[Neurobureau-hubs] next large group call

[Oliver Lyttelton]

Like!

On 11 July 2011 14:32, joshua vogelstein <joshuav at jhu.edu> wrote:

> my vote:
>
> every being is already part of the NB
>
> signing up makes one a vertex of the neuro bureau network
>
> vertices collectively appoint hubs and advisory boards and such
>
> this potentially includes non-academics. we strive to be open....
>
> in peace,
> j
>
> --
> If it makes you feel better, please remember to consider humanity before
> doing stuff. Otherwise, please just have a nice day.
> openconnectomeproject.org
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Oliver Lyttelton <
> oliver.c.lyttelton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I hear your point, and it may be better that way.
>>
>> Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting membership of the bureau should be
>> just for students, but that the hubs should be drawn from the student body.
>>
>> I totally agree that having junior faculty on board both as members and
>> also in a leadership role is vital.
>>
>> sort of:
>> students elect hubs
>>
>> hubs mature into leadership roles...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11 July 2011 13:18, MCLAREN, Donald <mclaren.donald at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it should extend to junior faculty in addition to post-docs.
>>> There are a number of junior faculty who could also benefit from the
>>> resources and contribute to the education and mentoring of students.
>>>
>>> Best Regards, Donald McLaren
>>> =================
>>> D.G. McLaren, Ph.D.
>>> Postdoctoral Research Fellow, GRECC, Bedford VA
>>> Research Fellow, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital
>>> and
>>> Harvard Medical School
>>> Office: (773) 406-2464
>>> =====================
>>> This e-mail contains CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION which may contain PROTECTED
>>> HEALTHCARE INFORMATION and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and which is
>>> intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the
>>> reader of the e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or
>>> agent
>>> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
>>> notified that you are in possession of confidential and privileged
>>> information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of
>>> any
>>> action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
>>> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail
>>> unintentionally, please immediately notify the sender via telephone at
>>> (773)
>>> 406-2464 or email.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Oliver Lyttelton
>>> <oliver.c.lyttelton at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Hi everyone,
>>> >
>>> > I kind of like the guerilla/commune aspect of the bureau. As we all get
>>> on
>>> > in our careers, aspirations mature, and certainly encouraging "open
>>> > neuroscience" extends a lot further than a subversive PhD/Post-doc
>>> society
>>> > aimed at getting the big power-players to bring down their walls and
>>> allow
>>> > us to work together easily.
>>> >
>>> > But as we move beyond those ideas towards creating an "open
>>> neuroscience"
>>> > infrastructure we hit straight into other big projects aimed in the
>>> same
>>> > arena, and I think, risk losing our identity.
>>> >
>>> > Since I can't make wednesday, ( I have a 3 hour meeting with my
>>> > supervisor...) and it looks like that will probably be the day for the
>>> > meeting, based on everyone else's availability, here is my wish list:
>>> >
>>> > ------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > 1) Whatever else the neurobureau becomes, I'd like to see it maintain
>>> its
>>> > role as an international student/(masters/phd/postdoc) support
>>> > group/watchdog championing the cause of people who are often severely
>>> > disenfranchised by the scientific establishment.
>>> >
>>> > 2) Open membership. I'd like to see that at every event the bureau
>>> hosts,
>>> > everyone is encouraged to become a member, as Mike pointed out, with
>>> simple
>>> > instructions as to how to join. Somewhere there should be a list of
>>> members,
>>> > and an infrastructure in place to help people reach their local hubs
>>> and set
>>> > up their own local, student initiatives. Why not use Facebook?
>>> >
>>> > 3) I would like to see hubs elected by the members. I'd like to see a
>>> date
>>> > set for the first elections (perhaps next year) and a roadmap as to how
>>> to
>>> > get there.
>>> >
>>> > 4) Anyone who is no longer a student (and in my mind not eligible to
>>> run for
>>> > election as hub) could become part of the of leadership structure,
>>> beyond
>>> > the hubs, which interact and interface between the hubs and the
>>> existing
>>> > power structures within the field, championing the cause of
>>> > open-neuroscience, and looking after the rights of the student body.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for reading,
>>> >
>>> > with my best wishes to everyone,
>>> >
>>> > Oliver
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 10 July 2011 12:40, Pierre Bellec <pierre.bellec at criugm.qc.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Dear Joshua et al,
>>> >> What you describe makes me think of one of the idea initiated by Mike
>>> >> Milham. Basically we would have a number of research centers which
>>> would
>>> >> provide some free space for datasets and some free resources for
>>> >> computation, with as many tools as possible. I think it's important to
>>> have
>>> >> multiple data repository centers to have "mirrors" and cut down access
>>> time
>>> >> in various part of the world. These mirrors can be linked to multiple
>>> >> places, such as NITRC. The key idea is that you can use the data and
>>> the
>>> >> resources, or even upload your own data to process it there, but then
>>> you
>>> >> have to commit to make it public, at least at some defined point.
>>> That's a
>>> >> viral model for open data (and tool) sharing. Of course, the sites
>>> would
>>> >> have common protocols, and share their databases to a large extent so
>>> they
>>> >> would be driving forces in that network. What's cool about that model
>>> is
>>> >> that there is no need to install a virtual machine to share tools or
>>> data,
>>> >> and no limit to the computational power you can access (if the centers
>>> are
>>> >> plugged into high-performance computing facilities).
>>> >> I am definitely working towards that at my level. As I mentioned to
>>> you, I
>>> >> am a "pipeliner" and I have developed software specifically targeted
>>> at
>>> >> pipeline development and deployment (PSOM and NIAK, which are the
>>> >> octave/matlab equivalent of NIPYPE and NIPY). There is also the
>>> project of
>>> >> Alan Evans, CBRAIN, which aims at providing a generic interface to
>>> >> download/upload databases, and send processing on a grid of
>>> supercomputers.
>>> >> Currently CBRAIN interfaces about 50000 cores, but this has not been
>>> >> negotiated for open access. I am pretty sure it could though, if rules
>>> were
>>> >> defined. Instead of writing this ridiculously long email, I should
>>> actually
>>> >> be writing a paper about a generic system to deploy any pipeline coded
>>> using
>>> >> PSOM into CBRAIN. That's how we (me, Sébastien Lavoie-Courchesne and
>>> >> François Chouinard-Decorte) have preprocessed the ADHD200 dataset.
>>> Alan also
>>> >> applied for a 5 Pb data storage (I am on that application) so, if that
>>> goes
>>> >> through, Montreal could be one of the mirroring site. We could try to
>>> >> implement this computational infrastructure at various sites of the
>>> >> neurobureau and make it happen. It's all possible in a short time. It
>>> could
>>> >> maybe even get funded, but as Mike pointed out that's not a necessity.
>>> >> BTW, because this project fits a number of large efforts in the field,
>>> I
>>> >> think it's important for us to be connected with the key senior
>>> players
>>> >> somehow. That's partly what motivated me to propose this "senior
>>> advisory
>>> >> board" (it could be beneficial beyond that particular point though).
>>> If we
>>> >> can be some sort of proof of concept for a larger effort, good.
>>> Conversely,
>>> >> if someone gets funded to do that, hopefully we'll be part of it.
>>> >> Finally, re the polymath project, one of the Alex of the neurobureau
>>> wrote
>>> >> something about that on the neurobureau blog. We don't actually need a
>>> big
>>> >> infrastucture for that. All we need is a "grand challenge" as well as
>>> a
>>> >> dataset where this grand challenge can be resolved. Actually, the
>>> grand
>>> >> challenge could be the target of the workshop Donald suggested. I have
>>> an
>>> >> idea for a grand challenge, will do a separate email about that.
>>> >> Please let me know what you think,
>>> >> Pierre Bellec, PhD
>>> >> Chercheur adjoint
>>> >> Département d'informatique et de recherche opérationnelle
>>> >> Centre de recherche de l'institut de Gériatrie de Montréal
>>> >> 4565, Chemin Queen-Mary
>>> >> Montréal (Québec)
>>> >> H3W 1W5
>>> >> Université de Montréal
>>> >> http://simexp-lab.org/brainwiki/doku.php?id=pierrebellec
>>> >> (001)(514) 340 3540 #3367
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 2011/7/10 joshua vogelstein <joshuav at jhu.edu>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ah, thank you for bringing up this point! i agree that this is a very
>>> >>> important discussion, and that there are gradations of openness.
>>> consider
>>> >>> wikipedia: it is not the case that anybody can just write anything
>>> they
>>> >>> want.  wikimedia established guidelines, users are expected to
>>> follow.   the
>>> >>> same is true of arxiv.  i expect that we will want to establish
>>> similar
>>> >>> guidelines establishing what we are open to, and what we are not.
>>>  and i
>>> >>> imagine that those guidelines will be organic and grow with us as we
>>> learn
>>> >>> more and get more capabilities.
>>> >>> cheers, j
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> If it makes you feel better, please remember to consider humanity
>>> before
>>> >>> doing stuff. Otherwise, please just have a nice day.
>>> >>> openconnectomeproject.org
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:03 AM, MCLAREN, Donald
>>> >>> <mclaren.donald at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Along the discussion of openess. I think one of the early decisions
>>> if
>>> >>>> if there will be a new central data repository (a number already
>>> >>>> exist) or if we will use an existing one or if we will use multiple
>>> >>>> systems that are distributed. The other decision related to this is
>>> >>>> whether it should be fully open -- anyone can add to it -- or OPEN
>>> >>>> access -- where an 'elected' committe would review and vote on the
>>> >>>> submission or processing request -- or OPEN access -- where the
>>> >>>> storage owners would decide what is valuable enough to put on the
>>> >>>> system.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> These two questions will go hand in hand.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Saturday, July 9, 2011, Michael Milham <milham01 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>> > Folks,
>>> >>>> > Sitting in back of car stuck in traffic...so figured I'd give my
>>> >>>> > standard 2 cents sideline view commentary. When thinking through
>>> what to do
>>> >>>> > with an organization to make it meaningful, it is important to
>>> identify what
>>> >>>> > are the unaddressed needs of the community and what are the
>>> services you can
>>> >>>> > provide. I think it is important that folks think through how you
>>> want to
>>> >>>> > position the neurobureau in the community that will make it both
>>> unique and
>>> >>>> > effective (I.e., capable of taking ideas and making them reality)
>>> for the
>>> >>>> > community.
>>> >>>> > With respect to grants, do not underestimate the environment we
>>> are
>>> >>>> > heading into at the NIH...Tom Insel has been very open about the
>>> reality of
>>> >>>> > the times for NIMH and the challenges ahead for funding...same
>>> true for the
>>> >>>> > other institutes. Review will be harder than ever and more
>>> competitive.
>>> >>>> > Foundations and philanthropy will be very important. And so will
>>> tempering
>>> >>>> > expectations, and increasing distribution of work...when you see
>>> efforts
>>> >>>> > like the 1000 functional connectomes project, INDI and
>>> ADHD-200...those were
>>> >>>> > all done without dedicated funding...they are worth it, but do
>>> take a toll
>>> >>>> > on those executing them (Maarten will readily testify to this, as
>>> I am sure
>>> >>>> > Cameron will in his more recent efforts). One hopes their efforts
>>> can obtain
>>> >>>> > funding over time as they become established enough...but that is
>>> over time.
>>> >>>> > So, my point is efforts up front will likely be the product of
>>> folks working
>>> >>>> > overtime or gaining philanthropic support. Would set goals for
>>> neurobureau
>>> >>>> > to ensure feasibility.
>>> >>>> > Hope that makes sense.
>>> >>>> > With respect to openness...my limited view of the situation is
>>> that it
>>> >>>> > may feel closed in that folks see pins and branding all over the
>>> place...but
>>> >>>> > not much saying "email us here to become a member"...keeps people
>>> who do not
>>> >>>> > know the inner circle looking from the outside...don't think that
>>> is
>>> >>>> > intentional...and my view can be off.
>>> >>>> > Traffic has lightened...so, I will sign off on that note.
>>> >>>> > Sent from my iPhone
>>> >>>> > On Jul 9, 2011, at 11:32 PM, Pierre Bellec
>>> >>>> > <pierre.bellec at criugm.qc.ca> wrote:
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > @Donald
>>> >>>> > Yes, yes, yes !!! I love the idea of a workshop where people would
>>> try
>>> >>>> > to create something, rather than listen to talks. We had actually
>>> started
>>> >>>> > discussing something along those lines. One other idea was to have
>>> half
>>> >>>> > participants "senior" (should know what they're doing) and the
>>> other half
>>> >>>> > wanting to learn on a technique/set of techniques. We would pair
>>> seniors and
>>> >>>> > juniors based on interests. So it would also be an educational
>>> workshop.
>>> >>>> > Another idea would be to have a number of artists joining to work
>>> on one or
>>> >>>> > several pieces around the theme of the workshop, in interaction
>>> with the
>>> >>>> > scientists. In the case of Nathalie for example, there could even
>>> be some
>>> >>>> > imaging experiments going on as part of the workshop. Finally, I
>>> believe
>>> >>>> > there should be pre-workshop meetings on the web to discuss the
>>> work before
>>> >>>> > the event. 3, 4 or even 5 days are too short to achieve something
>>> if it's
>>> >>>> > not carefuly planned.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > Cheers,
>>> >>>> > Pierre Bellec, PhD
>>> >>>> > Chercheur adjointDépartement d'informatique et de recherche
>>> >>>> > opérationnelle
>>> >>>> > Centre de recherche de l'institut de Gériatrie de Montréal
>>> >>>> > 4565, Chemin Queen-Mary
>>> >>>> > Montréal (Québec)
>>> >>>> > H3W 1W5Université de Montréal
>>> >>>> > http://simexp-lab.org/brainwiki/doku.php?id=pierrebellec
>>> >>>> > (001)(514) 340 3540 #3367
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > 2011/7/9 MCLAREN, Donald <mclaren.donald at gmail.com>
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > I'm stealing this idea from the Advanced Psychometrics Workshop
>>> (its
>>> >>>> > partially funded by the NIH).
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > Each year, we should pick a place -- somewhere unique -- and hold
>>> a
>>> >>>> > small workshop. I'm thinking 30 people maximum where they would
>>> apply
>>> >>>> > and we'd choose the people. At the workshop, there would be some
>>> talks
>>> >>>> > and then we'd divide into 3-4 workgroups and analyze a dataset.
>>> From
>>> >>>> > this one or more papers could be produced from each group.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > I should also point out, that all the papers could form a special
>>> >>>> > issue (e.g. Brain and Behavior is having a special issue just on
>>> the
>>> >>>> > papers from the Advanced Psychometrics Workshop this year).
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > After a year or two, we could probably get some NIH funding. This
>>> >>>> > would be a good starting point for building a research focused
>>> >>>> > organization. I also think that once we get going, then it would
>>> be
>>> >>>> > easiest to be driven by corporate money. I think there will be a
>>> lot
>>> >>>> > of resistance from institutions in the US from letting faculty
>>> apply
>>> >>>> > for grants through the NB. To much lost revenue from the indirect
>>> >>>> > costs.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > Now, if its truly a research institution, with its own facility,
>>> >>>> > that's another story. However, I think that is probably a number
>>> of
>>> >>>> > years away.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > At least that is how it seems.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > Best Regards, Donald McLaren
>>> >>>> > =================
>>> >>>> > D.G. McLaren, Ph.D.
>>> >>>> > Postdoctoral Research Fellow, GRECC, Bedford VA
>>> >>>> > Research Fellow, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General
>>> >>>> > Hospital and
>>> >>>> > Harvard Medical School
>>> >>>> > Office: (773) 406-2464
>>> >>>> > =====================
>>> >>>> > This e-mail contains CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION which may contain
>>> >>>> > PROTECTED
>>> >>>> > HEALTHCARE INFORMATION and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and
>>> which is
>>> >>>> > intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.
>>> If
>>> >>>> > the
>>> >>>> > reader of the e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee
>>> or
>>> >>>> > agent
>>> >>>> > responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
>>> >>>> > hereby
>>> >>>> > notified that you are in possession of confidential and privileged
>>> >>>> > information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the
>>> taking
>>> >>>> > of any
>>> >>>> > action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
>>> >>>> > prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail
>>> >>>> > unintentionally, please immediately notify the sender via
>>> telephone at
>>> >>>> > (773)
>>> >>>> > 406-2464 or email.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Pierre Bellec
>>> >>>> > <
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> Best Regards, Donald McLaren
>>> >>>> =================
>>> >>>> D.G. McLaren, Ph.D.
>>> >>>> Postdoctoral Research Fellow, GRECC, Bedford VA
>>> >>>> Research Fellow, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General
>>> Hospital
>>> >>>> and
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Harvard Medical School
>>> >>>> Office: (773) 406-2464
>>> >>>> =====================
>>> >>>> This e-mail contains CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION which may contain
>>> >>>> PROTECTED
>>> >>>> HEALTHCARE INFORMATION and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and which
>>> is
>>> >>>> intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.
>>> If
>>> >>>> the
>>> >>>> reader of the e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee
>>> or
>>> >>>> agent
>>> >>>> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
>>> hereby
>>> >>>> notified that you are in possession of confidential and privileged
>>> >>>> information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking
>>> of
>>> >>>> any
>>> >>>> action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
>>> >>>> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail
>>> >>>> unintentionally, please immediately notify the sender via telephone
>>> at
>>> >>>> (773)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 406-2464 or email.
>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>> Neurobureau-hubs mailing list
>>> >>>> Neurobureau-hubs at www.nitrc.org
>>> >>>> http://www.nitrc.org/mailman/listinfo/neurobureau-hubs
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Neurobureau-hubs mailing list
>>> >> Neurobureau-hubs at www.nitrc.org
>>> >> http://www.nitrc.org/mailman/listinfo/neurobureau-hubs
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Neurobureau-hubs mailing list
>>> > Neurobureau-hubs at www.nitrc.org
>>> > http://www.nitrc.org/mailman/listinfo/neurobureau-hubs
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Neurobureau-hubs mailing list
>> Neurobureau-hubs at www.nitrc.org
>> http://www.nitrc.org/mailman/listinfo/neurobureau-hubs
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nitrc.org/pipermail/neurobureau-hubs/attachments/20110711/6093463e/attachment-0001.html