There is a recent article in STAT, Researchers are betting on cockroaches as the cure to elitism in neuroscience, stating that, “..how the brain uses chemical and electrical signals to process and respond to the world.” It also stated that “neurophysiologists work to understand how the nervous system uses chemical and electrical signals to respond to different situations or begin a certain behavior.”
If this is true, why is there no theory anywhere in contemporary neuroscience to describe how chemical and electrical signals [might] make the brain work? Why are there no labs focused just on this concept? Why has the NIH BRAIN Initiative not postulated something in this direction?
The common refrain is that nobody knows how the brain works, but there is a consensus, it seems, that chemical and electrical signals are responsible. So, why is there no established theory in neuroscience, as a candidate to explain the brain for chemical and electrical signals?
The brain is known to be responsible for mental health and ill health, intelligence, consciousness, memory, addiction, and so forth. The brain is also central in neurotechnology and what the future holds for AI and robotics.
Why does it appear like there is knowledge that chemical and electrical signals are responsible, yet there is no architecture that is available, in neuroscience research, to at least use them to design mechanisms for functions and disorders of the brain [including neurodegenerative diseases]?
There are several brain theories, but they never mention how the chemical and electrical signals—distinctively—mechanize observations. There is something called flow state. If it is true, how do chemical and electrical signals make it possible? There is a term that describes the brain making predictions. If true, how do chemical and electrical signals make it possible? There are labels like attention, sense of self, associative memory, long-term memory, working memory, emotions, feelings, impulse control and so forth. How do chemical and electrical signals make them possible? It is common to simply say dopamine and reward, but if dopamine is observed to be active in non-reward functions, what other chemical signals are responsible for reward—as a collective—rather than [just] the quantity of dopamine? Also, what is the role of electrical signals for reward—not just chemical signals?
By now, all parts of brain science should not be described in vague terms like mental health or disorder, but with what they mean, by the chemical and electrical signals.
What is human intelligence in the era of artificial intelligence? How is human intelligence safe, to shape AI safety? This too should be explained by the chemical and electrical signals. What is consciousness? Again by chemical and electrical signals.
Neurons are known to be in clusters. It is theorized that they are in clusters so that chemical and electrical signals can work in sets or as loops. It is in sets that they can be said to interact and have their interactions graded. This can be used to explain functions and describe many of the known terms or labels in neuroscience.
The NIH should at least have a major research priority on the chemical and electrical signals as a concept to understand the brain, in a way that would define the future of several research themes that the NIH currently does—for local and global advances.
The director of the NIH could approve efforts on the chemical and electrical signals for theoretical development, as a mission of the NIH, to spring science forward to lead the future.
There is a recent feature in Axios, How Trump’s NIH pick could upend the agency, stating that, “..would put renewed focus on why a research institution with a nearly $48 billion budget doesn’t have more breakthroughs.” It also includes the quote, “Getting science right is arguably the single most important thing we can do in society,” “Too many good people are looking for support and the result of high-level competition is a tendency to look for the most secure ideas to pursue.” “When the success rate of a grant being funded is 10% or 20%, scientists look for a safe route.”
