NATURE | NEWS FEATURE Computer modelling: Brain in a...
Transcript of NATURE | NEWS FEATURE Computer modelling: Brain in a...
M. Mitchell Waldrop
NATURE | NEWS FEATURE
Computer modelling: Brain in a boxHenry Markram wants €1 billion to model the entire human brain. Sceptics don't think he should get it.
22 February 2012
It wasn't quite the lynching that Henry Markram had expected. But the barrage of sceptical comments from his
fellow neuroscientists — “It's crap,” said one — definitely made the day feel like a tribunal.
Officially, the Swiss Academy of Sciences meeting in Bern on 20 January was an overview of large-scale
computer modelling in neuroscience. Unofficially, it was neuroscientists' first real chance to get answers about
Markram's controversial proposal for the Human Brain Project (HBP) — an effort to build a supercomputer
simulation that integrates everything known about the human brain, from the structures of ion channels in
neural cell membranes up to mechanisms behind conscious decision-making.
Markram, a South-African-born brain electrophysiologist who joined the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
in Lausanne (EPFL) a decade ago, may soon see his ambition fulfilled. The project is one of six finalists vying
to win €1 billion (US$1.3 billion) as one of the European Union's two new decade-long Flagship initiatives.
D. BALIBOUSE/REUTERS
Computer modelling: Brain in a box : Nature News & Comment http://www.nature.com/news/computer-modelling-brain-in-a...
1 of 12 02/18/2013 11:50 AM
Related stories
Turing at 100: Legacy of
a universal mind
European researchers
chase billion-euro
technology prize
Publisher seeks patent
More related stories
“Brain researchers are generating 60,000 papers per year,” said Markram as
he explained the concept in Bern. “They're all beautiful, fantastic studies —
but all focused on their one little corner: this molecule, this brain region, this
function, this map.” The HBP would integrate these discoveries, he said, and
create models to explore how neural circuits are organized, and how they
give rise to behaviour and cognition — among the deepest mysteries in
neuroscience. Ultimately, said Markram, the HBP would even help
researchers to grapple with disorders such as Alzheimer's disease. “If we
don't have an integrated view, we won't understand these diseases,” he
declared.
As the response at the meeting made clear, however, there is deep unease about Markram's vision. Many
neuroscientists think it is ill-conceived, not least because Markram's idiosyncratic approach to brain simulation
strikes them as grotesquely cumbersome and over-detailed. They see the HBP as overhyped, thanks to
breathless media reports about what it will accomplish. And they're not at all sure that they can trust Markram
to run a project that is truly open to other ideas.
“We need variance in neuroscience,” declared Rodney Douglas, co-director of the
Institute for Neuroinformatics (INI), a joint initiative of the University of Zurich and the
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH Zurich). Given how little is known
about the brain, he said, “we need as many different people expressing as many different
ideas as possible” — a diversity that would be threatened if so much scarce neuroscience
research money were to be diverted into a single endeavour.
Markram was undeterred. Right now, he argued, neuroscientists have no plan for
achieving a comprehensive understanding of the brain. “So this is the plan,” he said.
“Build unifying models.”
Markram's big idea
Markram has been on a quest for unity since at least 1980, when he began undergraduate studies at the
University of Cape Town in South Africa. He abandoned his first field of study, psychiatry, when he decided
that it was mainly about putting people into diagnostic pigeonholes and medicating them accordingly. “This
was never going to tell us how the brain worked,” he recalled in Bern.
His search for a new direction led Markram to the laboratory of Douglas, then a young neuroscientist at Cape
Town. Markram was enthralled. “I said, 'That's it! For the rest of my life, I'm going to dig into the brain and
understand how it works, down to the smallest detail we can possibly find.'”
That enthusiasm carried Markram to a PhD at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel; to
postdoctoral stints at the US National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and at the Max Planck
nature.com/turing
Computer modelling: Brain in a box : Nature News & Comment http://www.nature.com/news/computer-modelling-brain-in-a...
2 of 12 02/18/2013 11:50 AM
Institute for Medical Research in Heidelberg, Germany; and, in 1995, to a faculty position at Weizmann. He
earned a formidable reputation as an experimenter, notably demonstrating spike-timing-dependent plasticity
— in which the strength of neural connections changes according to when impulses arrive and leave (H.
Markram et al. Science 275, 213–215; 1997).
By the mid-1990s, individual discoveries were leaving him dissatisfied. “I realized I could be doing this for the
next 25, 30 years of my career, and it was still not going to help me understand how the brain works,” he said.
To do better, he reasoned, neuroscientists would have to pool their discoveries systematically. Every
experiment at least tacitly involves a model, whether it is the molecular structure of an ion channel or the
dynamics of a cortical circuit. With computers, Markram realized, you could encode all of those models
explicitly and get them to work together. That would help researchers to find the gaps and contradictions in
their knowledge and identify the experiments needed to resolve them.
Markram's insight wasn't original: scientists have been devising mathematical
models of neural activity since the early twentieth century, and using
computers for the task since the 1950s (see page 462). But his ambition was
vast. Instead of modelling each neuron as, say, a point-like node in a larger
neural network, he proposed to model them in all their multi-branching detail
— down to their myriad ion channels (see 'Building a brain'). And instead of
modelling just the neural circuits involved in, say, the sense of smell, he
wanted to model everything, “from the genetic level, the molecular level, the
neurons and synapses, how microcircuits are formed, macrocircuits,
mesocircuits, brain areas — until we get to understand how to link these
levels, all the way up to behaviour and cognition”.
The computer power required to run such a grand unified theory of the brain would be roughly an exaflop, or
1018 operations per second — hopeless in the 1990s. But Markram was undaunted: available computer power
doubles roughly every 18 months, which meant that exascale computers could be available by the 2020s (see
'Far to go'). And in the meantime, he argued, neuroscientists ought to be getting ready for them.
Markram's ambitions fit perfectly with those of Patrick Aebischer, a neuroscientist who became president of
the EPFL in 2000 and wanted to make the university a powerhouse in both computation and biomedical
research. Markram was one of his first recruits, in 2002. “Henry gave us an excuse to buy a Blue Gene,” says
Aebischer, referring to a then-new IBM supercomputer optimized for large-scale simulations. One was
installed at the EPFL in 2005, allowing Markram to launch the Blue Brain Project: his first experiment in
integrative neuroscience and, in retrospect, a prototype for the HBP.
Part of the project has been a demonstration of what a unifying model might mean, says Markram, who
started with a data set on the rat cortex that he and his students had been accumulating since the 1990s. It
SOURCE: BBP/EPFL
Computer modelling: Brain in a box : Nature News & Comment http://www.nature.com/news/computer-modelling-brain-in-a...
3 of 12 02/18/2013 11:50 AM
included results from some 20,000 experiments in many labs, he says — “data on about every cell type that
we had come across, the morphology, the reconstruction in three dimensions, the electrical properties, the
synaptic communication, where the synapses are located, the way the synapses behave, even genetic data
about what genes are expressed”.
By the end of 2005, his team had integrated all the relevant portions of this
data set into a single-neuron model. By 2008, the researchers had linked
about 10,000 such models into a simulation of a tube-shaped piece of cortex
known as a cortical column. Now, using a more advanced version of Blue
Gene, they have simulated 100 interconnected columns.
The effort has yielded some discoveries, says Markram, such as the as-yet
unpublished statistical distribution of synapses in a column. But its real
achievement has been to prove that unifying models can, as promised, serve
as repositories for data on cortical structure and function. Indeed, most of the
team's efforts have gone into creating “the huge ecosystem of infrastructure
and software” required to make Blue Brain useful to every neuroscientist, says Markram. This includes
automatic tools for turning data into simulations, and informatics tools such as http://channelpedia.net — a
user-editable website that automatically collates structural data on ion channels from publications in the
PubMed database, and currently incorporates some 180,000 abstracts.
The ultimate goal was always to integrate data across the entire brain, says Markram. The opportunity to
approach that scale finally arose in December 2009, when the European Union announced that it was
prepared to pour some €1 billion into each of two high-risk, but potentially transformational, Flagship projects.
Markram, who had been part of the 27-member advisory group that endorsed the initiative, lost no time in
organizing his own entry. And in May 2011, the HBP was named as one of six candidates that would receive
seed money and prepare a full-scale proposal, due in May 2012.
If the HBP is selected, one of the key goals will be to make it highly collaborative and Internet-accessible,
open to researchers from around the world, says Markram, adding that the project consortium already
comprises some 150 principal investigators and 70 institutions in 22 countries. “It will be lots of Einsteins
coming together to build a brain,” he says, each bringing his or her own ideas and expertise.
Bottom to top
The description of the HBP as an open user facility sparked interest and enthusiasm at the Bern meeting. But
much more vocal were Markram's critics, many of whom focused on the perceived inadequacies of the Blue
Brain model — and of Markram's approach to data integration.
At the heart of that approach is Markram's conviction that a good unifying model has to assimilate data from
the bottom up. In his view, modellers should start at the most basic level — he focuses on ion channels
SOURCE: BBP/EPFL
Computer modelling: Brain in a box : Nature News & Comment http://www.nature.com/news/computer-modelling-brain-in-a...
4 of 12 02/18/2013 11:50 AM
“It will be lots of Einsteins
coming together to build a
brain.”
Simulating the brain — the next decisive
because they determine when a neuron fires — and get everything working at one level before proceeding to
the next. This requires a lot of educated guesses, but Markram argues that the admittedly huge gaps in
knowledge about the brain can be filled with data as experiments are published — the Blue Brain model is
updated once a week. The alternative approach, approximating and abstracting away the biological detail,
leaves no way to be sure that the model's behaviour has anything to do with how the brain works, said
Markram.
This is where other computational neuroscientists gnash their teeth. Most
of them are already using simple models of individual neurons to explore
high-level functions such as pattern recognition. Markram's bottom-up
approach risks missing the wood for the trees, many of them argued in
Bern: the model could be so detailed that it is no easier to understand
than the real brain. And that is if Markram can build it at all. Judging by what Blue Brain has accomplished in
the past six years, critics said, that seems unlikely. The tiny swathe of simulated rat cortex has no inputs from
sensory organs or outputs to other parts of the brain, and produces almost no interesting behaviour, pointed
out Kevan Martin, co-director of the INI, in an e-mail. It is “certainly not the case” that Markram has simulated
the column as it works in a whole animal, he said.
Markram's response to such criticisms in Bern was that more capabilities are always being added to the Blue
Brain simulation. But Martin remained unimpressed. “I cannot imagine how this level of detail, which is still
very incomplete even after Henry's considerable labours, is ever going to be obtained from more than a few
regions of the rodent brain in the next decade, let alone brains of Drosophila, zebrafish, songbird, mouse or
monkey,” his e-mail continued.
“Of course,” Martin added, “all this would be but a storm in the professors' teacups” if the HBP hadn't come
along and raised the stakes enormously. It is all too easy to imagine other areas of neuroscience research
being starved for resources by the HBP — especially in Switzerland, which as host country will have to
provide a substantial, but still-undetermined, fraction of the funding. Douglas asks: should Europe be spending
€1 billion to support the passionate quest of one man? He concedes that visionaries are sometimes necessary
to drive progress. “But what if they're passionately wrong?”
Also fuelling anxiety — and irritation — is the widespread sense that Markram has been making his case
through the news media, not through publishing, conferences and the other conventional channels of science.
Reporters see much to like: Markram is tall, striking and explains his ideas with the clarity, quotability and
urgency of a South African version of the late Carl Sagan. He has “a hypnotic effect”, says Richard Hahnloser,
a computational neuroscientist at the INI. But critics say that this results in too many news accounts that leave
the impression that the HBP will, say, eliminate the need for experimental animals.
“The whole neuroscience community will be in trouble ten
years from now” when the implied predictions don't come
Computer modelling: Brain in a box : Nature News & Comment http://www.nature.com/news/computer-modelling-brain-in-a...
5 of 12 02/18/2013 11:50 AM
years
Henry Markram speaking at the 2011
International Supercomputing Conference
true, says another INI researcher, who worries that the
politicians will be right there saying, “But you promised!”
March of progress
In Bern, Markram bristled at accusations that he has
deliberately cultivated hype. “I have never said that the HBP would replace animal experiments,” he shot back
at one questioner. “I said that simulation helps you choose the experiments that will best add value.”
Markram was also at pains to insist that the HBP will be open to other modelling approaches. “This concern is
unfounded because they simply have not bothered to find out what is being proposed,” he told Nature after the
meeting. The final facility “will allow anyone to build models at a range of levels of biological detail with as
much data as possible from anywhere”.
Markram seems to be building support. Last year, the board that oversees both the ETH and the EPFL
enthusiastically endorsed the Blue Brain Project after a rigorous review by a four-member panel that included
two outspoken sceptics of Markram's approach. The board asked the Swiss parliament to commit 75 million
Swiss francs (US$81 million) to the project for 2013–16 — more than ten times Blue Brain's current budget.
Parliament's decision is expected next month.
Markram is optimistic that the European Union will come to much the same conclusion about the HBP.
However, if the project isn't endorsed, says Markram, “we'll just continue with Blue Brain” — although it may
take a lot longer to reach a full brain simulation.
Markram clearly feels that history is on his side. “Simulation-based research is an inevitability,” he declared in
Bern. “If I get stopped from doing this, it's going to happen. It has happened already in many areas of science.
And it is going to happen in life science.”
Nature 482, 456–458 (23 February 2012) doi:10.1038/482456a
Related stories and links
From nature.com
Turing at 100: Legacy of a universal mind
22 February 2012
European researchers chase billion-euro technology prize
08 March 2011
Publisher seeks patent
07 May 2010
Bioinformatics: Industrializing neuroscience
10 January 2007
The Blue Brain Project
Computer modelling: Brain in a box : Nature News & Comment http://www.nature.com/news/computer-modelling-brain-in-a...
6 of 12 02/18/2013 11:50 AM
Matthew Kirkcaldie said:
Ian Watson said:
01 February 2006
Blue Brain boots up to mixed response
08 June 2005
Nature Special: Turing
From elsewhere
The Blue Brain Project
The Human Brain Project
The European Flagship Initiatives
Henry Markram's 2009 TED talk
Henry Markram at the 2011 International Supercomputing Conference
Comments
Every account I've seen of Blue Brain has omitted glia from consideration,
or mentioned them as an afterthought on the to-do list. What's the point of modelling neurons down to
the channel if the main regulators of the ionic environment, and the complementary functional partners
of neurons, are simply ignored or assumed?
Douglas and Martin have written some of the most penetrating insights into cortical function in print – if
they're prepared to go on the record as sceptical, there's a very good reason for it. Simulation is the
playing out of the consequences of existing data and ideas – the best it can reveal is hidden
implications, or limitations, of those facts. To suggest that simulation could replace research into actual
nervous systems is absurd: we're not trying to understand the model, we're trying to understand the
biology. If the model throws a quirk, it may be interesting, it may be misleading, or it may be wrong –
there's no way to tell without recourse to biology. If a living nervous system throws a quirk, it tells us
we are not getting it, and we need to try harder – and may open the door to some completely
unexpected phenomenon. Given that we don't have even the slightest idea of the basis of
consciousness, the most interesting and unique thing that neurons do, I highly doubt our ability to
identify the deepest essentials of neuron function for modelling.
"It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning
and unexpected findings of science." - Carl Sagan
The HBP seems very similar to the Grand Engineering Challenge identified in 2008 by the US National
Academy of Engineering to reverse-engineer the human brain and the $21 DARPA funded project
SyNAPSE So the real issue is should the Europeans join these endeavours. However, it has to be
said that there are questionable scientists, like Ray Kurzweil involved with these projects.
2012-02-22 07:48 AM
2012-02-22 10:53 AM
Computer modelling: Brain in a box : Nature News & Comment http://www.nature.com/news/computer-modelling-brain-in-a...
7 of 12 02/18/2013 11:50 AM
Basil Weibel said:
Mitchell M. Waldrop said:
Paul Adams said:
Arnold Trehub said:
I'm publishing a book about Alan Turing called The Universal Machine and write more on these issues
in my blog
I don't know anything about the field. However, do I see it correctly that all the
critics mentioned in the article are affiliated with the INI Zurich which is clearly an institution competing
for the same funding money? I miss the voice of an totally independent expert.
Basil,
To set the record straight: it is true that the only critics mentioned in the article are from INI. But that is
because they were the only ones willing to talk on the record. All the other critics (and supporters) that
I interviewed — and there were many — asked not to be quoted by name, precisely because the
debate has gotten so sensitive. So instead, I tried to indicate the range of opinion in the community by
my description of the comments at the Bern meeting. It was an imperfect solution, to be sure, but the
best I could do in the circumstances.
Mitch
The key issue is whether the somewhat stereotyped circuitry of the neocortex
implements hitherto rather elusive biological principles, built on but going beyond standard information
theory. Markram does not claim to have an inkling, but clearly hopes that it might be easier to discover
such principles in an inevitably approximate, oversimplified and inaccurate cortical model than in the
real thing. As critics note, it might be more productive to pursue instead a variety of competing ideas,
however far-fetched: without principles and new ideas, as Rutherford said, the whole enterprise
degenerates into stamp-collecting. He also said “We've got no money, so we've got to thinkâ€.
If Markram can convincingly explain how a computer model can simulate a
human brain representing a volumetric space from a fixed locus of perspectival origin — the neuronal
foundation of our phenomenal world — then the project might be justified. Otherwise not.
2012-02-23 05:12 AM
2012-02-23 07:49 AM
2012-02-24 07:27 AM
2012-02-27 09:05 AM
2012-02-28 11:03 AM
Computer modelling: Brain in a box : Nature News & Comment http://www.nature.com/news/computer-modelling-brain-in-a...
8 of 12 02/18/2013 11:50 AM
Martin Richardson said:
Andy Prybyszewski said:
Andy Prybyszewski said:
This is a good idea just from the perspective of providing a framework.
Experiments tend to compare certain qualities partly because of the statistical tools used in analysis of
results. A global model permits the creation of smaller models as objects, and their integration into an
overall framework.
The brain is such a large network that it is expected that such a model will reveal some interesting
possibilities. Research has been bogged down in allocating function to specific areas of the brain,
even though it is well understood that location and function are flexible and can be changed in the
event of injury which would indicate a more holistic nature of consciousness.
This is a great idea and I strongly support Henry's project to put a great
amount of knowledge related to neuroscience together. However, I have problem with his approach to
reasoning.
I give a simple example from my experiments in the retina, which anatomy and physiology is well
known and which is isolated CNS structure from the top down influences. We've got unique
intracellular recordings from cat retinal GC "in vivo" (Vis.Res.1993, 33, 861-875). I spent about half of
year to simulate the spike generation process that converts intracellular generator potential into spike
train. The problem is that even if we know ion channel dynamics in the axon hillock all data (e.g from
salamander, rat,etc) are recorded in the temp about 20C or lower. We can adapt ion channel dynamics
to 36C by Q10 factor but it is not clear that this is universal constant for each ion channel and what is
the variability of ion channels density in different neurons. I have succeed to simulate EVERY single
spike timing in output of the retina (Biol.Cyb, 1996, 74: 299-308) and on this basis an analog (not
Digital) model of the retina was built (IEEE Tran NN, 2007, 18:70-85).
As Henry noticed in his Science (1997, 275, 213-215) paper every spike can by the coincident
mechanism change a synaptic efficacy in the cortex. In order to simulate this mechanism and to
compare with experimental data we need such data, but as I know nobody cares about single spikes.
We do not have such recordings from every cell in the cortex.
Generally it is a problem with a huge number of parameters that must be determined experimentally. I
think that each neuron is an analog computer performing variable (as Henry noticed) spatio-temporal
computations and a single spike it the result of the neuronal computations and not a noise.
This is a great idea and I strongly support Henry's project to put a great
amount of knowledge related to neuroscience together. However, I have problem with his approach to
reasoning.
2012-03-10 11:46 AM
2012-03-10 01:00 AM
Computer modelling: Brain in a box : Nature News & Comment http://www.nature.com/news/computer-modelling-brain-in-a...
9 of 12 02/18/2013 11:50 AM
David Dos said:
Kristen Salesman said:
Evgeney Knyazhev said:
I give a simple example from my experiments in the retina, which anatomy and physiology is well
known and which is isolated CNS structure from the top down influences. We've got unique
intracellular recordings from cat retinal GC "in vivo" (Vis.Res.1993, 33, 861-875). I spent about half of
year to simulate the spike generation process that converts intracellular generator potential into spike
train. The problem is that even if we know ion channel dynamics in the axon hillock all data (e.g from
salamander, rat,etc) are recorded in the temp about 20C or lower. We can adapt ion channel dynamics
to 36C by Q10 factor but it is not clear that this is universal constant for each ion channel and what is
the variability of ion channels density in different neurons. I have succeed to simulate EVERY single
spike timing in output of the retina (Biol.Cyb, 1996, 74: 299-308) and on this basis an analog (not
Digital) model of the retina was built (IEEE Tran NN, 2007, 18:70-85).
As Henry noticed in his Science (1997, 275, 213-215) paper every spike can by the coincident
mechanism change a synaptic efficacy in the cortex. In order to simulate this mechanism and to
compare with experimental data we need such data, but as I know nobody cares about single spikes.
We do not have such recordings from every cell in the cortex.
Generally it is a problem with a huge number of parameters that must be determined experimentally. I
think that each neuron is an analog computer performing variable (as Henry noticed) spatio-temporal
computations and a single spike it the result of the neuronal computations and not a noise.
If I would have this billion I would give it! But imho it is impossible. Just read what
wikipedia writes about the Human brain
Is a billion-euro model of a brain worth the money???
The type of casement doors that would ensure one of the most stylish designs to your home is the
exterior french door
For now, most problem isn't to find tonnes of money to run project, but
there always has been grave question of technologies itself & applied methods, i.e. how those
methods are looked through prism of moral laws. Just let's remember the prime obstacle of
mathematical modeling always has been to synchronize multithreading beast safely. + It's not top
secret that reliable code takes performance rate drastically down & let's not forget man-hours to keep
all-that going on. At now, we need project to experiment on human deeply to get most clear data. I see
it sounds too awful... Just to stop righteous question, answer: I'm ready to volunteer 4 that.
2012-05-23 01:47 AM
2012-08-01 10:58 AM
2012-08-24 06:52 AM
Computer modelling: Brain in a box : Nature News & Comment http://www.nature.com/news/computer-modelling-brain-in-a...
10 of 12 02/18/2013 11:50 AM
Nature ISSN 0028-0836 EISSN 1476-4687
Dennis Hollenberg said:
Lester Ingber said:
The problems with this effort appear both fundamental and staggering.
Firstly, they fail to realize that the architecture they assume appropriate to their simulation will not
allow tests using potential architectures.
Secondly, these researchers should ask themselves the basic question: what architecture likely
organizes the brain (hint: what 'architecture' existed before organisms?).
Thirdly, simulation requires a high level of abstraction in order to produce indications of profitable
research avenues (assuming they get #2 right); in modelling at the synapse level they appear to be
aiming at too fine a target and stand to reap an overwhelming tsunami of data that they will be unable
to process and organize. Here's a recent quote in which Markram's describes the desired shade of
blue sky:
"If their current bid for €1 billion ($1.3 billion) of European Commission funding over the next 10
years is successful, Markram predicts that his computer neuroscientists are a decade away from
producing a synthetic mind that could, in theory, talk and interact in the same way humans do." CNN
Oct. 12, 2012.
Lastly, I'm afraid that, without any demonstrated theoretical model guiding it, this is merely a
make-work or employment program.
The scale of the BB simulation is both too coarse and too fine. It ignores the
importance of multiple scales of interactions in the real brain. For example, the importance of
large-scale coherent firings among many macrocolumns, as they influence sensitive balances among
ionic mechanics, which drive synaptic and astrocyte interactions, in turn influencing the large-scale
coherent activity, is ignored, thereby skipping both larger and smaller scales by BB.
You need to be registered with Nature and agree to our Community Guidelines to leave a comment. Please
log in or register as a new user. You will be re-directed back to this page.
2012-10-12 08:04 AM
2013-01-23 09:51 AM
See other News & Comment articles from Nature
Computer modelling: Brain in a box : Nature News & Comment http://www.nature.com/news/computer-modelling-brain-in-a...
11 of 12 02/18/2013 11:50 AM
© 2013 Nature Publishing Group, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.
partner of AGORA, HINARI, OARE, INASP, CrossRef and COUNTER
Computer modelling: Brain in a box : Nature News & Comment http://www.nature.com/news/computer-modelling-brain-in-a...
12 of 12 02/18/2013 11:50 AM