Lesson 7 — Who Does What? Why? Who Pays?
How Does the Brain Actually Work?
Learning Material
1 pagesLesson 7 — Who Does What? Why? Who Pays?
Understanding the Complex: How Does the Brain Actually Work?
In April 2013, Barack Obama stood in the East Room of the White House and announced a research initiative with an ambition comparable to the Human Genome Project: BRAIN — Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies. The goal was to map the activity of every neuron in the human brain in real time. The initial budget was 100million;ithassincegrowntoover500 million annually from federal sources alone.
A month earlier, the European Commission had announced its own major neuroscience project: the Human Brain Project, funded at €1 billion over ten years. Its declared goal was nothing less than building a working simulation of the human brain on a supercomputer — the most computationally ambitious scientific project in history.
Both projects have since been revised, scaled back, and redirected. But their announcement marked a turning point: brain science had become a geopolitical priority. Governments decided that understanding the brain was too strategically important — for medicine, for defense, for the coming collision with artificial intelligence — to leave to individual labs.
The academic landscape
Most neuroscience still happens in universities and independent research institutes, funded by government grants. In the United States, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — specifically the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) — are the primary funders of basic research.
The Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, founded by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen in 2003 with a $100 million personal gift, has become a major player. It operates differently from traditional academic labs — running large-scale, systematic mapping projects rather than hypothesis-driven experiments. Its Allen Mouse Brain Atlas — a comprehensive map of gene expression across the entire mouse brain — became a standard tool for the field within years of release.
The Max Planck Institute for Brain Research in Frankfurt, the Charité in Berlin, and the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience across German universities are the main DACH nodes in the European network. The Bernstein Center specifically focuses on computational neuroscience — the mathematical modeling of how neural systems process information.
In Lausanne, the Blue Brain Project under Henry Markram built detailed computational simulations of small cortical circuits using detailed anatomical and physiological data from rats. It was this project that grew into the controversial Human Brain Project.
The Human Brain Project: ambition and controversy
The Human Brain Project (HBP) was launched with extraordinary claims. Markram told a TED audience in 2009 that the team would build a synthetic brain within 10 years. European Commission funding followed.
By 2014, a public letter signed by over 750 neuroscientists accused the project of poor governance, excessive exclusivity, and a simulation strategy that was scientifically premature — you can't simulate what you don't yet understand. A crisis of governance led to restructuring. The project's final phase shifted away from grand simulation claims toward building shared digital research infrastructure: databases, simulation tools, and collaborative platforms that the broader community could use.
The controversy matters as a case study: in very large science, the gap between political announcements and scientific reality can be enormous. Neuroscience is harder than genomics because the brain's function is not simply a product of its molecular composition but of its dynamic activity across time.
Neuralink and the private sector
Elon Musk founded Neuralink in 2016 with the stated goal of developing high-bandwidth brain-computer interfaces that could eventually allow humans to "merge with AI." The company has since developed implantable devices with up to 1,024 electrodes — far more than previous academic BCIs — and miniaturized the hardware to a coin-sized package.
In 2024, Noland Arbaugh became the first human patient. The device performed broadly as expected: he was able to control a computer cursor and play games with neural signals.
Neuralink's position in the field is contested. Academic BCI researchers — at BrainGate, at the University of Pittsburgh, at Caltech — were doing similar work years earlier with less fanfare. What Neuralink has contributed is engineering: miniaturization, wireless transmission, and the ability to read from and write to the brain simultaneously.
What Neuralink has not contributed, critics note, is basic science. The company runs trials to validate devices, not to understand how the brain works. That distinction matters: safety and long-term efficacy depend on understanding what the implant is doing at the cellular level, which requires the kind of slow, unglamorous basic research that private companies have limited incentive to fund.
How funding shapes science
This tension between applied and basic neuroscience is worth holding in mind throughout the field. Medical funders — NIH, pharmaceutical companies — prioritize research that might produce treatments. Private investors prioritize scalable products. Basic science — understanding how the brain works even when there's no obvious application — is chronically underfunded relative to its long-term value.
Many of the biggest breakthroughs in neuroscience came from research that had no obvious application at the time: the discovery of optogenetics, the mapping of receptor pharmacology that made SSRIs possible, the identification of sleep's role in memory consolidation. The payoff from understanding a system precedes the payoff from engineering it.
Next lesson: What's Contested? What Don't We Know? — The four open questions, and where the scientific community genuinely disagrees.
Reading time: approx. 10–11 minutes