BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Standards..., ...and the future of Neuroscience...
dutch84
post Dec 15, 2007, 10:14 PM
Post #1


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Apr 17, 2006
Member No.: 5115



Standards are important, because they drive the direction of progress.

Even the revolutionaries tend to fall within the limits set by current standards (for the most part).

So, my question to the readers is:

What standards to you think should be set in place for the study of neuroscience?
Do you think the current standards are sufficient?
What changes would you like to see made?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Dec 15, 2007, 11:42 PM
Post #2


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



excellence in research is a standard, though I don't think I quite get your question since there are many standards from different sources (for example, those from research institutions, funding agencies, collaborators, etc..), each of which plays in neuroscience. With such a diverse set of standards guiding the field, does it make sense to talk about just a single set of standards, which would presumably be universally applicable, or is it more sensible to recognize that multiple, often competing, standards guide (and sometimes drive) the process?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dutch84
post Dec 23, 2007, 09:34 AM
Post #3


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Apr 17, 2006
Member No.: 5115



I appreciate the concept of "excellence in research", but i think the question should be asked, "what is the ultimate goal", I suppose.

I went to a school with a diverse group of people, and I guess, I'm just asking, because there are a lot of different types of people who can interpret the same principles in different ways. So, the question is, what is the standard so that those who want to build on it, or feel the need to build something to the contrary can do so.

For example, there is the whole debate about cochlear implants. I think that is a very hot topic.

Questions should be raised about what sounds are essential for daily living (if any at all)? Freedom to refuse treatment is an issue, and how to handle those who can not "survive and/or subsist" as a result of the standards in place and/or their willingness to comply with them...
Also, there are people (I believe) who develop hearing problems, because of an incompatibility between their "cognitive model" and the speech sounds being produced around them on a daily basis.

I'm just saying that all of these are things that should be put into consideration, and they probably are, in major debate forums around the world between the current leaders in this field, but I guess I wanted to see what people on this forum had to say about it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st November 2017 - 02:55 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles