One of the real challenges (and opportunities) of rapid change is the imposed need to revisit the scientific footprint of Krasnow’s mission periodically. For example: how is the notion of exploring the science underlying human cognition reified in neuroscience? Is it an emergent of the underlying neuronal dynamics? Is it an emergent of arrays of Hebbian cell assemblies? Is it also contained deep within the expression genetics of certain putative cognitive molecules (like say FOXP2)? And is it properly studies within the context of brain diseases?
By the same token how do we study cognition in other scientific contexts? Is there a relation between social cognition and social complexity –I believe there is. Can we learn about cognition from behavioral studies of our close evolutionary cousins (the great apes)–and perhaps distant ones also (Aplysia).
Then there is the key question of cognitive machines–not that I expect a computer to pass the Turing test tomorrow, but rather what can we learn about cognition that is man-made, rather than of man.
It’s very important for an institute director to routinely revisit the reason for the scientific program.
Discoverers and Discoveries 