Neuroscientists weigh in on White House proposal for ‘moonshot infrastructure’ for connectomics
A report from the Trump administration calls for a “new golden age” of science, in which the federal government supports mission-driven collaborations to deliver high returns on research investments.
The Trump administration has proposed a "moonshot infrastructure" for connectomics research, aiming to spark collaborations between industry and academia to boost the practical applications of connectome mapping, similar to how the Human Genome Project transformed genetic sequencing. This initiative, outlined in a White House report titled "Science: A New Golden Age," would allocate resources to increase translation benefits from connectome research, particularly in addressing neurological disorders like depression, addiction, and autism.
However, experts caution that such a focus could divert funding away from basic research, which has already faced significant cuts. Jason Shepherd, a neurobiology professor at the University of Utah, expresses concern that basic science might get squeezed, making it challenging for researchers to engage in pure curiosity-driven studies.
Michael Kratsios, the report's author and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, defends the strategy, stating it aims to maximize taxpayer-funded returns for the benefit of all Americans. He suggests exploring alternative grant-awarding strategies like a portfolio-based approach, similar to venture capital, and leveraging AI advancements.
Critics, however, argue that shifting to industry-driven research might limit the depth and breadth of scientific inquiry. Jeff Lichtman, a Harvard neuroscientist, points out that connectomics initially emerged from university research rather than an industrial push. He worries that prioritizing industry funding could compromise the discovery of groundbreaking work.
The report's budget recommendations emphasize artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and other high-priority fields, but experts emphasize that neurosciences still require substantial basic research for translational applications.
While startups and non-university entities are now involved in basic research, universities remain crucial as nonprofit hubs for curiosity-driven science. The chair of a neuroscience department at an R1 institution warns that diverting funds from academic research could jeopardize long-term scientific progress. Former National Institute of Mental Health director Thomas Insel echoes this sentiment, raising concerns about the administration's approach of favoring industry over universities.
He questions why choices must be made between supporting industry or academic research, advocating for a balanced investment in both.
Written by urgent.news from The Transmitter's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
