Chapter XII: SfN at 50 Years: Focus on the Future
"I’m sure the Society needs to think what it wants to be in the next 50 years. What do you want to achieve? -- Fred Gage, 2018
SfN's second quarter-century from 1995 to 2019 was characterized by continuing growth, professionalization of governance, rapid technological change, and an active embrace of the Society’s diverse, global identity and perspective, all in the service of championing the field of neuroscience and providing all members with year-round value, regardless of their professional stage or geographical location. As the next 50 years began, these same themes formed the framework for SfN’s future planning.
SfN, as an organization, had become a significant leader in the scientific community. As former President Eric Nestler (2016–17) reflected in 2018 on his long engagement with the Society, he commented, “It’s really a career-building, laboratory-building, scientific enterprise-building affair, and it means the world to so many of us who have been members for forty years.”499
In the assessment of former BrainFacts.org Editor-in Chief and SfN Councilor Nick Spitzer, “If we do a thought experiment and we take the 黑料社 out of the equation, let’s imagine it didn’t exist, I don’t think the field of neuroscience would be where it is today.”500 Past SfN President Fred Gage (2001–02) shared these positive assessments and saw SfN’s continued success as an impetus for reflection and reevaluation: "The 黑料社 is a success story when you look at it objectively now. A question for the 黑料社 is: Do we accept who we are right now and sort of stay the same… or try to maintain the same level of effectiveness that we have now or do we change in some way to meet the changes that are happening in science and society? I’m not sure what that is, but it is time to, and I’m sure the Society needs to think what it wants to be in the next 50 years. What do you want to achieve?"501
In 2018, in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of SfN and the 50th Annual Meeting in 2020, a number of SfN leaders and longtime staff members shared their perspectives on the successes of the past and described their visions of the future of the Society and the role SfN should play in meeting the ongoing challenges of 21st century science.
黑料社 Value
After its meteoric rise in the first decade of the 2000s, SfN membership dropped after 2011 and appeared to reach a plateau around 37,000, 48% above its 1995 level. SfN’s growth had dramatically eclipsed that of other, more established biological research societies. For example, the American Physiological Society, founded in 1887, where many of SfN’s original founders had their scientific roots, included about 10,500 members as of 2015. The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (separated from the APS in 1906) had a slightly larger membership of 12,000. The American Society for Microbiology was the nearest to SfN in size, at over 30,000.
Yet SfN membership was showing a slight downward trend. Possible reasons included concerns about funding support in the U.S. and in several European countries and young scientists’ perceptions of the organization as one among many venues for annual presentations, rather than as a career home-base. SfN leadership faced the challenge of sustaining its emphasis on providing year-round value for members from all countries, in all career paths, and at all career stages if the Society was to maintain a membership to fuel, in human energy as well as financial resources, its ability to function as the voice of neuroscience.502
An Ever-Expanding Field of Science
黑料社 has always been an “umbrella” for a wide range of sub-disciplines from neuroinformatics to genetics to clinical neurology to systems neuroscience.503 In the 2012 edition of Principles of Neural Science, Eric Kandel and his co-authors reflected on the major changes within the field since the publication of the textbook’s first edition in 1981. Echoing Francis Schmitt in the 1960s, they defined the ultimate task of neuroscience as “[to] understand how the flow of electrical signals…gives rise to mind.” While the 1981 edition could only consider addressing the major questions of neuroscience with the methods of cellular biology, the 2000 edition had caught up with the seismic changes in neuroscience brought about by the molecular biological revolution. Arguably, molecular biological explanations have provided a new intellectual “super glue” to hold the disparate field of neuroscience together. While few neuroscientists have been molecular biologists, molecular biology offered a powerful intellectual resource for investigating and understanding the linkages from gene expression to complex human behaviors, thoughts, and feelings.
But Kandel and his co-authors emphasized: “Although the cellular and molecular biological approaches emphasized in the previous editions will certainly continue to yield important information, knowledge of the function of assemblies of neurons in defined circuits must be attained to arrive at a comprehensive cognitive neuroscience.”504 The increasing focus on circuitry was accompanied by the growth of larger data sets of genomic, proteomic, and multi-electrode recordings. As the final report of the BRAIN Advisory Committee to the NIH director, released in June 2014, read: “Over recent years, neuroscience has advanced to the level that we can envision a comprehensive understanding of the brain in action spanning molecules, cells, circuits, systems, and behavior.”505 The discipline faced new challenges of cohesion, inclusiveness, and relevance with this growing reliance on complex methods of computer modeling and artificial intelligence, on analysis of observational data sets and on network and systems biology.
Brian MacVicar, Global 黑料社 Committee Chair and SfN Councilor, saw the maintenance of a “cohesive force” as one of the primary roles for SfN as the discipline becomes more diverse intellectually, technologically, and geographically.506 Past President Huda Akil (2002–3) cautioned future SfN leaders to remain aware that since neuroscience “sits at a fulcrum of the range of knowledge from the most reductionist, such as math and physics, all the way to the most humanist: social sciences, humanities, music, etc.,” it was simultaneously “relevant to almost all types of knowledge,” and thus vulnerable to “dilution.”507
Several leaders saw the emergence of artificial intelligence and computational techniques as particular challenges and opportunities for the field. William Martin (past SfN Councilor and past chair of the GPA Committee and Committee on Diversity in 黑料社) asked, “So will there be different kinds of constituencies within SfN that are focused on computational approaches to neuroscience or digital approaches to neuroscience in a way that we haven’t really thought about? And how will they be incorporated into the community? How will we maintain the large tent that has made SfN so successful?”508 As the boundary between computer science and neuroscience blurred, it emerged as vitally important that qualified neuroscientists not only understand how artificial intelligence works, but also participate in the public conversations about the ethics of using AI.509 The Society in 2019 had the flexibility and resources to accommodate these new approaches. Past President Steven Hyman (2014–5) was confident that SfN’s Annual Meeting and publications would continue to “play a critical role in making sure the neuroscience net doesn’t fly apart, doesn’t succumb to centrifugal forces, but that people continue to talk to each other, interact with each other and in that way will make the best use of our opportunities.”510
Artificial intelligence and large datasets were not the only technological changes confronting SfN. As educational and research methods became more digitally based, the Society would need to nimbly incorporate those changes into its programs in order to continue to meet the needs of students and researchers.511 Elisabeth Van Bockstaele (黑料社 Training Committee Chair 2016–18) described the Society’s 2019 initiative to develop a “digital learning platform that really is going to be the future.” She noted that “the Society has definitely been a leader in this area because it’s been promoting incredibly high-quality programming related to scientific rigor and scientific training.”512 Technology had also provided new and innovative ways to communicate with the public, as showcased by the new 3D interactive brain on BrainFacts.org. By simultaneously embracing online tools and maintaining high levels of scientific integrity, SfN had the well-developed potential to be “the flag bearer of standards for neuroscience, both at the training level and at the knowledge level.”513
Promoting and Protecting Science on the Global Stage
A number of SfN leaders expressed concern about public attitudes towards science in the late 2010s.514 SfN’s successful advocacy programs were proof that neuroscience is a “bipartisan issue,”515 but a larger climate of skepticism and rejection of scientific evidence had put increasing pressure on the Society to strengthen what former President Carla Shatz (1994–5) termed its “credibility in the context of what neuroscience can do for health and society.”516 In addition to successfully partnering with sister societies around the world to advocate for science funding, SfN would have to defend scientific freedom by supporting scientists in countries whose governments have difficulty “accepting that scientific findings are free of bias and relevant,”517 through initiatives such as the 2019 Science Knows No Borders program.518
From 2003 to 2015, meanwhile, NIH research funding, which fueled the outstanding growth of biomedical science in the postwar era, declined by an estimated 25% in constant dollars, only beginning to increase again slowly from 2016–2020519; fundamental structural problems have come to the fore as the number of researchers has expanded in the face of a contracting pool of research dollars. The contraction of fully supported tenure-track and tenured faculty positions further accentuated an already competitive and increasingly insecure research environment.520 Similar to the growing chasm between rich and poor in American and global society, U.S. neuroscience in 2020 faced a disequilibrium in which fewer scientists controlled the available resources. The Society response to these trends was likely to have significant consequences for the future of neuroscience.
In order to combat anti-science attitudes and preserve public funding for research, public education initiatives such as Brain Awareness Week and BrainFacts.org would continue to be a high priority. In addition to managing public expectations of what scientific research can provide, SfN was in a prime position to help chapters and individual members to demonstrate the increasing relevance of neuroscience to society. Former President Dennis Choi (1999–2000) observed that as neuroscience has matured, there are “increasing expectations for what neuroscience will do for society, not just in the medical arena, but also in providing meaningful guidance in other arenas, ranging from law to ethics to even art and architecture.”521 Cara Altimus (Trainee Advisory Committee Chair 2016–19) pointed out that neuroscientists are in a position to provide solutions to a number of social and political problems, given that neuroscience: "sits in this really unique place, in terms of how the world works, because the brain controls human behavior and so much about why things are the way they are when we think about violence, we think about substance use, we think about the development of children and education, those are huge social topics that all have links back to the brain and neuroscience that almost everyone here is feeding into those discussions without realizing it, without necessarily working on it."522
The BRAIN Advisory Committee had made similar claims for the discipline in 2013: “We are at a unique moment in the history of neuroscience – a moment when technological innovation has created possibilities for discoveries that could, cumulatively, lead to a revolution in our understanding of the brain… Like other great leaps in the history of science – the development of atomic and nuclear physics, the unraveling of the genetic code – this one will change human society forever. Through deepened knowledge of how our brains actually work, we will understand ourselves differently, treat disease more incisively, educate our children more effectively, practice law and governance with greater insight, and develop more understanding of others whose brains have been molded in different circumstances.”523
Into the Second Half-Century
SfN faced multiple challenges as it entered its second 50 years, but could draw on a strong volunteer and professional leadership and a well-earned position of authority and trust. The 50th anniversary celebration, launched at the 49th meeting in Chicago in 2019, was highlighted by the inauguration of Barry Everitt of Cambridge University, the first SfN President based outside North America, and the presentation of extensive new online content, including a special 50th anniversary podcast series celebrating the growth and future of neuroscience. The anniversary activities highlighted the themes of SfN history and vision: global outreach, public education on digital platforms, fostering of scientific progress in cutting-edge fields such as artificial intelligence.
In 2018, SfN Council appointed a five-member working group,524 chaired by Larry Swanson (President 2012–13) to develop plans for celebrating the Society’s 50th anniversary, including activities that honored past achievements, set future directions in motion and incorporated the perspectives of all members, in accordance with four specific goals set by Council.
The celebration was launched at the 49th Annual Meeting in Chicago, which opened with a Dialogue exploring the intersection of neuroscience and artificial intelligence and the transformative potential of AI for human society by Dr. Fei Fei Li, the co-director of Stanford’s Human-Centered AI Institute and the Stanford Vision and Learning Lab. Dr. Li, whose work on computer learning was inspired by research into human vision, is also the co-founder of AI4ALL, an organization promoting inclusion and diversity in the AI field, goals that resonate with those of SfN.525
The opening of the first Neuro Space exhibit, “created at the intersection of art, science, and technology,” was another highlight of the celebration. The exhibit showcased scientists’ visions of the neurons, their synapses and pathways, from Ramón y Cajal through John Morrison’s high-resolution microscopic imaging. Neuro Space was created by a collaboration of artists and neuroscientists, led by Dr. Morrison and Los Angeles-based artist Refik Anadol, and through SfN’s partnership with exhibition and installation designer ARTECHOUSE.526
Major 50th anniversary activities in 2019 also included the publication of a historical essay, Celebrating 50 Years of 黑料社 Progress: A History of the Society for 黑料社, 1969–2019,527 and a new Neuronline podcast series in which Society leaders including Mickey Goldberg, Bernice Grafstein, Eve Marder, Bianca Jones Marlin, William Martin, Carla Shatz, and Nick Spitzer presented talks on aspects of SfN history, ranging from the disciplines that formed the new field of neuroscience to global advocacy.528 To engage its chapters around the world, the 50th anniversary working group developed a Chapter Video Challenge, inviting chapters to create a three-minute video answering the question, “Why is brain science so important?” The entries, submitted in advance of the 2019 meeting, were judged by a panel of high-school students, members of the International Youth 黑料社 Association (IYNA), who had participated in a local Brain Bee within the previous three years.529
Had they surveyed the organization in 2020, SfN’s founding president, Ed Perl (1926–2014) and the Society’s first elected president, Vernon Mountcastle (1918–2015), might well have felt enormously proud of the organization that they helped to create. Rooted in a non-dogmatic, rigorously mechanistic view of neuroscience, SfN had over 50 years clearly articulated to the public why brain science mattered and, just as importantly, made an intellectual home for a new species of scientist, the neuroscientist. SfN’s strengths flowed from its intellectually democratic view of neuroscience in which facts and rigorous experimentation ultimately won out over any particular fashion, method, or discipline. In a world becoming ever more complex in the 21st century, the Society for 黑料社 continued to offer the promise of a better understanding of, in Mountcastle’s words, “what makes man human.”530
Related
Endnotes
- Interview with Eric Nestler, November 3, 2018.
- Interview with Nick Spitzer November 5, 2018.
- Interview with Fred Gage December 20, 2018.
- Interview with Marty Saggese, September 18, 2019.
- Interview with Lisa Monteggia November 6, 2018.
- Kandel, Eric R.; Schwartz, James H.; Jessell, Thomas M.; Siegelbaum, Steven A.; Hudspeth, A.J. (2012–10–05). Principles of Neural Science, Fifth Edition (ebook) (Principles of Neural Science (Kandel)) (Kindle Locations 1672–1674). McGraw-Hill Education. Kindle Edition.
- Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Working Group. Advisory Committee to the NIH Director interim report. http://www.braininitiative.nih.gov/09162013-Interim%20Report_Final%20Composite.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2014.
- Interview with Brian MacVicar November 5, 2018. Reha Erzumulu made a similar point in his November 4, 2018 interview as well.
- Interview with Huda Akil November 6, 2018.
- Interview with William Martin, November 5, 2018.
- Interview with Karl Herrup, December 17, 2018; Interview with Gordon Shepherd November 3, 2018; Interview with Steven Hyman November 4, 2018.
- Interview with Steven Hyman, November 4, 2018.
- James McNamara, John Morrison, Larry Swanson, Melissa Garcia, and Cori Spencer all touched on this topic in their November 2018 and January 2019 interviews.
- Interview with Elisabeth Von Bockstaele, November 7, 2018.
- Interview with Ramesh Raghupathi, November 4, 2018.
- Alexxai Kravitz, Carol Barnes, Irwin Levitan, Eric Chudler, Michael Goldberg, and Ramesh Raghupathi all expressed concern about this issue in their November 2018 interviews.
- Interview with John Morrison November 5, 2018; Interview with Eric Nestler, November 3, 2018.
- Interview with Carla Shatz, November 5 2018.
- Interview with Marina Picciotto, November 4, 2018.
- The Science Knows No Borders Program enabled scientists who had been denied a US travel visa to attend the 2019 Annual Meeting to share their research and engage with colleagues through virtual poster, symposium, nanosymposium, and minisymposium sessions.
- https://www.aaas.org/programs/r-d-budget-and-policy/historical-trends-federal-rd
- Alberts, B, M W Kirschner, S Tilghman, and H Varmus. “Rescuing US Biomedical Research From Its Systemic Flaws.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, no. 16 (2014): doi:10.1073/pnas.1404402111.
- Interview with Dennis Choi, November 5, 2018.
- Interview with Cara Altimus, November 7, 2018.
- Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Working Group. Advisory Committee to the NIH Director interim report. http://www.braininitiative.nih.gov/09162013-Interim%20Report_Final%20Composite.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2014.
- The members of the 50th Anniversary Working Group, in addition to Larry Swanson, included Tom Albright, Larry Squire, Lisa Monteggia and Amy Bastian.
- https://profiles.stanford.edu/fei-fei-li/.
- /about/50th-anniversary/
artechouse-exhibit. - /about/history-of-sfn/1969-2019.
- https://neuronline.sfn.org/listen.
- /membership/chapters/2019-chapter-video-challenge.The challenge winners were the Michigan Chapter, Greater New York Chapter, and the Kiev Chapter.
- Mountcastle, Vernon B. “Brain Science at the
Century’s Ebb.” Daedalus 127 (Spring, 1998), p. 1. - https://www.themorrisonlab.org/news.
