[neuroguy]

From the FAQ - Why not begin with simple organisms like C.elegans?

There are two problems here. The first is feasibility; the second is the relevance of our results. Feasibility. Neuroscientists have mapped all of C.elegans’ 300 or so neurons. However, enormous amounts of key data needed are still missing. For instance we do not have enough data on the physiology and pharmacology of C. Elegans neurons and synapses. And we still have limited data on the distribution of ion channels, receptors and other proteins on neurons, synapses and glia. Without this data we cannot build unifying models. A second problem is how easy it is to obtain the data. The crucial requirement for unifying models is the ability to access the data needed. Obtaining a deep understanding of the molecular machinery of a single neuron or a single synapse is just as difficult in C. Elegans as in human beings. And many datasets – particularly data on cognition - are actually easier to acquire in rodents, or even in humans. So we can’t just say: “let’s do this quickly in worms and do complex brains later”: we have to solve the same basic challenges, whatever brain we model. What we are actually doing is building a generic strategy we can use to reconstruct any brain.

Relevance: Studying the “simple” nervous systems of organisms like C.elegans or drosophila, is obviously very important, particularly for molecular and genetic studies. However the organization, electrophysiology and function of the mammalian brain are quite different. One of the HBP’s most important goals is to contribute to the development of new treatments for brain disease. But pharmaceutical companies already have great difficulties in translating results from mouse to human beings; with simpler organisms these problems become much worse. If we want to make a real contribution to clinical research, it is probably unwise to invest heavily in simple systems, so distant from the human brain.

[upquark]

I'm not a neuroscientist and may be missing something, but on the surface this seems like a pretty poor argument: citing feasibility as a justification for not going with the (overwhelmingly) simpler organisms first, and going after humans with several orders of magnitude more complex brains. If I were to guess, I'd say that building the unified model of the simplest organisms would be tremendously relevant in helping to model higher-level organisms including humans.

[pbw]

So sure there are low-level details that must be understood for any brain, but come on, 300 vs. 100B?

Once the big projects have cracked the low-level details, someone will figure out C. elegans. Until we have some smaller organisms emulated, don't expect to have a conversation with their emulated human brain, I just can't see that happening out of order.

[jacquesm]

It's simple, simulating C. elegans will not net you a billion in funding. It's not sexy enough.

[streptomycin]

If I was a billionaire, I'd spend a billion on that. It would be incredibly sexy, that is, if it is possible given our current technology.