Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Ruminations on what makes a scientific project too ridiculous to get funded.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Science Fiction Made Me Do It

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted January 9, 2007.


Ruminations on what makes a scientific project too ridiculous to get funded.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Annalee Newitz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Human beings are always bragging how cool we are because we plan for the future. That's probably why a team of neuroscientists recently did a study on the anatomy of future thinking. Turns out that pondering an upcoming event like, say, the release of Windows Vista, activates a very specific part of the brain.

At least, that's what researchers at Washington University in St. Louis observed when they stuck people in an MRI machine and asked them to think about their next birthdays. The area of the brain for futuristic thought is apparently different from the parts we use to think about the past.

Published recently in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences," their study is the first to detail an anatomical region associated with future-related thoughts. But it's certainly not the first to explore the idea that humans have a special gift for thinking about what's next -- despite evidence that other animals obviously have tomorrow in mind when they stock up on food for the winter or build dams.

I often imagine the beginning of a scientific study as if it were a Hollywood pitch meeting. Scientist A goes to Grant Source B and says, "Hey, I've got an idea for you -- it's sort of a mix of Nancy Kanwisher discovering the facial recognition centers in the brain and Helen Fisher asking subjects to think about people they love while in an MRI. Except it's about the future! We'll ask our subjects to imagine seeing the faces of loved ones next week! It will be the best of neurology and psychology with a time travel twist!" And Scientist A may or may not get the money for the project.

What makes me want to Hollywoodize this grant-begging scenario is the fact that nobody ever seems to have a clear definition of what makes a project too ridiculous to get funded. I'm not saying this Washington University study is particularly ridiculous, but it skirts silliness. Researchers asked subjects to imagine a past event, a neutral event, and a future event while studying their brains in an MRI. This technique is used in a lot of reputable brain function studies, but this particular version is error-prone and imprecise.

What if people are thinking two or three things at once? What if they think about something so far into the future that it verges on fantasy rather than merely planning for next year? Certainly, there are ways to normalize the results, especially with multiple test subjects, but nevertheless, the whole thing is a messy business to say the least.

And as I was saying earlier, there seems to be no good way to articulate what makes this study different from something most of us would agree is patently silly, such as trying to find the science fiction center of the brain by asking people in an MRI machine to imagine a future full of spaceships and aliens.

I mean, if we have a future-thought area of our brains, it certainly seems to follow that we might have a science fiction center. Perhaps it even overlaps with the future-thought area? Does that mean sci-fi writer Cory Doctorow and futurist Ray Kurzweil have bigger or more active science fiction centers in their brains? Let's image them and find out! It would be like the University of Washington study crossed with Philip K. Dick. Want to fund it?

This study could also answer the crucial question of whether a taste for science fiction can be inherited. If it's a structure in the brain, after all, there's some set of genes responsible. Does that mean the human brain underwent an evolutionary mutation sometime in the 16th century, when foundational futurist Thomas More wrote “Utopia”?

One possible outcome of this study would be a way for science fiction writers, futurists, and their fans to explain their predilections as a fact of biology rather than a cultural preference. We can't help being science fiction lovers and acolytes of the future, you see. We were just born that way. So you can't reeducate us into liking literature or historical tales. Our brains aren't suited for it.

Moreover, science fiction may compel us to do things we can't be blamed for, like playing video games and going to conventions full of people in costumes. Perhaps unhappy futurists can be given drug therapies to reduce the activity in the science fiction region of their brains. That way they can get back to leading regular lives that include planning only for birthday parties in the future, not intergalactic societies. Yes, I like the direction this research is going. Maybe we can get an NIH grant. Or a movie deal.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: scientific funding, science fiction

Annalee Newitz (annalee@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who volunteers to think about artificial intelligence while getting an MRI during the next study of science fiction centers in the brain.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Sigh....
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 9, 2007 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... you know, I really hate to complain... but really... should I take the lack of anything serious being addressed in this column as an indication that it is meant to be vapid.... or should I take it as yet more proof that the thought and discussion about technology is mostly just navel gazing BECAUSE technology itself is often so vapid?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sigh.... Posted by: willymack
» RE: Sigh.... Posted by: Guy
stick to what you know, surly media nerd
Posted by: Drclaw on Jan 9, 2007 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
arghhh-its not hard to understand why the US is so poor in science education when anyone with a computer can write crap like this without challenge. The ability of humans to process temporal information cognitively is fairly unique in the animal world, at least insofar as we know. Anticipation of future events is manifestly not the same as appreciating science fiction, and brain imaging studies that tell us where certain events get procesed is essential to understand neural functioning and human cognition. Imagine if we didn't understand the difference between emotional and cognitive centers for instance, or that emotional centers make connections to our hormonal system. Its certainly possible for bad science to get published, even in PNAS, but this columnist clearly doesn't show qualifications to judge the study. I'd bet a considerable amount that the authors did a series of controls to account for the trivial problems mentioned. It only seems silly to this author because she seems so ignorant of the essential issues and made no apparent attempt to even inform herself. All too typical of our current news system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» agreed, partially Posted by: launcher
» RE: agreed, partially Posted by: patti_s
WUSTL
Posted by: knappster on Jan 9, 2007 4:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Er ... it's not "the University of Washington in St. Louis." It's "Washington University in St. Louis" (Missouri).

That's okay, though -- you're still the Supreme Goddess of Internet Columnists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you
Posted by: Leman on Jan 10, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I completely disagree with you about the potential usefulness of this research, still - thanks for pointing me towards this PNAS article.

As for what's useful and what's fundable: the Relativity Theory may not be very relevant to our every day life, yet its development got funded quite heavily when it proved helpful in creating the Bomb. Science discoveries are often useless and seem like a ridiculous waste of money until somebody powerful figures out how to turn them to his advantage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

future thinking and procrastination
Posted by: elpace on Jan 10, 2007 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i'm a big planner, but also a procrastinator. i set goals to motivate myself, and i've observed some sort of tipping point. say, i know that i need to get off the computer now and make the bed.... i can tell myself i need to do this several times, but simply not have the will to get up and complete the task; then at some point i'm up and next thing i know i'm making the bed.

i've always wondered what this tipping point is, what cascade of currents in the brain take you from the threshold of action into the action itself.

i wonder if in studying this idea of future thinking, an area of interface between the action centers of the brain can be located and a solution to chronic debilitating procrastination can be found? i wonder what the link between depression and procrastination is, and if that is somehow related to future thinking and planning?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More fluff
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 10, 2007 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So everytime I see a fluff article like this about science and technology I really get upset because it is yet another missed opportunity for any real dialogue about the nature and impacts of technology and science. This is a discussion that simply does not go on in the vast majority of technology discussion and discourse. It seems that writers on technology are quite starkly polarized into pro-technology writers and a smaller group of anti-technology writers. This disparity, I believe, occurs simply because of the fact that technology and being pro-tech is far sexier and lucrative than being anti-tech. Further, when it is realized that all technology is a commercial product.. which is why being pro-tech... raving about the new iphone rather than asking serious questions about the growth of cellphone and ipod culture... is more lucrative, then the question of whose interests are really being served by technology writing comes up. Is it there for us as readers to give us a clear and complete picture of the world of technology as well as the world and technology, or is it there for us as readers only to alert us to the newest techno gadgets we can buy?

So, please, Annalee.. can we have some columns that aren't effusively and unquestioningly pro-technology or just another sort of fluff? Can we have some columns that bridge the gap between pro and anti technology camps and actually ask honest and tough questions about what technology means in a more broad context in our lives and our world that doesn't just deginerate into complaints about geekish techno-otaku that even the geeks call geeks?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nah, but I didn't get pissy... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Nah, but I didn't get pissy... Posted by: ABetterFuture
Yeah, disappointed indeed.
Posted by: Obijuan on Jan 10, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not sure what is meant to be accomplished by this article. It is indeed obvious that the author is neither a scientist nor a neurobiologist. Still, even without the background necessary to critique this PNAS article, she attempts to mock it. Luckily for the scientific community, the author is not likely to be on any grant committees.

Still, the author's main point seems to be to mock the grant-program or funding process in the US. Funny, as the grant writing process in the US is quite complicated, peer-reviewed, and extremely competitive. To suggest that "silly" research gets funded is an extremely bold statement which from the perspective of a neuroscientist is incorrect. If it does happen, it doesn't happen twice. If the author sought out a list of projects that did not receive funding, NIH, NIDA, and NSA would all provide long lists to the author. I would suggest that even most of the rejected applications are pretty solid ideas.

A much better topic might have been to delve into the extent of the usefulness of the MRI technique, and whether this was a valid application following this precedence. That, of course, would have been completely beyond the scope of the author.

Perhaps Alternet and other news sources should consider inviting guest authors to contribute about technological/scientific topics, rather than accepting whatever they are submitted by folks without the background necessary to cover the topic.

This text should have attempted to shed light on SOMETHING...and it clearly does not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Media reporting goes on to make ridiculous studies even more ridiculous.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 10, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you catch the story about the brain anatomist whom, the media says, has found an area of the brain for empathy? (First, please give me a scientific description of empathy.)

What I want to know from the brain guys, since it is necessary for any kind of scientific credibility, is how they isolate what is going on when they do their measuring? From what I hear, the brain has multi-billions of synapses, and to claim that an area of the brain can be specifically associated with specific thoughts would require that the rest of the brain be shut down.

I expect we shall soon hear that also the area of the brain associated with empathy or, as in this case, future thoughts also gets activated when the person does and thinks a billion other things.

Mary Shelley's "Dr. Frankenstein" comes to mind whenever someone goes sticking probes in someone else's head in order to control what happens. Yeah, if you are a neurosurgeon trying to fix something, I guess it makes sense. Otherwise it's just lab techs playing with their expensive toys while f*ing over our minds. The brain that shuts down is that of the techies doing the experiment and the reporters who turn it into another example of disinformation in the age of information.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» some info on brain imaging Posted by: Drclaw
» thought from a brain person Posted by: launcher
strange midrash
Posted by: DaBear on Jan 10, 2007 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll always read Annalee's stuff, fluff or folded. The piece was very confusing on the whole funding thingy but then I got interested right at the end where she talks about the scifi thing. OK, I'll bite... kinda like a midrash where you see how far out there you can start, how far removed from your point then meander and wind your way back to the point by the ending. An underutilized literary device these days.

But I wanna see some sort of strange funding that would investigate why or how (some/howmany/which ones/all) human brains are wired re: speculative thinking. Why is it that the American mind (again, which brains if any or all) is so prone to seeing speculative fiction as frivolous. Spec fiction (of which scifi is a subgenre) told 13.5% of the population (the intuitive info-intake folks, most of whom are also prone to specfict interests) that the Chimp is a loser and highly dangerous to ourselves and the world. The rest of the population who lacked that skill or ability followed the Chimp and now are wailing boo hoo that they were misled, bwaaa. The whole idea that scifi is frivolous is akin to an otherwise smart brain ignoring the warning systems that protect the organism from imminent danger.

But from the article the whole funding schema is something I still don't understand. Grant writers, science funding gurus? There's an article waiting to be written: how funding happens for dummies or whatever. Annalee, write us something more about scifi and speculative thinking and how tech functions as a tool to help intuitive folks predict the future, or something like that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» funding for dummies Posted by: Drclaw
Golden Fleeces
Posted by: dkm on Jan 10, 2007 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A long time ago there was a Senator, Everrett Dirksen, who would give out Golden Fleece Awards for projects that he felt were a waste of taxpayer money. Whenever he gave out one for a government funded science project, he inevitably ended up with egg all over his face because of his lack of scientific understanding. An example was when he objected to someone studying the hormones of an African toad, it was pointed out to him that the study resulted in a much improved pregnancy test for women, much better than the rabbit test prevalent at the time. I was reminded of this while reading the above article by someone who should stay away from science until she learns more, much more, about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stick to something you know something about
Posted by: GeorgiaLiberal on Jan 10, 2007 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"the fact that nobody ever seems to have a clear definition of what makes a project too ridiculous to get funded"

And its a good thing too-or people like you and ill-informed senetors would block scientific progress.

In science, we use peer-review on funding proposals-that is, if committees of our distinguished collegues think a proposal is meritorious, it is funded. Grants are long, difficult to write, and most go unfunded. Your "hey buddy, lets do this" scenario at a conference is insulting.

The localization of future-thought and planning is important-for say, stroke victims and autistic persons, in which this ability is impared. Now, since stokes and autism are rare....oh wait....

Studying this region in those versus control patients could yield to understanding and treatments.

You don't specifically reference who at Wash U. published this paper-but I'm guessing it was Maurizio Corbetta, MD, the Norman J. Stupp Professor of Neurology, and recent Norman Geschwind Prize winner.

Maybe you should google a bit before insulting all of congitive psychology....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You mean??? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Excuse me, but I don't see anything ridiculous about this study
Posted by: janvdb on Jan 10, 2007 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you sure that you know enough about this area of brain study to make fun of it?

Fluffy people should stick to fluffy topics.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another view, perhaps
Posted by: GeorgiaLiberal on Jan 10, 2007 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is a more even-handed summary of the research:
http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8448.html

Oh, and I had the group wrong. They are collegues of Maurizio Corbett using similar methodologies (fMRI).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A simple algorithm
Posted by: Leman on Jan 10, 2007 1:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's all the fuss?
Here is a simple algorithm for reacting to this article:

begin

read:
Go to http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/2/642 and read the original research paper discussed here;

think:
If not(understand) then goto Shutup
else evaluate science;

Science:
If science=bogus then say "authors suck!"
else evaluate relevance

Relevance:
If relevance=0 then agree with Ms. Newitz
else disagree with Ms. Newitz

endif
endif
endif

Politeness:
Thank Ms. Newitz for a pointer

Shutup:
Shut up

End

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» COBOL? :) nt Posted by: ABetterFuture
Yeah, Annalee, you struck out this time.
Posted by: medstudgeek on Jan 10, 2007 2:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, everybody's gotta screw up sometimes. You can't apply the same sort of looser standards you do for cultural criticism to science. You actually have to read the grant and have a background in the field to say it's dumb.

The converse is true, by the way: you can't apply the standards of science to cultural criticism. Can you think of a repeatable, controlled experiment to prove Shakespeare's sonnets show he's gay? I mean, the dude's been dead for hundreds of years!

Eh, fuck sports. Annalee, you failed your saving throw vs. inappropriate pontification. No, you rolled a critical fumble!

Stick to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, women's issues in technology, and government attempts to infringe our privacy, please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh Jeez...
Posted by: fanny666 on Jan 11, 2007 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was a funny, silly article. I don't think she was trying for anything different or more profound than that.

I'm a neuroscientist and I will say that yes, this type of research does have a point- it's just basic science, trying to map structure and function. No doubt the funding came from a larger grant with larger goals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh Jeez... Posted by: Leman
» I agree with that. Posted by: ABetterFuture
the pleasures and dangers of being a gadfly
Posted by: anniedine on Jan 12, 2007 11:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No doubt the content that later became this article was fun to think about and probably would have made very funny cocktail chatter.

Then the deadline loomed and there you were, witty banter and little else. What's a gadfly to do but truss it up in article form and hope for the best?

With luck all the comments on this page have shown you the danger in that approach. We all have to learn that lesson sometime.

Oh, and if you really are interested in looking at science as an outsider, you might want to check out the multidisciplinary soup that goes under the heading "science and technology studies" – as with many subjects, Wikipedia has a nice starting point for your exploration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Technology_Studies

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]