIS WOULD BE -- THE INSTITUTION WOULD APPLY FOR MONEY TO HIRE A FACULTY MEMBER WHO WOULD BE A SOPHISTICATED QUANTITATIVE NEUROSCIENTIST, IN ANY RESPECT. SO NOT DICTATING WHAT THEY DO, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE. IT'S SOMEBODY THAT DOES SOPHISTICATED QUANTITATIVE WORK. THERE WOULD BE MONEY TO HIRE THAT PERSON INTO A DEPARTMENT, AND THE TASK WOULD BE TO BUILD COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS BETWEEN THAT PERSON AND OTHER NEUROSCIENCE FACULTY AND ACROSS DEPARTMENTS AND PROVIDE TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES. >> BUT WHAT IS THE BUDGET GOING TO LOOK LIKE? IS IT GOING TO HAVE SALARY SUPPORT FOR THE NEW HIRE, IS IT GOING TO HAVE -- MONEY FOR THE NEW HIRE, IS IT GOING TO HAVE FUNDS FOR COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS OR ALL OF THE ABOVE? >> SO AS ENVISIONED NOW AND CERTAINLY THIS COULD TAKE YOUR INPUT, IT'S SALARY FOR THE NEW HIRE, IT'S STARTUP FOR THE NEW HIRE, AND POTENTIALLY MONEY FOR SOME TRAINEES TO GET PROJECTS OFF THE GROUND. IT'S NOT ENVISIONED RIGHT NOW AS PROVIDING RESEARCH MONEY FOR PROJECTS. >> OKAY. SO -- AND SO YOU'RE ENVISIONING APPROXIMATELY FIVE YEARS OF AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR'S SALARY PLUS SOME REASONABLE SETUP FUNDS PLUS MAYBE SOME TRAINEE SUPPORT AND THAT SOUNDS -- >> RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT FIVE YEARS OF SALARY WOULD LOOK LIKE, BUT THAT'S THE VISION, IS PROVIDING THE MONEY TO HIRE -- A NORMAL KIND OF STARTUP SITUATION. >> AND THE NOTION WOULD BE THES WOULD BE TENURED TRACK POSITIONS THAT DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE -- >> CORRECT. >> AND THAT THE NOTION WOULD BE IF THE PERSON HAS DONE WELL, THAT THE INSTITUTION IS COMMITTED TO KEEPING -- >> CORRECT. >> OBVIOUSLY THEY CAN'T GUARANTEE THE PERSON WILL GET TENURE, BUT THEY WOULD BE -- >> THEIR NEEDS TO BE AB AN INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT UP FRONT THAT WOULD BE A STANDARD COMMITMENT TO ENSURE THAT IF THE PERSON -- JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. FRANCES. >> I WOULD THINK THAT ONE THING THAT IS IMPORTANT IN THIS KIND OF AWARD IS TO STIPULATE PERCENT EFFORT LIMITS. IF IT'S A JUNIOR PERSON AND THEY BECOME FULLY ADMINISTRATIVE, ADMINISTERING A TRAINING PROGRAM, THEIR RESEARCH WOULD -- THEIR PERSONAL RESEARCH WOULD SUFFER. SO MUCH LIKE SOME OF THE OTHER AWARDS YOU GIVE, 75% RESEARCH, 25%. I MEAN, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO ADD IN HERE TO GIVE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE DIRECTION, AND THEN JUST A COUPLE OF -- I WOULD JUST LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT -- IT'S A K24, RIGHT, THE KINDS OF AWARDS THAT PEOPLE CAN GET TO BE A MENTOR TO OTHER PEOPLE SO -- >> RIGHT, SO THIS IS A K24 IS GIVEN TO A MID CAREER CLINICIAN TO MEP TORE MENTOR PEOPLE. >> I'M JUST SAYING IT'S KIND OF A PARALLEL IDEA. >> THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT MENTORING. THIS IS TO HIRE SOMEBODY WITH A SPECIFIC EXPERTISE BROADLY DEFINED AS USING SOPHISTICATED QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES, SO IT'S A HIRE, IT'S NOT PROVIDING MONEY FOR PROTECTIVE TIME. >> BUT IT WOULD -- WHAT -- I GUESS, THEN, WILL THIS COVER SOME OF -- PROTECT THE PERSON'S TIME SO THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE TO DEVELOP AN EXPERTISE SINCE THEY'LL BE PROBABLY A NEWER FAK UMENT FACULTY PERSON, AND COULD YOU STIPULATE THAT THE TRAINING AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE X PERCENT SO THAT THEY HAVE 75% OF THEIR TIME PROTECTED OR SOMETHING FOR THEIR RESEARCH? JUST WONDERING ABOUT THAT. >> WE CAN CERTAINLY -- AS YOU MENTIONED, IT'S CERTAINLY STANDARD IN THESE SORTS OF THINGS TO REQUIRE 75% EFFORT TOWARDS WHATEVER IT IS YOU'RE BEING -- YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. >> I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAVE LIKE WE DO, YOU'RE IN MEDICAL SCHOOL RIGHT NOW BUT IF YOU HAVE A MATH DEPARTMENT OR A COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT THAT DOES NOT HAVE SOMEBODY DOING NEUROSCIENCE, YOU CAN SAY TO THE MATH DEPARTMENT, HERE YOU CAN HIRE SOMEONE, YOU MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY THINK WOULD BE THE NEXT PERSON ON YOUR LIST, IN THREE TO FIVE YEARS, THEY'LL DEVELOP A NEW MATH NEUROSCIENCE COURSE THAT WOULD SERVE BOTH MATH AND NEUROSCIENCE, AND THEN THEY WOULD BE INTEGRATED, SO, I MEAN, THIS, I THINK, IS GOING TO WORK THE BEST FOR PLACES WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO INTRODUCE THEM INTERDEPARTMENT THAT OTHERWISE WOULDN'T BE INTERESTED IN MAKING THAT HIRE. SO I CAN IMAGINE MANY -- IF I LOOK AT -- WE JUST HIRED OUR FIRST MATH MATHEMATICIAN INTERESTED IN NEUROSCIENCE BUT -- BUT THIS WOULDN'T WORK IF THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT HIRING SOMEBODY TO DO DATABASES. >> SO THIS IS EMORY. JUST CURIOUS, HOW MANY SUCH POSITIONS WOULD YOU IMAGINE BEING AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS MECHANISM TO LIKE ANY ONE INSTITUTION? >> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. HOW MANY POSITIONS AT AN INSTITUTION? >> IN OTHER WORDS, IS THIS JUST FUNDING FOR, LET'S SAY, ONE INDIVIDUAL, COULD IT BE TWO OR IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT'S THE SCOPE THAT YOU'RE IMAGINING? >> I WOULD IMAGINE AT ANY GIVEN INSTITUTION THAT WOULD NOT BE MORE THAN ONE, BECAUSE THIS WILL AB COMPETITIVE GRANT APPLICATION. WE'VE HAD NO DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW BIG THE BUDGET WOULD BE FOR THIS. I THINK -- AND THAT COULD BE DECIDED BY THE POWERS THAT BE, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I'M ENVISIONING. I THINK THE ONLY THING TO ME THAT'S IMPORTANT IS THAT -- AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST ME, THAT I THINK HOWEVER MANY PEOPLE DECIDE UPON IT SHOULD BE DONE OVER A TWO-YEAR PERIOD SPLIT IN HALF BECAUSE THAT WILL INCREASE THE POOL AND WE CAN ALSO LEARN FROM THE FIRST ITERATION IN CASE THERE'S ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED FROM THE SECOND ITERATION BUT THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EITHER. I JUST ALSO WANT TO MENTION -- I DIDN'T MENTION, THIS IS AN FY19 CONCEPT. WE IMAGINE THAT WE NEED A LONG LEAD TIME SINCE THIS IS ASKING THE INSTITUTION TO CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY, WE WANT THEM TO HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO WORK THIS OUT AND FIGURE OUT HOW IT WILL WORK AND NOT JUST RUSH INTO HIRING SOMEBODY. >> THIS IS -- GO AHEAD IF YOU WANT TO FINISH. >> JUST ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT THERE. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, I LIKE THIS IDEA, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT EMPHASIS BE PLACED HERE ON THIS PERSON DOING RESEARCH ON METHODS OR QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES FOR NEUROSCIENCE BECAUSE I CAN EASILY SEE THIS DEVOLVING INTO LIKE A SERVICE ROLE WHERE SOMEBODY COMES DOWN TO HIS OR HER OFFICE TO HELP THEM GET THEIR DATA ANALYZED OR HELP THEM GET THEIR SIMULATION DONE, AND THIS PERSON COULD BE OVERWHELMED AND NOT REALLY BE IN A POSITION TO DEVELOP SORT OF NEW METHODS AND WHAT HAVE YOU THAT WILL ALLOW HIM OR HER TO PROGRESS AND GET TENURE. >> RIGHT, WE AGREE, THIS ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE A RESEARCH NEUROSCIENTIST THAT'S NOT A SERVICE POSITION. WITH A PROTECTED TIME FOR RESEARCH. CAROL? >> I THINK THIS IS A VERY COOL MECHANISM AND I COULD FORESEE THAT WE JUMP RIGHT IN TO APPLY AT COLUMBIA, LARRY WOULD PROBABLY AGREE, BUT I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. FIRST OF ALL THE PRICETAG. SO YOU NEED TO ALLOCATE $3 MILLION PLUS IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE STARTUP AND SO ON. >> THRIE 3 MILLION PLUS FOR WHAT? >> FOR STARTUP. THAT'S A HIGH TICKET FOR MEDICAL SCHOOL TYPE STARTUP. BUT ALSO I'M THINKING ABOUT THE TRAINING. SO IS IT POSSIBLE THAT -- THIS IS KIND OF A HYBRID T32 CAREER AWARD, BUT COULD YOU MANDATE THE IPS TEUTION HAS TO HAVE A DESIGNATED GRADUATE PROGRAM, FOR EXAMPLE, THROUGH WHICH THE TRAINING IS ADMINISTERED SO AS NOT TO PUT THE BURDEN ON THE CHOSEN CANDIDATE? >> WE COULDN'T LIMIT THIS TO INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE A T32. WE JUST WOULDN'T DO THAT. >> NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT. I'M SAYING THE TRAINING PART, COULD YOU HAVE THE TRAINING PART NOT ADMINISTERED BY THE PERSON AS A JUNIOR FACULTY MEMBER? >> I THINK THE VISION, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A VISION THAT'S OPEN TO EVERYBODY'S IDEAS. THIS INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE HIRED PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE ABILITY TO CROSS OVER BETWEEN DIFFERENT KINDS OF TRAINEES AND WE WOULD WANT THIS PERSON TO BE INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES. I THINK THE INSTITUTION, WHEN THEY APPLY, NEEDS TO PROVIDE THE VISION AS TO HOW THE WHOLE TRAINING OPERATION THAT'S ENVISIONED HERE WOULD HAPPEN. >> OKAY. >> WE WOULDN'T MANDATE WHO'S GOING TO DO WHAT. OTHER THAN THAT THIS PERSON HAS TO BE THE BRIDGE THAT CAN PROVIDE THIS CROSSOVER. >> MY FINAL QUESTION IS, WOULD YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CANDIDATE IN HAND? >> NO, I WOULDN'T ENVISION THAT. AGAIN, THE INSTITUTION -- MY VISION OF IT, AND THE TEAM'S VISION AS WE DISCUSSED IT, IS THAT -- AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED THE LONG LEAD TIME, IS AN INSTITUTION WOULD FIGURE OUT HOW IS THIS GOING TO WORK, WHAT DEPARTMENTS ARE BUYING INTO THE CONCEPT, AND THEY WOULD PUT FORTH A PLAN AS TO HOW THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE SUCH A THING WORK AND THEN REVIEWERS WOULD EVALUATE THOSE PLANS. BUT THE HIRE WOULDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL AFTER THEY GOT THE AWARD. >> SO THEN AN INSTITUTION COULD WRITE SOMETHING THAT SAYS OUR MATH DEPARTMENT, BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT, BIOCHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT, PHYSICS DEPARTMENT AND COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT ARE ALL INTERESTED AND SO WE GOT THIS AWARD, THE PERSON WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO SELECT OR WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO INTO ANY OF THE PARTICIPATING DEPARTMENTS, THAT WOULD BE -- >> APPLICANTS COULD PROPOSE ANYTHING THEY WANTED IN REVIEWERS WOULD EVALUATE IT LIKE THEY EVALUATE ANYTHING ELSE. WE WOULDN'T MANDATE THAT IT HAS TO BE ONE OR FIVE DEPARTMENTS OR IT JUST HAS TO BE -- I THINK WHAT WE WOULD DO IS PROBABLY MANDATE THAT THERE HAS TO BE A NEUROSCIENCE RELATED DEPARTMENT INVOLVED AND A NON-BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT MAYBE. >> WE JUST WANTED -- >> I THINK THE INTENT HERE IS TO BRING PEOPLE FROM OTHER DISCIPLINES INTO NEUROSCIENCE IN A COLLABORATIVE WAY SO THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE BUY-IN FROM A MATH OR PHYSICS OR ENGINEERING OR SOME NON-NEUROSCIENCE COMPONENT. >> JUST TO ELABORATE ON ONE POINT, CAN YOU IMAGINE, IN ADDITION TO THIS KIND OF BEING WITHIN A SCHOOL, MAYBE A CROSS SCHOOL AT LEAST BETWEEN A MEDICAL SCHOOL AND THEIR NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH AND THE ARTS OF SCIENCE PHYSICS -- >> ABSOLUTELY. WE WOULD PROVIDE THE VISION OF HOW THIS WORKS AND REVIEWERS WOULD EVALUATE THAT. >> THIS IS LARRY ABBOTT. ABOUT THIS. I THINK FILLING FACULTY POSITIONS IN THIS AREA IS CRITICAL TO BRAIN AND THIS IS A GREAT START, BUT I THINK IF THIS IS GOING TO WORK, WE HAVE TO THINK MORE BROADLY. I THINK MOST CANDIDATES, WE ARE COMPETING HERE WITH INDUSTRY, WITH THE MACHINE LEARNING INDUSTRY AND LOSING A LOT OF PEOPLE, AND I THINK MOST CANDIDATES ARE TERRIFIED OF EXACTLY THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD THERE ARE MANY UNIVERSITIES WAITING TO FILL THIS JOB WITH GENEROUS STARTUP, BUT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE FIVE YEARS OUT, THEY'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF MONEY AND NIH IS GOING TO BE A BRICK WALL FOR THEM. AND SO I THINK OPENING THE DOOR AT THAT POINT, GIVING PEOPLE A VIEW OF MORE EXPANSIVE FUNDING IS REALLY GOING TO BE CRITICAL TO GETTING GOOD PEOPLE TO APPLY FOR THESE JOBS. THE CRCNS PROGRAM THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED HAS BEEN A LIFE LINE, AND I THINK SORT OF OPENING UP THOSE DOORS, I THINK A COLLABORATION WITH NSF IS GREAT BECAUSE IT HAS A BROADER MANDATE, IT HAS MORE EXPERIENCE IN JUDGING MATHEMATICIANS, BUT SOMEHOW I REALLY DO THINK PEOPLE SEE I'M GOING TO GET THROUGH THE FIVE YEARS ON STARTUP OR ON THE MONEY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND THEN I'M JUST GOING TO HIT A WALL. THAT DRIVES PEOPLE OUT OF THIS FIELD. >> LARRY, DO YOU SEE THIS AS PART OF THIS CONCEPT OR A COMPANION TYPE OF THING? >> AT LEAST THE COMPANION. IT'S EXACTLY THE FIVE-YEAR POINT. HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET YOU TO THAT NEXT STEP, GET YOU IN TO NIH FUNDING, R01s AND ALL THAT THAT? AS JUST A COMPONENT WITH IT, I GUESS I'M TALKING ABOUT WITH IT. >> SO THIS IS EVE. YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND WHAT LARRY IS SAYING, BUT I THINK THERE'S A REAL DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF WHAT'S HAPPENING PRESENTLY IN THE MEDICAL SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT AND IN THE LIBERAL ARTS INSTITUTION ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE IF SOMEONE'S HIRED IN THE MATH DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, AT EMORY UNIVERSITY, THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT A GUARANTEED NINE MONTH, 10 MONTH OR 12 MONTH SALARY, WHEREAS IF THEY'RE HIRED IN A MEDICAL SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT AT EMORY, THEY'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT HAVING TO DO A MAJOR A SALARY RECOVERY. SO IN THAT FIVE-YEAR PERIOD WHEN THIS SALARY MONEY GOES AWAY WOULD BE QUITE DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON WHAT THE INSTITUTION IS. SO LARRY IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, BUT IT'S EVEN WORSE FOR PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE PUTTING INTO MEDICAL SCHOOL ENVIRONMENTS. SO IT'S ALMOST AS IF THAT PART OF THE INSTITUTIONAL -- MAYBE YOU WANT TO ADD ON SOMETHING MORE IN TERMS OF INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT TO SORT OF BRIDGE THAT PERIOD, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT THROUGH ESPECIALLY WHEN SOMEONE IS GOING INTO THE INSTITUTION WHERE THE EXPECTATION IS THEY'LL BE ABLE TO RECOVER SIX TR EYE 70% OF THEIR SALARY STARTING IN YEAR FIVE WHEN IT MAY BE VERY HARD FOR THEM TO DO THAT. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S REALLY HURTING HIRING IN THIS AREA, INTO THE MEDICAL SCHOOL NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAMS. SO I THICK IT'S GOING TO THINK IT'S GOING TO BE WORSE IN THAT ENVIRONMENT THAN IT IS IN MANY OF THE INSTITUTIONS THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN DOING THIS THAT ARE NOT MEDICAL SCHOOLS. >> LET ME JUST ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE, REMEMBER, THIS IS THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, SO WE'RE NOT BOILING THE WHOLE OCEAN, I THINK TO LARRY'S POINT, THE THE ATTRACTION SHOULD BE THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE BEING FUNDED BY THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, AND THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS A MAJOR EFFORT ON THE PART OF NIH GOING FORWARD THAT IS COMPLETELY DEPENDENT ON HAVING THESE PEOPLE INCORPORATED INTO THE RESEARCH, SO I THINK THE HOPE IS THAT THE ATTRACTION IS PEOPLE WILL COME IN, SEE THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AS A 50-YEAR CAREER FOR THEM, BECAUSE THE WORK GOING FORWARD IS -- >> CAN I ASK -- GETTING MONEY SUCCESSFULLY FROM THE NIH RIGHT NOW, SO THAT'S -- >> THE BRAIN INITIATIVE -- FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, THAT IS -- AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS FOCUSED ON. >> I KNOW, BUT THE PROBLEM IS THERE ARE A LOT OF OUTSTANDING THEORISTS IN THE WORLD WHO ARE DOING NOT WELL AT GETTING MONEY OUT OF THE NIH. SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT THESE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE SEEING. >> I SHARE FRANCES' CONCERN ABOUT A PERSON GETTING THIS JOB AND BEING UNABLE TO DO THE RESEARCH SHE NEEDS TO DO IN ORDER TO GET TENURE AND PROMOTE HER CAREER. IF I REMEMBER THE FIRST SLIDE, YOU WERE RESTRICTING THIS TO ASSISTANT PROFESSORS. DO YOU NECESSARILY NEED TO DO THIS? COULD YOU MAKE THIS OPEN AS A NEW SLOT FOR SOMEBODY WHO'S GOT A LITTLE MORE EXPERIENCE, A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH UNDER HIS OR HER BELT? AND IS IT NECESSARILY IN AS MUCH JEOPARDY AS A BRAND NEW PERSON BEING PULLED IN BOTH THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION AND THE RESEARCH DIRECTION? >> THERE'S NO ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION. YOU'RE ASKING, YOU'RE SAYING TO A MATH DEPARTMENT, YOU WANT TO HIRE SOMEONE AND I STEAD OF TEACHING LINEAR ALGEBRA, YOU'RE GOING TO TEACH A NEW COURSE IN STATISTICS AND NEUROSCIENCE. >> THEY'VE GOT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROMOTING COLLABORATIONS, COURSE RESPONSIBILITIES, TRAINING RESPONSIBILITIES. >> I THINK -- >> THAT'S GOING TO PULL THEM AWAY FROM THE RESEARCH THEY NEED TO DO, OR AT LEAST THERE'S A RISK OF THAT. >> I DON'T SEE IT. I THINK ALL ASSISTANT PROFESSORS ARE TORN INTO TRILLIONS OF PIECES. >> CAN I ASK -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >> LET ME JUST SAY, WE DON'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING. I'M SERIOUS. I GUESS MY THINKING IN RESTRICTING IT TO ASSISTANT PROFESSORS IS IT FULFILLS A REALLY IMPORTANT GOAL OF PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW PEOPLE TO GET STARTED IN ACADEMIC RESEARCH POSITIONS AS OPPOSED TO SOMEBODY WHO HAS A SECURE POSITION TRADING TO A NEW POSITION THAT FITS THIS BILL IF THE POWERS THAT BE, YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND WHOEVER DECIDES SAYS NO, WE SHOULDN'T RESTRICT IT, WE DON'T NEED TO RESTRICT IT. I AND THE TEAM THOUGHT THAT WAS REALLY BENEFICIAL TO BRING IN ALL OF THIS NEW TALENTED BLOOD INTO THE WORKFORCE, AND IT SEEMS TO SERVE A VERY GOOD PURPOSE. BUT IF PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH THAT, THEY DISAGREE WITH THAT. >> SO I WOULD AGREE WITH THIS, THIS CAME UP AT ONE OF OUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS THAT WE DO NEED TO ATTRACT THESE MORE QUANTITATIVE PEOPLE INTO THE NEUROSCIENCE BOTH AT TRAINING LEVEL, BUT ALSO AT A FACULTY LEVEL, AND SO -- BUT I THINK FROM A PREVIOUS CONVERSATION WE HAD, THIS HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE, RIGHT? WASN'T IT DONE IN ARRA, IS THIS TRUE? >> RIGHT. >> AND SO I THINK -- PRESUMABLY YOU'VE LOOKED AT THAT, FOLLOWED THOSE PEOPLE WHO WERE HIRED AND THEY'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL AT -- I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD. >> RIGHT. >> AND SO I THINK THERE'S A PRECEDENT THAT THIS WORKS, RIGHT, THAT PEOPLE -- THRAW THIS MECHANISM AND HAVE GONE ON TO GET TENURE AND SO I THINK THAT'S A VERY POSITIVE SIGNAL THAT THIS APPROACH COULD WORK. >> RIGHT, THE PROCESS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO WORK. BIG DIFFERENCE HERE IS WITH ARRA. , IT WAS GO HIRE SOMEBODY, AND THIS IS SAYING WE WANT TO YOU HIRE SOMEBODY WITH PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTICS TO ADDRESS A GOAL OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. >> ONE MORE QUESTION? I REALLY LIKE THIS IDEA. MY QUESTION IS, ARE YOU PLANNING TO PROVIDE ALL THESE FUNDS NECESSARY TO HIRE A FACULTY, WHATEVER LEVEL TO BE, BUT EVEN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR COULD BE EXPENSIVE AS BEING BROUGHT UP, OR, SOME INSTITUTIONS, THEY HAVE TENURE TRACK FUNDS SET ASIDE, THEY MAY DECIDE TO HIRE VARIOUS PEOPLE, BUT THEY COULD SAY, OKAY, THEY -- 50% SUPPORT TO HELP WITH THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. >> SO MY VIEW OF LIFE AND I'M GIVING YOU MY OPINION AGAIN, THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE MAKING DECISIONS. I THINK THERE HAS TO BE A STRONG INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, THAT'S WHAT MAKES THE PART OF THE FIVE YEAR -- IF THE RESOURCES PUTS IN RESOURCES, THE INSTITUTION WILL TAKE MORE SERIOUSLY KEEPING THIS PERSON AROUND IF THEY'RE DOING A GOOD JOB. SO I THINK THERE HAS TO BE GOOD INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT. >> ONE THING I JUST WOULD SAY YOU MIGHT WANT TO BUILD INTO THIS, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY REALLY NECESSARY GAP TO FILL, THIS KIND OF A PROGRAM. SOME WAY OF FROM A CENTRAL PLACE, THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, THESE PEOPLE HAVING A CHANCE TO COME BACK ANNUALLY TO SORT OF CHECK IN, SHARE BEST PRACTICES, CHARASH EUS, MAYBE DEVELOP CONSORTIA BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS, HAVE SOME KIND OF A WAY OF PINGING BACK TO THE BRAIN INITIATIVE BECAUSE THEY'RE OUT THERE ON THEIR OWN. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE JUNIOR AND HIGH HYBRID BETWEEN TWO DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE NEVER REALLY INTERACTED. THEY'RE GOING TO BE DIFFICULTY FINDING MENTORS AT THEIR OWN INSTITUTION. SO SINCE YOU ARE -- SEEMS TO BE TALKING ABOUT MORE JUNIOR PEOPLE PEOPLE, >> I'M SORRY TO KEEP PUSHING THIS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION THIS AFTERNOON ALSO AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S TIME FOR THAT AS WELL. >> I JUST -- JUST ONE COMMENT IS THAT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A FACULTY MEMBER IN A MATH DEPARTMENT, A STATISTICS DEPARTMENT OR COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, AND AT LEAST BE UP FRONT, HONEST ABOUT IT, THAT IS THAT THEY TYPICALLY HAVE A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER TEACHING RESPONSIBILITY THAN CERTAILY AT A MEDICAL SCHOOL, THE FACULTY THAT YOU TYPICALLY SUPPORTED BY NIH. JUST A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORLD. EVEN THE NEUROSCIENTISTS AT TEACHING UNIVERSITIES, LIKE PRINCETON OR WHATEVER, WE TYPICALLY DON'T HAVE NEARLY AS MUCH TEACHING RESPONSIBILITY. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED TO AT LEAST THINK ABOUT IN TARGETING THIS IN A MATH, NUCLEAR SCIENCE, STATISTICS DEPARTMENT, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO HAVE PROTECTED TIME FOR RESEARCH, FOR EXAMPLE, ALTHOUGH THAT HAS ITS OWN PROBLEMS BECAUSE THAT FACULTY MEMBER IS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME AS OTHER FACULTY MEMBERS AND THAT HAS ITS OWN SET OF ISSUES. IT'S A COMPLICATED PROBLEM. I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT. >> AND SO LET ME JUST SAY, THIS IS NOT BEING MANDATED THAT SOMEBODY BE HIRED IN THE MATH OR PHYSICS DEPARTMENT, IN MANY WAYS HIRING INTO THE NEUROSCIENCE DMENT AND HAVING THEM CROSS OVER WOULD BE MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE BRAIN BECAUSE WE KNOW THEY'D BE DOING NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH. IF YOU HIRE A MATHEMATICIAN WHO SAYS I WANT TO DO NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH, THERE'S NO SAYING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. SO WE'RE NOT MANDATING THAT THEY BE HIRED INTO ONE OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS. IT'S FOR THE INSTITUTION TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS -- >> IT'S NOT MANDATED BUT I CAN TELL YOU, IT REALLY WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO HAVE THEM IN THOSE DEPARTMENTS, BECAUSE THEN GRADUATE STUDENTS WOULD GET INVOLVED IN PROJECTS AND SO ON. IT'S DEFINITELY A GOOD THING TO HAVE THEM IN THOSE DEPARTMENTS. >> RIGHT. SO THERE NEED TO BE PROTECTIONS IN THE FOA THAT IF THEY ARE HIRED IN THOSE DEPARTMENTS, CERTAIN THINGS CAN HAPPEN. >> RIGHT, SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF A MATH DEPARTMENT HAS A THREE COURSE LOAD, YOU COULD EASILY STIPULATE A TWO COURSE LOAD IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE, OR THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME 50% TEACHING MODE REQUIREMENT IF THE PERSON'S LOAD WOULD BE MORE THAN X. THESE ARE THINGS THAT EACH INSTITUTION COULD FIGURE OUT BUT AS PART OF THE INSTITUTIONAL BUY-IN, THERE COULD BE A TEACHING LOAD REDUCTION FOR THOSE FIVE YEARS THAT YOU'RE PAYING THE SALARY, SO THAT IT BECOMES -- IT GOES DOWN TO 1 1/2 COURSE LOAD, ANYBODY IN THE MATH DEPARTMENT GOING DOWN TO 1 1/2 COURSE LOAD WOULD BE THRILLED. >> JUST ONE VERY LAST QUICK COMMENT. I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS. ALTHOUGH I THINK IT PROBABLY COULD BE IMPLEMENTED GIVEN WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID, BUT I THINK THE KEY ASPECT OF THIS FOR ME IS THAT THIS GETS THE INSTITUTION TO MAKE A COMMITMENT TO THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. SO WHATEVER MONEY WOULD GO TO THE INSTITUTION IN TERMS OF THIS TO BE SUCCESSFUL, THEY PROBABLY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MATCH IT, I THINK THAT'S A REAL PLUS WITH THIS INITIATIVE. IT GETS THE INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED. >> RIGHT, AND THAT'S THE GOAL. >> OKAY. THANKS VERY MUCH. THESE CONCEPTS ARE PRESENTED, I MEAN, THIS DISCUSSION IS EXTREMELY HELPFUL IN THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT OF THESE CONCEPTS TO WE APPRECIATE IT, THEY'RE NOT FULLY FORMED WHEN WE COME HERE, SO THANK YOU FOR THIS VERY CONSTRUCTIVE INPUT. CAN I GET A MOTION TO CONCUR WITH THIS CONCEPT? A SECOND? AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THOSE ON THE PHONE? >> YES. >> I APPROVE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALSO I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT WE HAD A FEW OF OUR IC DIRECTORS THAT HAVE JOINED US SINCE WE STARTED. GEORGE COOP FROM THE -- DIE A NAND FROM NICHD AND ROD BED GREW FROM NIBIB. SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK NOW, WE'LL COME BACK AT 10:45. THIS WAY WE CAN SET UP THE WEBINAR FOR THE CLOSED SESSION, AND WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY SHORTEN THE LUNCH BREAK BECAUSE -- TO TRY AND MILWAUKEE UP FOR SOME TIME TO DISCUSS ALL THE FUNDING PLANS IN DEPTH AS I'M SURE WILL HAPPEN. THANK YOU.