By Stephen David
How is it possible to understand human dermatology? How about doing an individual’s photoshoot? Well, a photoshoot may reveal some information, but the understanding of mechanisms and disease management has to go beyond a photoshoot.
This is similar to what is currently happening with connectomics research, where photoshoots of brain samples are taken to understand how the brain works. The problem with this already unexciting approach is that it is no longer towards progress, making its value as a scientific endeavor negative.
If, for example, some of the loved ones of some federal workers who were placed on administrative leave needed to find answers about mental health from neuroscience, connectomics neither offers hope nor does it offer promise.
The current climate against neuroscience research with funding cuts and mounting adjustments makes it even problematic to publish another connectome, without any reference to how it might stoke motivation or make the case for better funding or to leave neuroscience untouched.
There is a new [9 April 2025] interactive in Nature, The MICrONS Project, stating that, “An unprecedented dataset of high resolution anatomical images of individual cells in mouse visual cortex, mapped on to their responses. This integrated view of function and structure lays a foundation for discovering the computational bases of cortical circuits. One cubic millimetre of a mammalian brain contains tens of thousands of neurons with hundreds of millions of connections, or synapses, between them. The resulting data set includes 200,000 cells and 523 million connections in the primary visual cortex and surrounding areas of a mouse. A unique contribution of the MICrONS project is that it also includes in vivo functional data from around 75,000 of the neurons. eurons have elaborate processes that can extend for hundreds of micrometres, millimetres or, in cases such as motor neurons, metres. These processes crisscross each other, making a dense meshwork.”
How does the human mind work? The question is no longer if there are synapses, or axons, or wires, or electrical signals, or chemical signals, or neurons or others, but when someone is thinking about a situation, what is happening in the mind? If the thoughts are distorted, what is happening? If an individual is addicted to sports betting, or online gambling, or another individual is seriously depressed, what is happening in the mind?
A photoshoot of the brain, seeking clues, based on a template [or theory] of what might be found, as to how conditions can be understood and managed would be more meaningful than the current vibe science of connectomics, which is no longer for problem-solving. It does not even raise questions that can lead against unknowns. How the brain works is not a map problem, just like consciousness is not a philosophical problem.
What is mood disorder? Is it the dendrites? Is it the axons? If it is, how so, if not, then what? The same applies to other unknowns in psychiatry? Even a general label like memory? What is a memory? Or, simply, what is a chair or table in the memory? Is it synapses? If it is synapses? How are the synapses of chairs different from those of tables? How is a chair’s synapse specifically different from other chairs? If the mind regulates internal senses, within limits and extents, what is the difference between the memory of regulation and the memory of a location or a book? How does the mind work that could make anxiety have an effect on vasodilation?
At the advance of neuroscience till date, it is possible to identify specific components, postulate within those, use them to explain, then maybe connectomes can be used to seek answers within evidence while the possibilities for other discoveries remain. Many cell types will be identified, and other similarities to past connectomics, but what is particularly new [in MICrONS connectomics] that can be used to solve problems or defend neuroscience against defunding?
To continue to do connectomics forever, in research that is disconnected from reality and off course from answers, useless against disorders is an inferior science of anti-progress, regardless of the multimedia display in publication or the rank of the journal or the number of papers.
