By Dave Steve
Sedona, AZ –The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is supposed to be fiercest research organization on earth in brain science, given the number of institutes whose works are connected with the brain: National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), National Institute on Aging (NIA) and others.
Yet, this does not seem to be the case because it is often a refrain that no one knows how the human brain works. If there is no clarity on how the brain works, what is the likelihood for progress in some of the problems that these institutes are supposed to address?
How the human brain works is a question, simply of the mechanisms of the brain, for functions. How does the brain organize information [memory, emotion, feeling and regulation of internal senses]? How does the brain grade them [with attention, awareness, subjectivity or intentionality]? What is mental order architecture, differently, from mental disorder architecture? What is mental or mind? This question means that what are the components of mental or mind, and how do those components lead to functions of mind or mental? How does human intelligence work, now that artificial intelligence is on the rise and predicted to replace human intelligence in human endeavors? What are the relays of addiction, with addictions beyond illegal drugs, alcohol, to online gambling, social media, and several emerging stuff like relationships with AI and so forth? What is the role of the mind—with respect to sleep deprivation and stress—in aging? How does the memory work to explore how to predict susceptibility to—or forestall—degenerative diseases?
The problem in neuroscience is not the lack of experiments or paths. There are already several approved and effective medications that address many brain problems. While side-effects abound, the several unknowns with the brain limit possibilities without some level of understanding about how the brain might be working.
In some brain problems, it is common to say that the environment contributed or the environment had an effect. Or, that the environment led to gene expression. But how exactly does the environment interact with genes, with respect to functions of the brain? Could there be a middle factor between the environment and genes—for those expressed in the brain?
The environment is responsible for human language acquisition, but this does not mean that language is stored in genes or directly operated by the genes. The environment is also responsible for several behaviors and so forth, but what is the basis of the environment’s relationship with the brain?
What should have been a major institute at the NIH is for theoretical research on how the brain works, focusing a lot of intramural might on it while funding external labs. This, years ago, would have led to better progress, at least to define what mind or mental is as well as how it might be linked to several brain conditions.
The non-existence is a loss that is obvious in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). There is no disorder that is mentioned with respect to the components of mind and the interaction between them. Or, how to measure mental disorders, conceptually.
This means that all disorders of mind are descriptions, without even a rough link of what in the mind is responsible, or what the mind might be. This observation, assessment, or survey model without at least some architecture of mental is a limitation for care, given the complexities of the mind for lots of people.
It should be at least clear that the environment is not the human mind. Genes are not the human mind. Neurons are not the human mind. Microtubules are not the human mind. Glial cells are not the human mind.
An option for the human mind, from several studies, implicated in all functions of the brain are the electrical and chemical signals. The human mind can be postulated to be the collection of all the electrical and chemical signals, with their interactions and features, in sets, in clusters of neurons, across the central and peripheral nervous systems.
Since neurons are often in clusters, it can be theorized that electrical and chemical signals function in sets or loops within these clusters to mechanize and grade specific functions. Following these as conceptual steps could be a source to understand the mind or mental as the closest possible components on how the brain works.
All neurons have one nucleus each, but different neurons can be broadly multipolar. A conceptual interpretation for this could be that those poles are architecture for signals to configure information—in sets, making a large number of poles necessary. The poles also show that signals are not simply for communication between neurons, because far fewer would have been required if it was just about receiving local information from one or some neurons. Signals configure functional information specificity with grades.
This concept could center progress and possibilities for the NIH, shaping how therapy is approached across cases and explaining the DSM-5-TR, linking directly with the components of mind.
There are lives lost to the problems of the mind. There are situations that are worsened by not knowing how the mind works. There are implications for human society with intelligence, now that AI has emerged. There is neurotechnology. There are neuroimaging questions. There are new psychoactive medications, mostly psychedelics and so forth. How does the mind work? With funding cuts, it may become more difficult to answer that question by the NIH.
There is a recent story in The Washington Post, NIH cuts billions of dollars in biomedical funding, effective immediately, stating that, “The move, announced Friday night by the National Institutes of Health, drastically cuts its funding for “indirect” costs related to research. In a social media post, NIH said the change would save more than $4 billion a year, effective immediately. A research award for $100,000 in direct costs, for example, could come with $50,000 in indirect costs, making the total grant $150,000. In fiscal 2023, out of $35 billion in awarded grants, $9 billion went to overhead, NIH said. The agency’s new policy will cap the rate at 15 percent and take effect on Monday [February 10, 2025], cutting tens of millions of dollars or more in funding for many universities — virtually overnight.”
This is an advertisement
