About the DOM-meeting

On May 21st and 22nd 2007, the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, hosted a Symposium entitled Decade of the Mind. Ist mission statement was later published as a letter in Science magazine [1].

Ten eminent neuroscientists signed the letter in Science calling for an interdisciplinary research initiative "across disparate fields such as cognitive science, medicine, neuroscience, psychology, mathematics, engineering, and computer science." The authors propose that this research initiative should focus on four areas, i.e., mental health, research on high-level cognitive functions, education, and computational applications (such as intelligent machines). The agenda proposed is based upon the assumption that "such an understanding will have a revolutionary impact on national interests in science, medicine, economic growth, security, and well-being," and, in consequence, "improve our lives and our children's lives." And why now? Because "a deep scientific understanding of how the mind perceives, thinks, and acts is within our grasp."

The "Decade of the Brain" [2], has quite naturally led to the "Decade of the Mind". When we think of brain functions, we think of perception, motor control, thought and action. We hardly think of mind functions such as trust [3], love [4], or gratitude [5], let alone the stock market [6], the justice system [7], schools [8], or social norm compliance [9]. But these are all domains where neuroscience not only makes progress, but also breaks through traditional boundaries between the sciences and the humanities.

The "Decade of the Mind" initiative calls for translational research in order to transform knowledge into health, education, and social well-being. The history of medicine may serve as an example of how this can be achieved: 200 years ago, medicine was little more than a mixture of bits of knowledge, fads and plain quackery. In the middle of the nineteenth century, Hermann von Helmholtz, Ernst Wilhelm von Brücke, Emil Du Bois-Reymond and a few other great minds got together and drew up a grand scheme for what medicine should be: applied natural science. This happened at a time when – from our perspective – very little was known: cellular pathology, microbiology and pharmacology hardly existed as domains of scientific investigation, let alone as tools for physicians. But the idea – medicine is applied science – caught on and led to improvements so dramatic that today we can hardly pay for them but nonetheless want them for everybody.

It is noteworthy that the progress was not made by the clinician asking a biochemist at the bedside: "Now, aren't you claiming that all that goes on in the body is biochemistry. If that's so, how to fix this one?" It took the advent of statistics and a huge amount of applied clinical research with carefully conducted large scale trials that compare different methods of treatment against each other. These studies are informed by biochemistry so that we do not compare the effects of any drug in any illness (this would be ridiculous and not feasible), we rather form hypotheses drawn from insights into mechanisms and then test them in the field. In other words, biochemistry narrows down the search space for clinical studies.

This is precisely what we must do in order to make progress in education. "You claim all learning is taking place in the brain. If that's so, which type of preschool is most effective? – From a medical perspective, it is obvious that a neuroscientist cannot answer such questions sometimes posed by educators or educational policy makers [cf. 10]. But it is just as clear that the answers will come from research informed by developmental cognitive neuroscience [11].

This is by no means trivial. As every department head of a hospital with a strong research orientation knows, there is always the tendency for the institution to degenerate into a city hospital with a lab in the basement and no relationship between the two. Laboratory based researchers tend to disregard clinical work as "messy", and clinicians tend to think of basic science as theoretical and hence unrelated to their practice. Just as it is the job of the department head to constantly encourage and implement mutual contact between the members of these two cultures (sometimes resembling more two quite different species) in order to make basic work meaningful (ask the right questions in the lab) and clinical work informed (bring the right conceptual framework to the bedside), it takes great effort to not just talk about, but really carry out "interdisciplinary" or "translational" investigations.

As regards social policy, the idea of translational research has not even been conceived. While Social Neuroscience is a new and exciting field of study, and while social interactions are now almost routinely investigated using cognitive neuroscience methods,

Given the urgency of health, educational, and social improvements across the globe, it is frustrating to find translational research ridiculed in the very issue of Science magazine that contained the proposal for a Decade of the Mind initiative [12]. The main purpose of the brain/mind is to learn and to use the stored information for the survival withing the group. If mankind is to survive, we need to take not only the health of the world's youngest citizens, but also their education and their social environment seriously and do the necessary research – modeled on the vision and success of medicine.

This is why we need the Decade of the Mind. And just as global warming affects all of us and needs to be studied and dealt with on a global scale, the mind is something that should be studied from all angles of the globe and within all cultural backgrounds and contexts. Let's not waste time and let's ALL get started! This is why this meeting takes place outside of the USA, and thus is the first to make this a truly international initiative.

Manfred Spitzer

References

1. Albus JS, Bekey GA, Holland JH, Kanwisher NG, Krichmar JL, Mishkin M, Modha DS, Raichle ME, Shepherd GM, Tononiet G: A proposal for a decade of the mind initiative. Science 2007, 317:1321.
2. Bush GHW: Proclamation "Decade of the brain," 1990–2000. Proclamation 6158" Federal Register 55. 1990, 140:29553.
3. King-Casas B, Tomlin D, Anen Cedric, Camerer CF, Quartz SR, Montague R: Getting to know you: Reputation and trust in a twoperson economic exchange. Science 2005, 308:78-83.
4. Bartels A, Zeki S: The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. NeuroImage 2004, 21:1155-1166.
5. Haidt J: The Happiness Hypothesis. Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom New York: Basic Books; 2005.
6. Kuhnen CM, Knutson B: The neural basis of financial risk taking. Neuron 2005, 47:763-770.
7. Zeki S, Goodenough O: Law and the Brain Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
8. Spitzer M: Lernen. Gehirnforschung und die Schule des Lebens. Spektrum, 2002
9. Spitzer M, Fischbacher U, Herrnberger B, Grön G, Fehr E: The neural signature of social norm compliance. Neuron 2007, 56:185-196.
10. Hirsh-Pasek K, Bruer JT: The brain/education barrier. Science 2007, 317:1293.
11. Posner MI, Rothbart MK: Educating the human brain. American Psychological Association, 2006
12. Greenberg DS: On the road to academic greatness – a parable. Science 2007, 317:1328-1329.

Previous meetings:

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade_of_the_Mind