See the link:

“John Templeton Foundation awards $2.8 million to examine origins of
biological complexity”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/jtf-jtf123005.php

The questions to be investigated seem quite interesting:

* Why are biologists so afraid of asking ‘why’ questions, when
physicists do it all the time?

* Can experiments using a digital evolutionary model answer why
intelligence evolved, but artificial intelligence has been so hard to build?

* What lessons can rock art and material remains teach us about the
development of human self-awareness?

* Can the geometric ordering of specific sheets of cells throw
light on the questions currently being raised about design in nature?

* What principles allow individuals to develop social and colonial
organizations?

All seem worth a brown bag lunch discussion at Krasnow.

Jim

As we enter the new year, it’s time to now look forward rather than
back. This new year it seems to me will be crucial for the
Institute–both in terms of handling growth (and change), but also in
remaining true to the unique vision that emerged from the 1993 Santa Fe
Institute/George Mason University meeting on mind, brain and complexity.

You’ll recall that the notion was to create an institute for advanced
study with a transdisciplinary focus at the intersection of
neurobiology, cognitive psychology and computer sciences. This vision
requires a constant commitment on the part of our scientific community
to communicate intellectually beyond the silos of our own particular
fields–in spite of the difficulties that come with such efforts (most
notably language/jargon).

Our annual scientific retreat (coming up next week) represents one of
the embodiments of this commitment–the talks are arranged randomly
(more or less) in order to facilitate the “scientific listening” that I
am writing about. With a random order, you can’t simply tune in for that
part of the retreat that applies to your science–instead the goal is to
promote synthesis and integration across the Venn Diagram that makes
up Krasnow.

As we grow, both in terms of the physical plant and also in terms of
faculty over the next year, it is absolutely crucial that we do this in
a way that facilitates this type of synthesis–and of course, that will
be the biggest challenge. Each new faculty member, will need to
accommodate this culture of collaboration and scientific communication
that defines the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study. And hopefully, if
we collectively search well, that will happen very naturally.

I wish all a very happy new year,

Jim

As a result of an article that was released today (click the link above) this blog is likely to have some new visitors in the next day or so–the community of architects. One my abiding interests as director of the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study is the intersection between neuroscience and architecture–clearly one of the most concrete components of human higher cognition.

Jim

An interesting meme in this week’s Economist magazine, from a more
general article on human evolution–the idea that, as with a peacock’s
feathers, smarts is a rapidly evolving surogate for excellent genes,
above and beyond its actual ability to increase fitness. Interestingly,
the authors posit, unlike the peacock’s feathers, it’s not sex-linked.

The link to the abstract is here:
http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5299220&no_na_tran=1

Jim

I’ll be on break for several days now and so will this blog.

Jim

The year is ending early at George Mason–we shut down for the holidays starting tomorrow. Besides wishing my readers the very most festive of New Years, I’d like to briefly reflect on what has been an extraordinary year for the Institute:

This is the year that saw the Institute begin the process of become a much larger research organization, both in size and in scientific capabilities. We added two new centers (social complexity and neural dynamics). We commenced the addition of 50% more space in our current 23,000 square foot facility. We purchased a 3T MRI and organized a brain imaging core. And we’re most importantly in the process of adding perhaps six more research groups to our number–so that we will end up with a scientific staff of perhaps 80-90 compared with the 50 that make up our community of inquiry at present.

I can’t even begin to express how proud I am of the many individuals who have worked so hard to make all of this possible. So let me end by simply writing the words: thank you.

Jim

When I was a postdoc at NIH, I was one of thousands of research fellows, all of us in the rather interesting nether world that is neither quite student nor independent investigator. When my lab chief would explain my role to one of his colleagues as “something like an assistant professor” I would be happy for a week! But in truth of course, no postdoc is like an assistant professor–because assistant professors are independent investigators.

From an institutional perspective, postdocs are indicative (actually they are in fact a bio-marker for) research activity. The larger the cadre of postdocs at an institution, the greater the level of sponsored research, particularly in the biomedical research areas, but also in other areas of science. Thus, from an institute’s point of view, having lots of postdocs is a good thing.

Unfortunately, for many individual postdocs, it ain’t such a good deal. Salaries are low. Prestige is hard to come by, unless one is lucky enough to be the “anointed one” for a boss who is at the top of their field. And of course, the future is anything but certain.

Thus, one of the great unsolved challenges in science administration is to improve the lot of the postdoc, while at the same time producing lots of the same. One of my colleagues here at Mason, created an office of postdoctoral affairs at his last institution. And certainly there are some postdoctoral fellow associations and organizations which can subserve a somewhat similar role to that of graduate student governments and the like.

But ultimately the problem lies in the fact that a postdoc is a trainee, but often treated as an employee. These are often mutually contradictory.

Jim

We had a kick-off meeting with the construction folks this afternoon. It looks like the Krasnow Expansion Project (distinct from the MRI installation) will get underway at a practical level (equipment etc.) sometime during February. We’ll keep you up to date.

Jim

We have some preliminary dates now for the demolition phase of the MRI installation:
Mon 2/13/06 – Friday 2/24/06

Exact details and hours will be developed as we go.

Jim

I had breakfast at the Cosmos Club this morning with two friends
(I’ll identify them in a future blog entry with their permission) and
the topic revolved around two very interesting ideas. The first was
the notion that how the human body reacts to trauma or surprise might
be a very useful metaphor for understanding the reaction of of social
networks to the same. This echoes some of the ideas put forward by
Stephanie Forrest (http://www.cs.unm.edu/~forrest/) with regards to
the immune system and defense of computer networks, but goes beyond
it to include other reactions such as fight/flight. The second idea
was that of social ecological systems (think Hollywood or Boston’s Rt
128) and how such systems might be manipulated, both from the bottom
up and the top down. I was interested to learn of the idea that a
nation’s defense might in fact be designed to be such a social ecology.

It’s not surprising that the breakfast extended for 2 hrs. It was a
lot more interesting than the scrambled eggs.

Jim