Just a reminder that the Olympus folks are here today and tomorrow demo-ing their latest and greatest. Please don’t hesitate to stop by at the Krasnow Seminar Room.

Derek Bok’s 2003 book on the dangers of commercialism within the Academy (Bok, Derek. Universities in the Marketplace: The commercialism of Higher Education. Princeton University Press, 2003) is a good read for anyone who is interested in the challenges facing the modern research university. It cogently raises the yellow flag regarding intecollegiate athletics, science and for-profit educational programs, although I have to say, Bok himself recognizes that it’s relatively easy for the former president of Harvard University to raise the warning cry given that institution’s very large endowment.

On the other hand, I’ve been thinking a great deal lately about whether in fact there is any substantive difference between was Bok calls commercialism and what others call entrepreneurship. Here at the Krasnow Institute, we continually face the tension between pressures to create intellectual property and subsequently license the same, versus the problems with secrecy that come with such technology transfer to the for-profit sector. As important is the risk of licensing intellectual property prematurely before, for example, safety issues have been addressed suitably.

Which brings up the whole notion of ethics in the research university–whether it be part of the curriculum or institutional restraint upon un-restricted (rampant) entrepreneurial activity. It seems to me that this point is non-trivial. In the early years of American higher education, a main function of a college education was producing ethically educated citizens. It seems to be that such a focus might be missing from the modern research university–or at least, it’s been de-emphasized in favor of the constant search for new financial resources.

Jim

I really wasn’t aware that I was at Disney World until after we finished
up our editorial board meeting for The Biological Bulletin
(www.biolbull.org) around 7PM on Thursday evening. I’d flown into Orlando
earlier in the day and was actually staying at the Airport so that I
might get the first flight out in the morning.

I guess I should have begun to figure things out when my taxi drove me
30 minutes west along the Beeline Expressway and the signs for Micky
started to proliferate. But it was during the walk from the meeting
hotel (Society for Comparative and Integrative Biology) to our
restaurant venue at the Portabello Yacht Club–that the Full Disney hit
me, Full Monty.

Yes…I’d never been to Disney World. No, I don’t regret that. Still, it
was a very pleasant time spent with colleagues who share a passion for
marine models from around the globe.

Jim

Today I was in Philadelphia learning about a fantastic organization (ECRI–click on the link above) which I think occupies a critical space in the non-profit space overseeing medical technology. Why? Because they are idealists and have the strictest conflict of interest rules I’ve seen outside government. And because they are incredibly rigorous about their studies.

Tomorrow I’m off to Orlando for the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology meetings. More from the road on that.

Jim

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