- Joined
- May 6, 2006
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 0
This isn't one of those clinical versus basic research. I'm just concerned about what is possible, and what isn't possible.
I'm currently in 2nd year undergrad. I have a strong grounding in psychiatric/neurological genomics (in essence, genome-wide association studies), as well as a strong grounding through coursework in molecular and systems neuroscience (learning theory, mathematical physiology). In terms of neuroscience, what interests me, is the work on molecular mechanisms of learning and memory. As to my capability to compete near the top of that game, I think there's obviously a chance given my strong biological grounding.
However, I also have a very strong interest in neurotechnologies that have been emerging from neural engineering such as brain-computer interfaces, neural prostheses, which I think is more promising in terms of controlled manipulation. Programming somatic or stem neural cells through gene therapy or RNAi with any great specificity seems far away given the complexity of the genome's regulation and the fact that protein engineering is far away too, with the folding issues. If you could simply skip to the neural network level, then you can avoid most of those molecular problems. Doing that however, tends to require those who are involved in neural engineering, however, who tend to have backgrounds in electrical engineering (signal processing, etc.), chemical engineering or computational neuroscience. The ones I know at the very top schools have been building robots since high school.
I think it will be possible in my lifetime to engineer the brain to an extent. Is it already too late to participate in this revolution? Am I stuck with my biological background?
I'm not sure when to make the leap. Whether to continue along these molecular studies of learning and memory during my undergraduate, and wait until my MD/PhD to switch to the engineering background required, or to make the transition right now during undergraduate, which will be an informal transition because no engineering lab will possibly take me with so many top tier engineering students to choose from, but moreover the time it will take me to get the grounding independently will cause my current biological/genomics research to suffer, and probably prevent me from entering a MD/PhD program. On the other hand, I'd lose two more solid years.
I also wonder if there's any point in making the transition because I won't be able to compete with the very best signal processing, mathematical or engineering background minds who have entered this arena, and that it's better to take the problems from the biological side (stem cell engineering, synthetic biology), where there's at least a slim chance of taking on a pioneering role in the next 50 years as this area emerges.
I want to set up my own neurotechnology company, it seems like patentable/translatable discoveries are easier to come by through the engineering side, than through the biological side. Perhaps this will change.
Just some meandering thoughts. Not quite sure what to do.
1) Switch fields at risk of damaging chances of MD/PhD program.
2) Switch fields are risk of being unable to compete at the very top (pioneering role).
3) Not switch fields, but miss out on a potential revolution.
4) Not switch fields, but miss out on increasing the probability of starting a neurotech company.
I think that ultimately it'll be an interface between the biological and engineering approaches, with them interplaying, so maybe there's a benefit straddling the two and not being "the best" at either?
I'm currently in 2nd year undergrad. I have a strong grounding in psychiatric/neurological genomics (in essence, genome-wide association studies), as well as a strong grounding through coursework in molecular and systems neuroscience (learning theory, mathematical physiology). In terms of neuroscience, what interests me, is the work on molecular mechanisms of learning and memory. As to my capability to compete near the top of that game, I think there's obviously a chance given my strong biological grounding.
However, I also have a very strong interest in neurotechnologies that have been emerging from neural engineering such as brain-computer interfaces, neural prostheses, which I think is more promising in terms of controlled manipulation. Programming somatic or stem neural cells through gene therapy or RNAi with any great specificity seems far away given the complexity of the genome's regulation and the fact that protein engineering is far away too, with the folding issues. If you could simply skip to the neural network level, then you can avoid most of those molecular problems. Doing that however, tends to require those who are involved in neural engineering, however, who tend to have backgrounds in electrical engineering (signal processing, etc.), chemical engineering or computational neuroscience. The ones I know at the very top schools have been building robots since high school.
I think it will be possible in my lifetime to engineer the brain to an extent. Is it already too late to participate in this revolution? Am I stuck with my biological background?
I'm not sure when to make the leap. Whether to continue along these molecular studies of learning and memory during my undergraduate, and wait until my MD/PhD to switch to the engineering background required, or to make the transition right now during undergraduate, which will be an informal transition because no engineering lab will possibly take me with so many top tier engineering students to choose from, but moreover the time it will take me to get the grounding independently will cause my current biological/genomics research to suffer, and probably prevent me from entering a MD/PhD program. On the other hand, I'd lose two more solid years.
I also wonder if there's any point in making the transition because I won't be able to compete with the very best signal processing, mathematical or engineering background minds who have entered this arena, and that it's better to take the problems from the biological side (stem cell engineering, synthetic biology), where there's at least a slim chance of taking on a pioneering role in the next 50 years as this area emerges.
I want to set up my own neurotechnology company, it seems like patentable/translatable discoveries are easier to come by through the engineering side, than through the biological side. Perhaps this will change.
Just some meandering thoughts. Not quite sure what to do.
1) Switch fields at risk of damaging chances of MD/PhD program.
2) Switch fields are risk of being unable to compete at the very top (pioneering role).
3) Not switch fields, but miss out on a potential revolution.
4) Not switch fields, but miss out on increasing the probability of starting a neurotech company.
I think that ultimately it'll be an interface between the biological and engineering approaches, with them interplaying, so maybe there's a benefit straddling the two and not being "the best" at either?
funny but un-called for. Science dorks can get laid, I've even seen random hook-ups between applicants on the interview trail. I guess maybe this post belongs in the "good things that come out of interviewing" thread?
