WEBVTT 00:00:05.053 --> 00:00:08.633 Hi, I'm Paul Vachure, and today I'm speaking with Professor Dr. 00:00:08.773 --> 00:00:10.573 Stan Grillner of the Karolinska Institute. 00:00:10.893 --> 00:00:14.533 We're looking at the complexities of fostering collaboration in science. 00:00:15.953 --> 00:00:19.253 As one of the foremost experts on the physiological basis of behavior, 00:00:19.813 --> 00:00:23.633 Professor Grillner chaired the Nobel Prize Committee for Physiology or Medicine 00:00:23.633 --> 00:00:28.193 for 20 years and is currently the Secretary General of the International Brain 00:00:28.193 --> 00:00:29.233 Research Organization. 00:00:31.413 --> 00:00:35.793 Stan, before we really dive into the issue of collaboration, 00:00:36.493 --> 00:00:41.793 could you give us a short summary of the trajectory that brought you to where 00:00:41.793 --> 00:00:45.493 you are today in your science and in your activities? 00:00:51.613 --> 00:00:58.533 I started off by being interested in the intrinsic function of the networks 00:00:58.533 --> 00:01:05.893 that coordinate locomotion, which was mostly a spinal affair, 00:01:06.193 --> 00:01:15.333 and interested in the intrinsic function of how these networks operate, 00:01:15.593 --> 00:01:19.793 which meant that we had to identify the neurons, 00:01:20.213 --> 00:01:26.793 the properties of the neurons, with synaptic properties and a network, 00:01:27.053 --> 00:01:32.753 and in doing so, also, simulation was a very important aspect, 00:01:33.013 --> 00:01:39.273 which it has been for the last little bit more than 30 years, 00:01:39.473 --> 00:01:45.533 together with detailed detailed biology detailed analysis, 00:01:46.013 --> 00:01:52.553 so it has been very much a bottom-up approach to the networks. 00:01:57.653 --> 00:02:00.153 So we then, 00:02:05.170 --> 00:02:10.530 From working on mammals, we then decided it was really too difficult, 00:02:10.790 --> 00:02:13.170 too complex, you could not get the information. 00:02:13.690 --> 00:02:17.350 And then we made a rapid change over to. 00:02:20.450 --> 00:02:26.330 The simplest vertebrate group available, the laboratory. 00:02:26.790 --> 00:02:32.970 The laboratory had several advantages in that you could have the spinal cord, 00:02:33.170 --> 00:02:35.230 which is a natural slice. 00:02:36.170 --> 00:02:43.190 You could have that in vitro, you could induce activity in the networks, etc. 00:02:43.910 --> 00:02:48.850 When we had solved that, which took some time, 00:02:49.050 --> 00:03:01.850 we then proceeded to look at the brainstem mechanism undermines spatial orientation 00:03:01.850 --> 00:03:06.670 and in particular the tectum etc. 00:03:07.310 --> 00:03:16.910 And at some point we felt that we had analyzed the different networks that coordinate 00:03:16.910 --> 00:03:18.910 movements efficiently well. 00:03:19.070 --> 00:03:25.010 So we need to understand the forebrain mechanism that determines when a given 00:03:25.010 --> 00:03:28.750 pattern of behavior of a given network is called interaction. 00:03:29.870 --> 00:03:39.750 And in doing so, we analyzed the basal ganglia as one central bone. 00:03:40.950 --> 00:03:51.670 We had thought wrongly that the basal ganglia of the lamprey, 00:03:51.710 --> 00:03:54.530 which actually diverged from 760 million years ago, 00:03:54.730 --> 00:04:00.470 from the lineage leading to the mammals, 00:04:00.830 --> 00:04:05.050 that it would be a very simplified circuit. 00:04:08.610 --> 00:04:14.870 But we were all with it, and it turned out the basal ganglia in great detail, 00:04:15.150 --> 00:04:23.410 and the similar properties as in manholes, the same type of neurons, 00:04:23.570 --> 00:04:25.250 the same type of connectivity, 00:04:25.710 --> 00:04:30.150 the same type of transmitters, the same type of organization. 00:04:30.730 --> 00:04:34.630 So it then turned out that the basic angle had the same. 00:04:38.064 --> 00:04:45.544 Had essentially evolved very early in vertebrate evolution, some 500 million years ago. 00:04:46.084 --> 00:04:51.704 And the basic circuit is there, was there already then. 00:04:51.924 --> 00:05:00.324 And what has happened then is that you have, presumably, modules that control 00:05:00.324 --> 00:05:04.024 different patterns of behavior, that release different patterns of behavior. 00:05:04.024 --> 00:05:09.624 Behavior and what has happened during evolution is that you have kept the structure there, 00:05:09.824 --> 00:05:22.104 but you have instead multiplied the number of modules to control patterns of behavior. 00:05:22.104 --> 00:05:35.524 So, essentially, with the development of complex mental behavior from lamprey to man, 00:05:35.604 --> 00:05:41.604 I would gradually multiply the units to control more and more patterns. 00:05:43.744 --> 00:05:47.244 But all that work you've done, as you were at Karolinska Institute, 00:05:47.484 --> 00:05:49.144 right? Over all these decades. 00:05:52.366 --> 00:06:01.466 I started in Gothenburg, but since 1975, I've been in Stuttgart. Right, exactly. 00:06:02.026 --> 00:06:09.386 And we met in the 90s in the context of the Organization for Economic Cooperation 00:06:09.386 --> 00:06:11.466 and Development Global Science Forum, 00:06:11.626 --> 00:06:18.046 discussing international national collaboration and cooperation, excuse me. 00:06:19.706 --> 00:06:23.886 But then also, of course, being a faculty member at Karolinska, 00:06:24.806 --> 00:06:30.446 you also were involved or got involved in the panels that would discuss who 00:06:30.446 --> 00:06:32.286 would earn the Nobel Prize. 00:06:33.006 --> 00:06:37.486 So when did that happen? In what period were you on those panels? 00:06:38.806 --> 00:06:42.046 I started to be on the panel in 1986. 00:06:43.266 --> 00:06:51.366 And then I was a member of the Nobel Committee for about 14 years. 00:06:52.266 --> 00:06:57.066 I was also, of course, a member of the Nobel Assembly that is a larger entity 00:06:57.066 --> 00:07:04.506 with 50 professors from the Korean Institute, but the Nobel Committee is essentially 00:07:04.506 --> 00:07:06.826 smaller altogether. together. 00:07:07.006 --> 00:07:12.646 It's a small committee which is six and then it's a little bit large which is about 15. 00:07:13.086 --> 00:07:17.426 Right. I have the privilege of taking part. 00:07:18.686 --> 00:07:24.386 But now, would you see that as a collaborative process? Is it a form of collaboration? 00:07:26.926 --> 00:07:38.566 I would say that the process of selecting is very much a process So what makes it so? 00:07:38.646 --> 00:07:40.986 What makes that a collaborative process? 00:07:42.166 --> 00:07:45.766 Let me just say that I think that, 00:07:46.914 --> 00:07:57.094 Nobel Prize is started in 1901 and actually that was after the deaths of Nobel and his donation. 00:07:58.234 --> 00:08:02.274 Actually the Academy of Science wasn't particularly interested, 00:08:02.634 --> 00:08:08.494 the Kalinska Institute was not particularly interested and the King at the time 00:08:08.494 --> 00:08:11.794 so it was a very bad idea to have an international prize. 00:08:12.114 --> 00:08:27.214 So it took several years before the Academy of Science and the Karinska Institute agreed to do this. 00:08:29.034 --> 00:08:37.654 But then what it turned out that when they started, they had designed a very interesting structure 00:08:38.054 --> 00:08:48.934 that is still used today, so it was very insightful, when you are inviting, 00:08:49.574 --> 00:08:58.214 then universities around the world, academies around the world to nominate candidates. 00:08:58.214 --> 00:09:07.814 Candidates, but then each time when the nominations come in at the end of January, 00:09:08.074 --> 00:09:13.894 then you have a meeting and you go over all the different nominations. 00:09:14.474 --> 00:09:20.474 Of course, many of them have been nominated earlier, but the first time you 00:09:20.474 --> 00:09:27.374 have a little written account, whether it's interesting or perhaps not so interesting. 00:09:27.474 --> 00:09:32.814 We have lots of nominations that are more friends or deans, etc. 00:09:33.874 --> 00:09:43.934 But those that are interesting go further to making a little bit deeper analysis, 00:09:44.154 --> 00:09:46.834 sort of like two, three pages. 00:09:51.091 --> 00:09:56.591 By one or two experts within the committee that either concludes that, 00:09:56.631 --> 00:10:02.631 well, this looks interesting, and if it passes that barrier, 00:10:02.851 --> 00:10:08.951 then you ask one or several, 00:10:09.871 --> 00:10:13.051 people to make an in-depth analysis. 00:10:13.371 --> 00:10:17.591 And that's the thing that takes three, four weeks to write, because you really 00:10:17.591 --> 00:10:24.731 need to read up on what has been done, what has been dominated. 00:10:25.391 --> 00:10:33.131 And one thing that is important in the Nobel Prize is that it's a discovery. 00:10:34.451 --> 00:10:38.931 It is not a lifetime achievement, so it's a distinct discovery, 00:10:39.311 --> 00:10:43.091 sometimes a set up very closely. 00:10:44.371 --> 00:10:48.871 And that, I think, has been very important. 00:10:49.391 --> 00:10:53.891 But then, after several years, 00:10:54.211 --> 00:10:58.071 if you still have different specialists that come along, 00:10:58.291 --> 00:11:06.111 everybody agrees that this seems is to be a possibility that has the appropriate 00:11:06.111 --> 00:11:08.951 scientific height or value, 00:11:09.151 --> 00:11:16.251 and then it starts to be a possible candidate. 00:11:17.411 --> 00:11:28.991 And strange enough, as I said before, this way of dealing with the price or 00:11:28.991 --> 00:11:31.151 dealing with the process of selecting, 00:11:31.471 --> 00:11:35.151 was conceived of at the very beginning. 00:11:35.491 --> 00:11:43.431 And I think it's no other prize that has that structure, that has a written account and a history. 00:11:43.891 --> 00:11:47.591 So, I mean, you can go back when you discuss something. 00:11:48.851 --> 00:11:56.591 But remember, X said that 10 years ago, couldn't be right, must be right, 00:11:56.651 --> 00:11:58.331 or something like that too. 00:11:58.331 --> 00:12:07.191 I think the discussion in general within the committee, which is a more important structure. 00:12:09.631 --> 00:12:16.031 Is usually very collegial. Of course, different people have a little bit different 00:12:16.031 --> 00:12:18.931 interests and inclinations, but in general, 00:12:19.031 --> 00:12:28.931 people are very enthused over being able to select something that is a very good tries. 00:12:30.131 --> 00:12:37.191 Stan, what you're describing is a procedure, and this procedure actually sets 00:12:37.191 --> 00:12:41.951 up two forms of collaboration, if you want, because now you have a collaboration, 00:12:43.647 --> 00:12:48.767 at the time itself with the panel, but then you have a collaboration over time 00:12:48.767 --> 00:12:55.827 with what that panel and its members might have deliberated previously. 00:12:56.987 --> 00:13:05.187 So do you see different aspects to these forms of collaboration? 00:13:06.647 --> 00:13:15.127 I think what has led to that the Nobel Prize has survive with comparatively 00:13:15.127 --> 00:13:20.427 few mistakes is this history that you can go back. 00:13:20.647 --> 00:13:26.227 It is not the meeting that you're sitting in. You go back and you have different 00:13:26.227 --> 00:13:27.947 comments that can come in. 00:13:28.827 --> 00:13:33.907 Gradually you have an acceptance that this is good or perhaps not so good. 00:13:36.647 --> 00:13:46.147 And I mean what is very important is that when you select a prize you have the 00:13:46.147 --> 00:13:49.587 right combination of people and it's a worthy prize, 00:13:50.467 --> 00:13:57.767 so this is an interesting point you raise because it means people the members of the panel, 00:13:58.447 --> 00:14:03.167 and in the end of the outside world world, feel also, if you want, 00:14:03.267 --> 00:14:06.767 a weight on their shoulders of making the proper decision. 00:14:08.567 --> 00:14:16.607 People are loyal to the idea to create and to facilitate the words of the recipient. 00:14:18.547 --> 00:14:22.887 How would you define that sense of responsibility? 00:14:23.687 --> 00:14:26.947 Is that a responsibility to whom? It's a responsibility to the price, 00:14:27.107 --> 00:14:33.287 as some abstract notion, or is it the responsibility towards scientific standards? 00:14:34.227 --> 00:14:39.627 What's that common objective that is exerting this moral pressure? 00:14:42.576 --> 00:14:45.956 No, I think it's a respect for 00:14:45.956 --> 00:14:56.496 science and also acceptance of the idea that you should be able to select very 00:14:56.496 --> 00:15:04.316 good science that is sort of highlighted to the public and also with a reward to the recipient. 00:15:04.876 --> 00:15:16.236 So I think it's a scientific idea and it is the determinant. 00:15:16.696 --> 00:15:21.556 I mean, it of course varies. There are different places. But now I could also 00:15:21.556 --> 00:15:25.436 argue that, like you said, in 00:15:25.436 --> 00:15:29.916 its origins there was actually not much appreciation for the whole idea. 00:15:31.036 --> 00:15:37.036 So that meant that also those that were proposing to actually put in place this 00:15:37.036 --> 00:15:40.016 procedure had to convince a critical environment. 00:15:40.596 --> 00:15:45.856 So I could also argue why people are so worried about doing it properly is that 00:15:45.856 --> 00:15:52.416 they want to avoid any serious criticism from the outside world. Is that playing a role? 00:15:55.476 --> 00:16:02.236 I'm not sure, I must realize that this was the first major scientific prize. 00:16:02.716 --> 00:16:12.756 It was a new conception of a prize not to the best Swede or best Nordic, it was international. 00:16:13.176 --> 00:16:15.896 That was a foreign idea at the time. 00:16:22.456 --> 00:16:28.736 I think that, I mean, in the beginning, I don't know how important it was considered. 00:16:28.916 --> 00:16:36.916 Of course, it was important, but gradually, I think it has taken on... 00:16:39.506 --> 00:16:52.586 On an important aspect of promoting the best science and it's also, 00:16:54.546 --> 00:16:57.386 it's often basic science not only 00:16:57.386 --> 00:17:00.766 of course but it is also 00:17:00.766 --> 00:17:04.066 highlighting that you have very 00:17:04.066 --> 00:17:06.926 basic discoveries that often has 00:17:06.926 --> 00:17:09.946 led to very new insights right 00:17:09.946 --> 00:17:13.026 but now that we tell so so the 00:17:13.026 --> 00:17:16.766 unexpected usefulness yes but 00:17:16.766 --> 00:17:19.866 now look that it would also 00:17:19.866 --> 00:17:22.626 be good to look at the failures of the procedure right because 00:17:22.626 --> 00:17:26.086 it has worked let's say 99 of 00:17:26.086 --> 00:17:28.846 the time but there also have been dramatic 00:17:28.846 --> 00:17:31.626 failures also recently in the 00:17:31.626 --> 00:17:34.706 panel dealing with literature and i don't want to necessarily go 00:17:34.706 --> 00:17:37.626 into that the discussion of why 00:17:37.626 --> 00:17:40.626 that would be exactly and the personalities involved but more 00:17:40.626 --> 00:17:46.926 apparently then the procedure that we just described discussed and also this 00:17:46.926 --> 00:17:53.126 sort of shaping of the process through a sense of responsibility was not enough 00:17:53.126 --> 00:17:58.126 right so So apparently there was a bug in the procedure that got exploited. 00:17:58.906 --> 00:18:13.426 I mean, it was a very severe bug in the interaction within the Swedish Academy. 00:18:13.426 --> 00:18:24.386 And there was a lot of personal problems and which I have no real insight in 00:18:24.386 --> 00:18:32.346 but I mean it didn't look good but I don't think actually the process of selecting, 00:18:34.465 --> 00:18:41.365 The laureates were severely criticized. 00:18:43.665 --> 00:18:48.805 Well, but actually, one year was skipped for the Nobel Prize. 00:18:48.865 --> 00:18:57.265 I mean, it was skipped because the Academy got into a civil war. 00:19:00.165 --> 00:19:03.625 And a lot of people left, the secretary left, 00:19:03.885 --> 00:19:14.465 and it was almost that it would collapse, but then it was refurnished by adding 00:19:14.465 --> 00:19:18.565 new members, and then it's probably on the track again. 00:19:19.445 --> 00:19:29.265 It's better in the I think the selection the literature of course is very difficult to assure, 00:19:31.285 --> 00:19:39.805 it's so much simpler with science but what I try to get to here is why the failure 00:19:39.805 --> 00:19:42.985 right so because this might tell us something about how collaboration works 00:19:42.985 --> 00:19:46.885 but I mean essentially the Swedish Academy, 00:19:48.725 --> 00:19:54.245 failed because of personal interaction and it was not primarily a question. 00:19:54.385 --> 00:19:55.685 I mean, they do a lot of other things. 00:19:58.165 --> 00:20:02.765 And so I don't think, I mean, 00:20:04.505 --> 00:20:14.665 they had to cancel the price for one year and that was, I mean, it was really terrible. 00:20:14.665 --> 00:20:21.685 But is there anything you could imagine you could change in the way the protocol 00:20:21.685 --> 00:20:30.565 is defined of collaboration to converge on the decision that could avoid such 00:20:30.565 --> 00:20:34.165 a catastrophic failure in the future? 00:20:38.165 --> 00:20:45.245 I mean it's I don't know I mean the Swedish Academy is a special case and, 00:20:47.852 --> 00:20:56.352 The committees that run on the Academy of Science, Physics and Chemistry, 00:20:56.612 --> 00:21:01.312 and Medicine, I think, has been little problems. 00:21:03.792 --> 00:21:14.372 And I mean the thing is also that whereas the members of the Nobel Committee 00:21:14.372 --> 00:21:19.252 for these three different prizes it is rotating, 00:21:20.392 --> 00:21:26.112 the Swedish Academy the members of the Swedish Academy has been lifetime informants 00:21:26.112 --> 00:21:29.052 and it was thought that you cannot resign, 00:21:30.492 --> 00:21:32.652 You were not allowed to resign. 00:21:33.032 --> 00:21:38.072 As a consequence of the turmoil, you are not allowed to leave the academy. 00:21:39.292 --> 00:21:45.512 And there's only 18, and it was, I guess, a couple of them that never came, 00:21:45.752 --> 00:21:51.312 and so forth. for the Swedish community, I really. 00:21:53.992 --> 00:21:59.852 Had difficulties in having an opinion of more than that. 00:21:59.932 --> 00:22:08.172 It was an organization and it was surprising that it worked so well for so many years. Yes. 00:22:08.552 --> 00:22:12.332 But now you also have been very much involved in, let's say, 00:22:12.332 --> 00:22:19.232 more the international almost diplomacy around science and scientific initiatives. 00:22:20.152 --> 00:22:25.812 I mentioned the Global Science Forum of the OECD, but you also have been involved 00:22:25.812 --> 00:22:27.552 in Ebro and other organizations. 00:22:28.132 --> 00:22:33.852 So are the patterns you see in this international collaboration in the science community, 00:22:34.252 --> 00:22:40.472 do you see commonalities with how you look at collaboration within this Nobel 00:22:40.472 --> 00:22:44.312 Prize election process? 00:22:45.072 --> 00:22:48.372 Or do you see them as very separate processes? 00:22:51.003 --> 00:23:01.543 I mean, I would say that the Nobel Prize Award process is something rather different, 00:23:01.763 --> 00:23:12.743 but I mean, I would say that if you are in the board of FEMS or if you are in the board of IPRO, 00:23:14.563 --> 00:23:15.083 it's. 00:23:18.923 --> 00:23:24.203 If you have I mean the thing is that you have rather much rotation and you have 00:23:24.203 --> 00:23:28.203 people coming in and out different background but nevertheless. 00:23:29.423 --> 00:23:35.743 Most of the time you can have a board that works rather nicely together and 00:23:35.743 --> 00:23:41.103 you have a few things that you do and then you like to take out a few things and, 00:23:42.023 --> 00:23:48.223 sometimes Sometimes you have bad fights, but more often people work together. 00:23:49.003 --> 00:23:56.443 In the international organization where you have people appointed from very 00:23:56.443 --> 00:23:59.543 different parts of the world, etc., it's sometimes different. 00:24:00.143 --> 00:24:04.783 But now there's in some sense also possible contradiction here between the two 00:24:04.783 --> 00:24:08.303 processes of collaboration, right? Because as you said earlier, 00:24:08.543 --> 00:24:12.003 in the Nobel Prize, it's really about the specific discovery. 00:24:13.103 --> 00:24:16.903 And that's not something that a huge community in the end will put their name 00:24:16.903 --> 00:24:19.243 to, at least certainly not in the life sciences. 00:24:20.283 --> 00:24:23.183 While on the other hand, if you look at these international organizations, 00:24:23.303 --> 00:24:27.983 it's all about building large communities, building large shared infrastructure. 00:24:28.383 --> 00:24:32.703 But in some sense, with the Nobel Prize, you're not rewarding people for that 00:24:32.703 --> 00:24:39.123 effort. It's really about the individual making that one discovery before anyone else does. 00:24:39.943 --> 00:24:44.703 So is that telling us something very deep about scientific collaboration, 00:24:44.843 --> 00:24:48.263 or is that just an accident? 00:24:52.002 --> 00:24:59.302 I think the 00:24:59.302 --> 00:25:09.482 importance of the individual Nobel Prizes are not so much the individuals that 00:25:09.482 --> 00:25:19.062 are rewarded as it is put the torchlight on a given discovery. 00:25:19.062 --> 00:25:31.462 Discovery and given development and it's possible benefit for mankind or why it is interesting. 00:25:32.082 --> 00:25:44.582 So I've argued it has been grants to develop Nobel museum where there exists one, 00:25:44.682 --> 00:25:55.362 but I I have been argued there that you should see the different places in life 00:25:55.362 --> 00:25:56.842 sciences, for instance, 00:25:57.102 --> 00:25:59.422 year after year, 00:25:59.742 --> 00:26:04.602 as sort of an illustration of how science has evolved. 00:26:05.122 --> 00:26:14.082 So you point to different areas that have been of primary importance. 00:26:14.082 --> 00:26:22.622 And sometimes prices get all very fast and others remain there. 00:26:22.802 --> 00:26:25.342 So I think the importance. 00:26:27.804 --> 00:26:34.644 It's not the individual, it is that you put the torchlight on an important part 00:26:34.644 --> 00:26:38.324 of science, that then means you can take off. 00:26:39.044 --> 00:26:44.424 But even though your emphasis is on the habit system and a dorsolateral stratum, 00:26:44.604 --> 00:26:48.204 value and incentives do shape behavior. 00:26:48.204 --> 00:26:53.844 And so in some sense, a Nobel Prize and prizes like the Nobel Prize, 00:26:53.964 --> 00:26:57.964 and others, do emphasize very much the individual, 00:26:58.344 --> 00:27:04.344 while in parallel, actually, we spend a lot of time talking about building large 00:27:04.344 --> 00:27:05.684 communities and infrastructure. 00:27:06.364 --> 00:27:13.144 But is that maybe more expressing a dream about how science could be? 00:27:16.344 --> 00:27:19.464 Putting it at an industrial scale actually the 00:27:19.464 --> 00:27:22.784 actual practice is it's just a 00:27:22.784 --> 00:27:26.544 small group of people if an individual really pushes 00:27:26.544 --> 00:27:33.424 a certain issue to the limit for you let me take the example the human genome 00:27:33.424 --> 00:27:40.404 project it was very important but it was not a major discovery we didn't understand 00:27:40.404 --> 00:27:44.404 anything from that but it It was a platform to take off, 00:27:44.584 --> 00:27:50.104 which has benefited a number of researchers and, 00:27:50.104 --> 00:28:03.364 of course, I think you can apply the same sort of reasoning around infrastructure for neuroscience. 00:28:03.364 --> 00:28:04.084 And neuroscience. 00:28:04.724 --> 00:28:12.224 I mean, the brain is the same sort of thing, or you can also take the development 00:28:12.224 --> 00:28:17.484 of simulation tools and neuroinformatics and so forth. 00:28:17.824 --> 00:28:22.304 So I think it's two types of development. 00:28:22.724 --> 00:28:27.524 One very important is that you put platforms and then you have all the individual 00:28:27.524 --> 00:28:31.744 researchers that pick what is interesting and see. 00:28:33.804 --> 00:28:38.364 And funny relations that have not been possible to reveal with ISIS. 00:28:39.244 --> 00:28:45.524 Yeah, but actually the Human Genome Project is a good example because the result was, 00:28:45.584 --> 00:28:50.404 in the end, not because of a large community working together but actually the 00:28:50.404 --> 00:28:55.724 individual having the insight that doing it with automated screening would speed 00:28:55.724 --> 00:28:57.364 up the whole process tremendously. 00:28:59.284 --> 00:29:04.184 Absolutely, but it's an infrastructure development, and when you had reached 00:29:04.184 --> 00:29:08.144 it, it was suddenly possible to ask questions you couldn't ask before. 00:29:09.206 --> 00:29:12.726 Yeah, but isn't there a risk then that they put the cart in front of the horse? 00:29:12.866 --> 00:29:19.066 Because maybe who says we need that specific infrastructure to get the Nobel 00:29:19.066 --> 00:29:20.726 Prize that we all strive towards? 00:29:21.366 --> 00:29:25.246 I'm not talking about Nobel Prizes in this context. 00:29:25.586 --> 00:29:29.446 No, no, no. You see what I'm saying, right? Because maybe the infrastructure 00:29:29.446 --> 00:29:35.526 an individual researcher needs is a much smaller scale to lead to breakthroughs 00:29:35.526 --> 00:29:38.386 in the field, certainly in the life sciences, right? 00:29:38.386 --> 00:29:42.226 Yeah, no, no, but let me rephrase. 00:29:42.626 --> 00:29:48.246 The fact that you have the Human Genome Project and you have all the other genomes 00:29:48.246 --> 00:29:54.466 has allowed all the small guys to ask a lot of interesting questions which they 00:29:54.466 --> 00:29:55.726 couldn't have asked without. 00:29:56.346 --> 00:30:02.846 Okay, that's fair enough. So it's like an enabler, but still... Yeah, it's an enabler. 00:30:03.006 --> 00:30:07.606 And I mean, the world of infrastructure is very important, but it doesn't, 00:30:07.606 --> 00:30:11.506 I mean, You can even ask sometimes if it's science or not. 00:30:11.606 --> 00:30:14.886 That is predictive. You do exactly that. You cut here. 00:30:16.446 --> 00:30:22.866 So it's, in a sense, very low-level science. But to the benefit of all the different 00:30:22.866 --> 00:30:26.606 researchers that like to ask questions. 00:30:27.306 --> 00:30:33.986 But then the infrastructure, in some sense, becomes a backbone for collaboration, 00:30:34.686 --> 00:30:37.386 even if the individual users don't directly collaborate. 00:30:38.526 --> 00:30:43.186 Is that the reality of the science as you see it? 00:30:47.306 --> 00:30:51.766 Yeah. I mean, essentially, 00:30:55.506 --> 00:31:04.006 of course, if you suddenly pose a question, you think that's very interesting. 00:31:04.006 --> 00:31:10.266 And then you realize that in order to pursue this, you need also to look at 00:31:10.266 --> 00:31:16.386 that and look at that, which people that you may not know have dealt with. 00:31:16.626 --> 00:31:19.246 Then it's conducive to create collaboration. 00:31:20.906 --> 00:31:23.846 But I mean, then it's motivated of the project. 00:31:24.826 --> 00:31:32.846 Right. So, in science, I think it's always very important that you have a specific 00:31:32.846 --> 00:31:36.946 question or a set of questions that you can answer. Sure. 00:31:37.406 --> 00:31:40.086 Then, for the individual scientists 00:31:40.086 --> 00:31:43.746 or also the young scientists who are growing into their careers, 00:31:44.006 --> 00:31:50.666 do you see it as a collaborative process or a more competitive process that 00:31:50.666 --> 00:31:52.986 is predicated on the shared infrastructure? 00:31:55.726 --> 00:32:03.886 I think for training people, I think it's very important. 00:32:06.389 --> 00:32:15.849 That they have rather much freedom so they can make mistakes and also make discoveries. 00:32:16.369 --> 00:32:23.309 Of course, within the framework that you think is interesting that they're funded for. 00:32:23.309 --> 00:32:31.989 So I think sometimes you hear about 00:32:31.989 --> 00:32:37.669 labs that put two postdocs on the same project and make them compete. 00:32:38.029 --> 00:32:41.529 And that's not exactly what I prefer. Right. 00:32:42.149 --> 00:32:47.309 But does it work? Because the thing is, after the Second World War there was 00:32:47.309 --> 00:32:53.849 this famous report by Vannevar Bush on science, the endless frontier, 00:32:54.229 --> 00:32:58.449 where a decisive argument was made, look, science also won the war. 00:32:58.729 --> 00:33:03.189 And it's by virtue of these large-scale collaborative projects that gave us 00:33:03.189 --> 00:33:09.389 the super fortress and the atomic bomb that we can guarantee prosperity for our society. 00:33:09.509 --> 00:33:13.969 And then that industrial-scale science, grounded much more in physics and engineering, 00:33:14.309 --> 00:33:16.109 became a bit like a standard. it. 00:33:16.769 --> 00:33:22.409 So that raises now the question, is that the model we should strive towards 00:33:22.409 --> 00:33:26.469 in this domain of life science and in particular in neuroscience? 00:33:26.909 --> 00:33:32.449 Is it this large-scale, industrial-scale collaboration that as in to discover 00:33:32.449 --> 00:33:37.269 the Higgs boson, you have teams of a thousand plus physicists working together and lies the data. 00:33:37.349 --> 00:33:43.429 Is that the future for this domain or is it more individuals and small teams 00:33:43.429 --> 00:33:48.469 that maybe share tools, but that as individuals and small teams will actually 00:33:48.469 --> 00:33:50.889 make the breakthroughs that this field needs. 00:33:51.169 --> 00:33:55.809 So is it going to diverge from this Vannevar-Busch model of collaboration, 00:33:56.249 --> 00:33:59.149 large-scale industrial, or is it converging? 00:33:59.449 --> 00:34:01.689 So what's your view there? Where are we going? 00:34:03.409 --> 00:34:10.069 I mean, I think, I mean, to have large-scale efforts is clearly, 00:34:10.149 --> 00:34:14.649 sometimes they're useful, like you had the Human Genome Project. 00:34:16.289 --> 00:34:22.149 But the novelty and the, 00:34:24.409 --> 00:34:29.629 unique contributions is very often small scale. 00:34:29.849 --> 00:34:33.889 It's individual brains, a couple of individual with your brains that interact. 00:34:35.909 --> 00:34:41.589 But I mean, they need a person infrastructure. They need the money. They need all this. 00:34:41.929 --> 00:34:48.509 And so it's not either or. Okay. 00:34:49.429 --> 00:34:56.589 So then, do you believe that humans, if we take neuroscience as our use case, 00:34:57.429 --> 00:35:01.989 will be able to really fully realize the potential of collaboration? 00:35:03.209 --> 00:35:08.509 Or will they always be just approximating it and then stumble at the last moment, 00:35:08.689 --> 00:35:11.449 as for instance in the case of the Nobel Prize for Literature? 00:35:13.769 --> 00:35:17.889 Or do you think it's possible? Do you see that's a real possibility to realize this? 00:35:20.049 --> 00:35:24.649 I mean, it's always statistics. Sometimes it's successful. 00:35:25.289 --> 00:35:29.949 I want your prediction, not your statistics. No, no, no. 00:35:30.089 --> 00:35:40.849 I think it's essentially collaborations will work well in a certain proportion of the cases. 00:35:41.809 --> 00:35:48.289 In other cases, due to personal things, it may never work. 00:35:48.489 --> 00:35:55.429 You irritate yourself immensely on some little detail and it's gone. 00:35:56.709 --> 00:36:01.249 But if you could change one thing in the average neuroscientist, 00:36:01.329 --> 00:36:03.669 let's say, what would it be? 00:36:03.709 --> 00:36:07.509 What's the thing you would change so that they can more effectively collaborate 00:36:07.509 --> 00:36:11.329 and get to target understanding the human brain? 00:36:12.989 --> 00:36:15.929 Not to jump on a bandwagon each time. 00:36:19.769 --> 00:36:23.409 But jumping on a bandwagon is also a form of collaboration. 00:36:25.672 --> 00:36:32.712 Yeah, it's a rather expensive type. But it might be the way to get your resources, right? 00:36:32.812 --> 00:36:35.052 Because this is where the field is interested in. 00:36:35.352 --> 00:36:43.552 It may be a way to get resources, but if the aim is to reveal and understand 00:36:43.552 --> 00:36:48.512 new important aspects, sometimes you have to look away. 00:36:51.792 --> 00:36:57.052 That's a good point, especially coming from you, having been on, 00:36:57.172 --> 00:37:03.252 let's say, a vertebrate animal model that was not necessarily an F1 center of attention, 00:37:03.532 --> 00:37:08.072 the lamprey, which in the end really led to a lot of breakthroughs in this domain 00:37:08.072 --> 00:37:10.692 of understanding motor control and behavior. 00:37:12.232 --> 00:37:18.752 So, if you look back upon our last question, look back upon our experience in 00:37:18.752 --> 00:37:20.952 the so-called global science forum, 00:37:21.272 --> 00:37:30.212 do you think it is wise to speak of things like a global science forum in this context? 00:37:30.212 --> 00:37:34.652 Because maybe what you need is also the variability of different approaches 00:37:34.652 --> 00:37:42.112 without trying to coordinate too much, and in that sense also create risks of building bandwagons. 00:37:45.932 --> 00:37:52.192 I mean, the Global Science Forum, its strengths was probably that you have representatives 00:37:52.192 --> 00:38:02.492 for the different governments that could discuss about science and agree about 00:38:02.492 --> 00:38:05.472 certain types of collaborations. 00:38:09.171 --> 00:38:12.411 And if you remember, 00:38:12.631 --> 00:38:18.971 when we were both part of the process that set up the International Geoinformatics 00:38:18.971 --> 00:38:24.331 Coordinating Facility, INCF, it was a very laborious process, 00:38:24.631 --> 00:38:28.491 lots of disagreement. 00:38:30.531 --> 00:38:34.511 But then finally, we had a proposal there, and that was reached. 00:38:34.591 --> 00:38:42.031 And then the Global Science science forum played a role in that it accepted 00:38:42.031 --> 00:38:48.051 the proposal after having to redo it several times. 00:38:48.531 --> 00:38:56.611 But then the process was that the different ministers of research in the different 00:38:56.611 --> 00:39:01.951 OECD countries all recommended their governments that it was a way to go. 00:39:05.011 --> 00:39:09.811 Which didn't happen the first time around. No, no, it didn't. 00:39:10.991 --> 00:39:16.131 So that was interesting, right? That this only happened once the request really 00:39:16.131 --> 00:39:19.291 became very concrete in terms of a building and infrastructure. 00:39:20.291 --> 00:39:23.491 Something more abstract, which was collaborative, actually. 00:39:23.671 --> 00:39:29.311 As a collaborative network was considered too abstract to gain political traction. 00:39:30.051 --> 00:39:33.111 It had to be concretized into concrete. 00:39:35.571 --> 00:39:39.851 It was a business plan, Hedberton, actually. 00:39:40.631 --> 00:39:45.631 It was called a business plan. Yes. But if you look back upon that process, 00:39:45.671 --> 00:39:50.371 which took more than 10 years, do you think it could have been done more efficiently? 00:39:51.691 --> 00:39:59.651 Absolutely. Okay, what was the biggest fly in the ointment there, you think? 00:40:01.916 --> 00:40:10.276 Well, I mean, it was that different stakeholders had very different interests, 00:40:10.536 --> 00:40:20.616 and some of them had very difficult to listen and listen and remember, if you remember. 00:40:21.596 --> 00:40:26.636 Right. Which actually brings you back to your Nobel Prize procedure of remembering, 00:40:27.036 --> 00:40:28.116 right, of what was discussed. 00:40:29.396 --> 00:40:33.816 All right. All right, Stan Grillner, thank you very much for this conversation. Thank you. 00:40:34.396 --> 00:40:38.736 Thank you. Stan, you're off the hook now. Very good. Thank you very much. 00:40:39.936 --> 00:40:42.256 Okay, I think this was interesting and cool. 00:40:44.316 --> 00:40:47.236 There were a lot of things that I would have liked to pursue, 00:40:47.396 --> 00:40:55.416 but I understood, given your time constraints, I sort of cut some corners here and there. 00:40:56.016 --> 00:41:00.036 But to me, this is an important issue for how we think about neuroscience, 00:41:00.336 --> 00:41:04.456 where we are still at the beginning, right? 00:41:04.576 --> 00:41:07.856 We're not even close to understanding how the brain works. 00:41:08.436 --> 00:41:14.276 And there is a little bit of sort of a naive physics-oriented intuition, 00:41:14.596 --> 00:41:22.376 like, oh, if we make it big, then the magic will happen, as we saw in the Human Brain Project. 00:41:22.696 --> 00:41:26.916 And for some strange reason in neuroscience, we just don't manage. 00:41:29.376 --> 00:41:32.436 And maybe it tells us something very fundamental in the end about… Yeah, 00:41:32.436 --> 00:41:38.196 I mean, what was interesting was the US train initiative, 00:41:40.176 --> 00:41:48.756 because, I mean, after the brain fluid was presented, it just took a few weeks 00:41:48.756 --> 00:41:51.856 before the human brain initiative was conceived. 00:41:53.016 --> 00:41:56.596 And with lots of money, which was very good, of course. 00:41:56.596 --> 00:42:02.636 But then you had this committee, about 10 people, 00:42:03.136 --> 00:42:13.256 that sort of designed the program. 00:42:14.436 --> 00:42:22.256 I mean, it was several of our colleagues. 00:42:22.476 --> 00:42:27.716 And what happened then was that you had the, 00:42:30.129 --> 00:42:36.489 They represented different areas and they were to decide if they could focus on something. 00:42:39.549 --> 00:42:49.109 My proposition there would be that you should have focused on one problem and 00:42:49.109 --> 00:42:56.129 then you would have people sort of working on different levels on that. 00:42:56.309 --> 00:43:03.469 So they would work independently and then Once a year, you should have them 00:43:03.469 --> 00:43:08.649 in a symposium, and they were telling about what they had accomplished, et cetera. 00:43:10.869 --> 00:43:18.049 But, of course, for all the members of the committee, that was meant that their 00:43:18.049 --> 00:43:22.089 areas, for most of them, it was meant that their areas would be outside. 00:43:25.069 --> 00:43:28.309 So they couldn't agree on that. 00:43:28.509 --> 00:43:33.789 Exactly. so actually so the phrase nanotechnology was a big player there as 00:43:33.789 --> 00:43:39.689 well right and I once asked this lady Corey Brackman who was then the spokesperson 00:43:39.689 --> 00:43:41.329 for the American Brain Project, 00:43:42.129 --> 00:43:44.849 and I asked her but isn't that a 00:43:44.849 --> 00:43:49.489 risk for your project because now you go to the lowest common denominator between 00:43:49.489 --> 00:43:53.929 all these different fields which means in the end you won't do anything and 00:43:53.929 --> 00:44:00.229 she got all agitated and she said but you know the president the president of 00:44:00.229 --> 00:44:04.049 the United States asked us to do this. That was her only answer. 00:44:04.929 --> 00:44:10.489 I mean, Corey Borgman is seriously quite good. I mean, yeah, I mean, yeah. 00:44:11.846 --> 00:44:23.026 I like her a lot, but she is overstating her research on the worm teleradictus. 00:44:23.226 --> 00:44:27.566 Yeah, but I don't think she cares anymore because now she leads this Zuckerberg 00:44:27.566 --> 00:44:29.686 Center, right? Half time. 00:44:30.086 --> 00:44:36.526 Oh, half time. Okay. She is flying back and forth. But she is rather good. 00:44:37.786 --> 00:44:46.166 To me it was an illustration. But I think it was an illustration that they could 00:44:46.166 --> 00:44:48.726 not decide. Exactly. That's what I meant. 00:44:49.206 --> 00:44:56.866 So they said that the first—and I actually talked with her about that also—and. 00:44:59.746 --> 00:45:05.446 She said that, well, the first five years we will set up all these new techniques 00:45:05.446 --> 00:45:07.666 that will help us solve the brain. 00:45:07.866 --> 00:45:10.206 And during the next five years, we will do that. 00:45:10.766 --> 00:45:12.526 Exactly. Yeah, I remember that. 00:45:13.326 --> 00:45:19.266 And then I asked Terry, and then Terry said, well, if we just train a few postdocs 00:45:19.266 --> 00:45:22.126 across these disciplines, that would be great. 00:45:24.226 --> 00:45:29.306 But it's interesting, but in both cases, it has not been a devastating success, right? 00:45:29.726 --> 00:45:32.966 And this is something that we should think about that, because what does it 00:45:32.966 --> 00:45:38.126 mean for shaping progress in understanding mind and brain, because apparently 00:45:38.126 --> 00:45:40.206 we haven't understood that process. 00:45:40.566 --> 00:45:44.446 As much as in the Nobel Prize, there's a clear procedure and it works, 00:45:44.626 --> 00:45:47.426 but we haven't found it yet for understanding mind and brain. 00:45:49.786 --> 00:45:59.646 I think it was in Neuron, and this was just when it started, 00:45:59.806 --> 00:46:04.766 the brain project or the brain initiatives. 00:46:04.946 --> 00:46:09.206 I wrote something about the brain initiatives where I actually argued, 00:46:09.906 --> 00:46:13.426 as I argued now, that you should have a focus. 00:46:15.046 --> 00:46:19.866 Look, and actually we made the same point in the Global Science Forum to say 00:46:19.866 --> 00:46:22.346 no, we need use cases to focus. 00:46:23.046 --> 00:46:25.726 Otherwise, the alternative is what we have seen now. 00:46:26.686 --> 00:46:28.966 So I fully agree with that, but okay. 00:46:31.606 --> 00:46:40.286 They didn't listen, Stan, I'm sorry. I know, but soon they will become much wiser. Let's hope so. 00:46:41.626 --> 00:46:44.806 Yeah, I don't expect that. 00:46:45.406 --> 00:46:50.586 Hi, you listened to one of our podcasts in the series on collaboration produced 00:46:50.586 --> 00:46:53.826 by the Ernst Stroman Forum and the Conversion Science Network. work. 00:46:54.226 --> 00:46:57.146 You can find more episodes on our website.