(BGF) – Recently BGF was fortunate to be able to sit down with Professor Robert Desimone in the latest installment of the Boston Global Forum Leader Series. Professor Desimone is the Doris and Don Berkey Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, Director of the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT, and a member of the Boston Global Forum’s Board of Thinkers. In his BGF Leader Series lecture Professor Desimone addressed the work of the McGovern Institute and recent advances in neuroscience research. He also took the time to answer questions sent in from viewers. The transcription of Professor Desimone’s BGF Lecture is provided below. A briefing of Professor Desimone’s talk is also available.
Tuan Nguyen: Welcome! I am Tuan Nguyen, Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Boston Global Forum. I am very honored to introduce Professor Robert Desimone.
Robert Desimone is the director of the McGovern Institute and the Doris and Don Berkey Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT and a member of the Boston Global Forum’s Board of Thinkers. Prior to joining the McGovern Institute in 2004, he was director of the Intramural Research Program at the National Institutes of Mental Health, the largest mental health research center in the world. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a recipient of numerous awards, including the Troland Prize of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Golden Brain Award of the Minerva Foundation.
Governor Michael Dukakis, Chairman of Boston Global Forum visited the McGovern Institute on December 12, 2013. He is very impressed and has a high respect for the achievements of the McGovern Institute and Professor Robert Desimone. He and Kitty Dukakis will visit the Institute again in late April 2014. Today Chairman Michael Dukakis and Kitty Dukakis are in Los Angeles, they send their warmest regards to Professor Robert Desimone and the McGovern Institute for Brain Research.
Boston Global Forum will recognize and honor the McGovern Institute’s research achievements and Edward M. Scolnick Prize in Neuroscience in the Boston Global Archive, and at a later stage BGF will add it to the Boston Global Museum, an initiative we are working on for the future.
Today, We are very honored to present to you Professor Robert Desimone on the BGF Leader Series. Thank you so much. Now, Professor Robert Desimone.
Prof. Desimone: Thank you, Tuan. Thank you so much for inviting me to speak on the Boston Global Forum. I support the mission of the Boston Global Forum very much and I especially appreciate the support that Governor Dukakis and Kitty Dukakis have given over the years to brain research – I’m going to talk quite a bit about that today. I’m really just delighted to part of the forum and speaking to you. I thought I would start by just giving you a little bit about my own background. When I was in college, at that time I thought I wanted to be a psychotherapist and help people in therapy suffering from mental illness. Actually, I realized that my talents were not in therapy and I actually had stronger talents in neuroscience research and so I pursued my graduate work at Princeton in neuroscience research and then went to the National Institutes of Health, particularly the National Institute of Mental Health where I was a scientist in the program and eventually became a lab head in the program pursuing my research on the neural basis of how the brain pays attention. Then, at some point, I was asked to become the head of the intramural program for the NIMH, which is the internally funded research division of the National Institute of Mental Health – it is the largest mental health research center in the world, with research ranging from mice to many clinical wards with patients ranging from children to the elderly with a great many clinicians and psychiatrists in the program. When I became responsible for the program I realized how difficult it was for our clinicians to be making progress in coming up with new treatments for the patient populations. They were incredibly committed and they were incredibly smart and hard working, but the sad fact was that the pipeline of new ideas – new drugs and so on – was really pretty dry. I foresaw that this was going to continue unless we really made more progress in understanding a lot of the fundamentals of how the brain worked so that we could develop new treatments based on this fundamental understanding of the brain and its circuits. To make progress in this fundamental research that’s when I decided I would come to MIT – I was offered to become the Director of the McGovern Institute at MIT, which was a fantastic opportunity for me.
Just a bit about the McGovern Institute. The McGovern Institute was founded in 2000 by Pat and Lore McGovern at MIT. Over the years we have put together a team of faculty members that now includes 19 faculty members whose research ranges from basic mechanisms of genetics and neural development, even in worms going up through a variety of other animal species and then into human subjects where we study human cognition, health, and disease. We have many distinguished faculty members – several members of the National Academy of Science and one Nobel Prize winner, Bob Horvitz, for his work on the genetic basis of program cell death which plays a very important role in the development and ongoing operation of the brain. In retrospect, I feel that the decision to come to MIT, where we had such a strong foundation in basic research, was really the best decision I have made in my research career and my decision has really been borne out by what has happened since then. It has become clear in just the last few years that psychiatric diseases that we thought, for example, were very, very distinct from one another – schizophrenia, bipolar disease, autism, very, very distinct orders that at least appeared so from a clinical point of view – actually share many, many genes that lead to vulnerability for these disorders. Many of these genes affect how neurons communicate with each other in the brain and problems in neural communication can lead to increased vulnerability for any number of psychiatric disorders. So, focusing on the fundamentals – focusing on those commonalities, things like: how neurons communicate in the healthy brain and how can that go wrong?; how can you have miscommunication that would lead to a psychiatric disorder? – has really proven to be the best approach. Once you lay this foundation of knowledge at a basic level then you can proceed on to translational studies where you can test new treatments.
This philosophy has been adopted also by our president, President Obama, in the new BRAIN Initiative, which is focused on the development of new technology for brain research. New technology is one of those things where when you have an all-new technique – it’s like for the astronomers the invention of the telescope or for the biologist, the invention of the microscope. For the neuroscientist, putting powerful new tools in their hands is going to lead to rapid progress across the board in neuroscience research and it will surely accelerate the pace of research that will lead to new treatments for mental disease.
I thought I would use the next few minutes to tell you about some of the most exciting advances in brain research, all of them actually driven by new technology that has been developed in just the past few years. I guess I would start with sort of the prototype for how we imagine research becoming accelerated in the future, which is the cost of sequencing the genome. As many of you know, it was the human genome sequencing project that led to the sequencing of the human genome some years ago, but it was an incredibly expensive enterprise that took tremendous resources, spread across labs, and took many years to accomplish. But now the cost of sequencing has dropped so low, compared to the initial cost, that a project that initially was many millions of dollars now costs on the order of a few thousand dollars to sequence the genome of one individual. That has opened up genomic approaches to large populations. We’ve had an explosion of genetic discoveries in all areas of medicine but I would say particularly in psychiatric disorders where we have now a reasonable understanding of some of the many genes that are contributing to vulnerabilities to these disorders. Now, of course, there is no direct link between a genetic mutation and a psychiatric disorder in almost any case, only very rare cases. But the mutations can lead to increased vulnerability – so there may be some other event that happens in life, whether it’s a virus, a biological factor, an environmental stresser, many, many different factors are going to interact on a genetic basis – but together these genetic mutations can lead to this increased vulnerability and that’s fueling a host of new neuroscience studies to understand this link between a genetic vulnerability and how you ultimately end up with an abnormally functioning neural circuit and then dysfunctional behavior and once we understand those links then we can intervene with treatment. We’ve tremendously benefitted from the new technology involved in sequencing. Some of the other major advances in just the last few years include what, in neuroscience, we call optogenetics. This is one of the many tools of neuroscience that has come out of the genetic program – these are the tools of genetics. With optogenetics researchers are able to insert genetic material into neurons and make them sensitive to light. That allows the researchers to have exquisite control over the neural circuits involved in health and disease – these are in animal models so far – but have exquisite control over these neural patterns and to test our ideas about how these circuits work and how they might break down from disease. There will be clinical applications in the future. Perhaps the first will be in the treatment for blindness – there are already studies underway to put this genetic material into cells in our retina for people suffering from macular degeneration, retinitis pigmentosa, for example – that could help restore vision in these people by making some of the other neural elements in the retina sensitive to light when the photo-receptors are destroyed. I think we’ll see applications in brain stimulation and Parkinson’s Disease, perhaps depression, and so on. It has completely changed the pace of neuroscience discovery in just the last several years. Two, actually 3, of our faculty members here in the McGovern Institute played an absolutely key role in the development of optogenetics including Ed Boydon, Feng Zhang, and Guoping Feng, who are all continuing to do research, some of which involves optogenetics today.
Another major technological advance that has really impacted our research is human brain imagining in many forms. Most of it’s based on MRI machines which I’m sure most of the audience has seen pictures of these machines in magazine articles and so on; the large doughnut-shaped machines and people get inserted and then you can image the brain. Most people have seen structural images of brains that have come out of these machines but we can now image functional changes, we can track the activity patterns in the brain – at least on a coarse temporal time-scale – and you can actually see the brain at work as people solve problems, have emotions, understand situations, and so on, and its been applied now to many different patient groups to try to track down sources of abnormal neural circuits. In just the next few years I think that this new brain imaging technology will be paired with these genetic approaches so that, in the future, when we talk about genetic mutation that leads to a vulnerability for disease such as depression, or bipolar, or schizophrenia, we’d be able to actually say something about what that vulnerability really means. We might be able to say that the vulnerability involves abnormal activity in certain particular brain circuits that we’ve identified in MRIs by imaging people that we’ve done this genotyping on. Once we’ve narrowed that down, between the gene alteration and the abnormal activity in circuits, that is going to put us on the right path to new discoveries.
Another just really amazing discovery in just the past year came out of Stanford where in the Karl Deisseroth Lab they developed a way of making the brain, at least of animals, completely transparent so you can actually see straight through it. If you combine that technology with genetic tools for labeling cells you can track the connections within neural circuits with unprecedented precision. People are just now gearing up to apply this new technology and human brain material from people who have died but have lived lives where they’ve suffered from schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s Disease, and so on and we will be able, with unprecedented ability, to track the abnormalities in this brain tissue from people who have died with disease.
Increasingly we’re adopting the tools of modern industrial production in neuroscience research. One of the things that made genetic research possible was the application of robots that carried out the hundreds and thousands and millions of repetitive tasks to do the sequencing. Well, the same robotic technology is being applied to neuroscience studies where it’s now possible to use robots to record the activity of different interacting neurons. Soon we’ll have this ability to record and sample neural material from these disease models of human disease and relate the changes in neurons to the underlying genetic vulnerability that we see in mental disease. This is a program that is being spearheaded here by Ed Boyden in the McGovern Institute.
Of course, there is a great need for us to develop really quantitative theories of brain function. The incredible, valuable role of theories is obvious in fields like physics and chemistry, for example, but in neuroscience that’s been really difficult to achieve because we’ve lacked a lot of the basic facts about how these neural circuits work. Again, just in the last several years, in part due to the new technology and rapid pace of discovery, we’re developing better and better theories about how neural circuits work. We have a new center at MIT – the Center for Mind, Brains, and Machines headed by Tommy Poggio, a faculty member at the Institute – that is funded by the National Science Foundation with the goal of understanding human intelligence, developing quantitative, testable theories of intelligent behavior, and then testing these ideas through these models and even through applications to intelligent machines. So, for example, there was an effort to develop intelligent robots that would have some aspect of human intelligence and be able to learn from new situations and make better decisions and so on. This is really, I think, part of the overall effort that we’ll be seeing in the next few years to put intelligence into many of the devices we operate with everyday and I think our evaluation of that kind of intelligence will be is it the kind of intelligence that a human being would have in the same situation? And this is the kind of thing that neuroscience will be contributing a lot to is this understanding of what that intelligent behavior really is.
So, I’ve emphasized the disease applications of neuroscience because, of course that’s our primary goal in neuroscience research, but again, going back to the basic research enterprise, understanding the human brain is surely the greatest frontier in science today. It will give us insight into the nature of ourselves and it will clearly require the effort of people all over the world. We, here at the McGovern Institute, have interactions with scientists all over the world, we’re helping to build neuroscience programs in other countries, we have a very active program in China, for example. We want to bring in worldwide neuroscientists to work on these programs and in return I think we will also gain a better understanding of how the human brain functions in different cultures – how there may be miscommunications between people across cultures because of basically how our brains are constructed and how we might do a better job of understanding and communicating with people with many varied backgrounds, different expectations, and so on. I know that was certainly one of the initial goals of Pat and Lore McGovern when they founded the Institute, was to lead to this increased communications between people which would certainly lead to a better and more peaceful world for us all.
Finally, the last thing I’ll mention is, of course, many of you may have questions about the ethics of neuroscience research: what does this all mean? What are the implications of neuroscience research for many of the ethical issues we are concerned about – privacy and so on? And I think that that’s another topic that needs to be included in the mix of issues in the upcoming years of neuroscience research – we need to be attentive to these issues, we need to engage people in all areas from around the world in all walks of life in this discussion, and in the end have, I hope, everyone understand that we’re all in this effort together, we’re all making the effort and we’ll all reap the benefits I hope of neuroscience research in the future.
So, I hope that has given you a bit of an introduction to what we’re trying to do here and the research we do and I’d be happy to answer some of your questions.
Mr. Tuan: Great, thank you so much for your very interesting introduction and talk. Thank you to our audience for enthusiastically sending questions and watching our talks. So today we chose questions that were sent from our audience to ask the professor today. The first question is: is it true that we only use 10% of the productivity of our brains? As a neuroscientist, can you tell me the ways to unlock the brain to its highest potential productivity?
Robert Desimone: I think that the figure 10% is a bit of an exaggeration. But the point, I think, is highly relevant, which is that we don’t, in fact, use our brain to its fullest potential in many cases. And one of the goals of neuroscience research is to expand opportunities for people to realize that potential and particularly to influence the education of our children. We’ve learn a tremendous [amount] about how the brain learns and the conditions in which the brain learns optimally. And we’re already doing studies here at the McGovern Institute to see how we can improve education in schools, applying principles of neuroscience. We have tests going on both here in Boston and in sites around the world. And I would see that as a huge goal – is to enhance the learning of people from children going to adults.
Interviewer: So the next question is:Is there anything I can do to keep my brain in old age?
Robert Desimone: Well, that’s a question a lot of people are struggling with today. There’s a lot of interest in that as we all get older. We’re all thinking about what we can do to keep our brains healthy in aging. And there are certainly some studies that suggest that challenging mental activity can keep the brain healthy. And I think there is also good evidence that keeping your body healthy has the indirect effect of keeping your brain healthy. I mean your brain is another organ in the body and so people who keep themselves fit and exercise, and so on, are likely to have better blood flow to the brain and that’s all going to help as we get older.
Interviewer: So our audience wants to ask can we predict our actions and emotional state by learning about our brains?
Robert Desimone: Prediction is a tricky issue. I would say we would understand better our actions and emotional reactions to things from understanding the brain. To just give you one example, some neuroscientists have done studies of empathy – how it is that we can feel sorry for people. And we’ve had subjects in brain imaging scanners observing videos of other people interacting and so on. And what has been found is that when you see someone being hurt, that you’re utilizing some of the same neuro-circuits you use when you yourself are hurt. So empathy seems to involve a brain system that relates back to yourself. How would I feel in that situation? And that is something that would be strongly encouraged, for people to take on that attitude. And the brain is sort of biased to that kind of approach.
Interviewer: So the next questions are about the prize the achievements of the Institute. First question: from 2014, the winners and the achievements of the McGovern Institute for Brain research will be honored by the Boston Global Forum, and later the achievements will be put in Boston Global Museum. Can you explain more about the Scolnick Prize of Neuroscience and its link to unlock the human brain?
Robert Desimone: I should say first of all that the Scholnick Prize was endowed by the Merck Pharmaceutical Company to honor Ed Scholnick, who was their director of research for many years – I think 25 years. Led to many of the major, new drug treatments that came out of work over those years. And Ed is right here in Boston. He’s over at the Broad Institute right across the street from our Institute, where he leads a group doing research on psychiatric disorders. He’s a giant in the field of medicine and biology. The prize is meant to honor neuroscientists who have done outstanding work either at the basic level or more translational – closer to disease. Every year, it’s different. This particular year, the prize is going to Huda Zaghbi, who I think really epitomizes the goal of neuroscience. She’s someone who has done both basic research on brain circuits and the role of genes, but has also done fantastic work on understanding a particular genetic form of autism. She’s developed animal models. She’s identified some of the gene variants in people, and someone who is clearly making a difference in clinical science, and based on this foundation of great work in neuroscience.
Interviewer: Our audience wants to ask, what is the greatest achievement of the McGovern Institute?
Robert Desimone: Well in the time that the McGovern Institute has been in existence since 2000, I would say certainly our greatest recognition was the Nobel Prize that was won by Bob Horvitz for his work on the genetic basis of program cell death – incredibly important discovery in really all of biology. [It] certainly affects our understanding of brain function. That will be hard to top. But we’ve had many of our scientists who have made fantastic discoveries. One of our most senior, distinguished scientists, Ann Graybiel, is very well known for her work on the neural-circuits involved both in Parkinson’s Disease and, as it turns out, same circuits playing an important role on how we learn habits, repetitive actions and so on. We have the development of optic genetics, which initially started at Stanford, but a lot of that work is going on in the McGovern Institute here today. We have some fantastic new work from our faculty member Feng Zhang editing the genome like editing our DNA like you would in say a word processor. Incredibly important new tools. So I would say those are some things I would highlight.
Interviewer: So what research does The Institute focus on?
Robert Desimone: You know, I think one of our biggest strengths, is that we haven’t chosen one narrow topic as an institute but we’re supporting work on, really, a lot of areas, which share fundamental neural-mechanisms. It turns out, [as] I just mentioned, neural-circuits involved in learning new habits turned out to be neural-circuits that are playing a role in Parkinson’s Disease. So certain neurotransmitters, dopamine, for example involved in Parkinson’s Disease, play a very important role in normal learning and so on, and so on. So we’re building on this base of overlapping circuits and functions and then making progress from there.
Interviewer: So the next question is about the future of brain research. What achievements do you want to obtain in the next five years?
Robert Desimone: Well, as a director of an institute, I guess there’s always a temptation to promise perhaps more than can be delivered and I never like to overhype the progress of research in a short time frame. I do think it is realistic to expect that in the next five years we will really have made substantial progress in mapping out this pathway from a genetic alteration to an altered neural-circuit that underlies an important psychiatric disease. This will happen from animal models all the way up to human subjects.
Interviewer: Can you give a prediction to when scientists can really unlock the brain?
Robert Desimone: Well, I expect that that will be part of the one aspect of what our species is involved with forever – we will always try to understand our brain more and more just like saying when will we really unlock the secrets of the universe. I think there’s practically an infinity of secrets to unlock. So I really think it’s going to be exciting as the discoveries continue to roll in over time.
Interviewer: Do you think it is possible to reproduce human brains once we have unlocked them? And do you think it will make people immortal?
Robert Desimone: To understand human brains and…
Interviewer: After we unlock them, can we reproduce human brains?
Robert Desimone: You mean like in software?
Interviewer: Yeah.
Robert Desimone: Actually, I have two friends that were having a debate years ago of how we might most likely achieve immortality: one would be through biological approaches where we would learn to stop the aging process and the other would be through software, where we would understand so much about brain function load, essentially, our brain operations into a computer and then when our bodies died out, we could live forever in computer software. Anyhow, my two friends debated the opposite sides; they took opposite sides on that bet and we’re still waiting to see how that bet turns out. I don’t know about transferring our full consciousness, but as I said earlier we’re certainly going to have many aspects of human intelligence emulated in software and computers and so on. All the devices that we interact with – our phones, our tablets and so on are all going to be increasingly intelligent and less frustrating for us to deal with.
Interviewer: Do you think the spirit contained in human brains will end once humans pass away?
Robert Desimone: Well this question of whether there is an immortal soul that would live on past the death of the brain itself, I think obviously it’s a religious issue that I don’t think scientists have a lot to contribute to. I think that there’s a very healthy dialogue between religious leaders and scientists now and both sides trying to learn from each other. But scientists are no different from anyone else in wondering about questions just like that.
Interviewer: Can you explain more about the sixth sense? Where is it located in our brains and how does it work?
Robert Desimone: By the sixth sense, I’m assuming you mean some paranormal ability – that people have some sense of what’s going on in the world or other people and so on or what’s going to happen in the future. And I must say that that is a question that scientists can do research on, whether people truly have these abilities. Frankly, the evidence for this has been unconvincing so far, that people can predict the future or have awareness of things that can’t be experienced through any of their other senses. So I think people are open-minded, would be convinced if there were convincing evidence that came forward but I don’t think currently there’s evidence for those kind of abilities.
Interviewer: Some computer science students and some mathematicians in Vietnam want to ask whether they have any chance to research at your McGovern Institute. And if they do, how can they apply for that?
Robert Desimone: As I mentioned earlier, we have a strong interest in supporting and helping to develop neuroscience around the world. If you came to visit the McGovern Institute, you will see that we have people here from countries all around the world and including from Vietnam and we welcome people who want to be trained here and so on. Our contact information is on the website. If there’s someone who wants to do research and so on, we’d be happy to talk with them. Of course we are always looking for sources of support for people to come here. We’ve had some donors who have come forward and offered their support for people from some countries but we’d like to build that base of support for students from around the world. And I look forward to that.
Interviewer: The next question is from a computer expert in Vietnam and he would like to ask, “I would like to work as an associate for the McGovern Institute. I have a scholarship in research, can the McGovern Institute sponsor a Visa J1 for me?”
Robert Desimone: We sponsor many visa’s for international students and scientists from around the world. So again, I can’t comment on a particular case from someone I don’t know but I would welcome this person to contact us and we can have that dialogue. I’m hoping to visit Vietnam in the not-distant future. I hope to meet some people there. You know, one of the things I found is that there is often some reluctance to take people from a country if you don’t know anyone there – just human nature. It’s hard to evaluate people when you don’t know anything about them about the people who are recommending them. I think we need to build up this communication among the faculty members at different universities in different countries so we all know each other and we can appreciate their evaluations when they tell us they have a great student that would like to work with us. I take that as a very, very high priority.
Interviewer: So this is our last question today. Buddism has principal brain and its spirit. Do you agree with that principle?
Robert Desimone: I must say I’m not greatly familiar with Buddhism. I know that many Buddhists believe in the value of meditation and there’s quite a bit of research going on now around the world on the benefits of meditation and what effects meditation has on the brain. There’s, I think, quite good evidence that meditation leads to stress reductions and working through stress systems, it seems to have beneficial effects on many different aspects and bodily function – brain and other functions. So I think we have some people who have been practicing effective techniques for hundreds of thousands of years and I think we have the tools to do that now.
Interviewer: So we just have a new question from Vietnam. Director of the Institute of Biotechnology and Environment in Nha Trang University of Vietnam, “I’m now studying conotoxins from cone snails. It is the beginning of our institute. I have 2 questions for you. The first one is what do you think of the prospect conotoxin in neuroscience, and the treatment of disease related to the neuro-system?
Robert Desimone: You know I think some of our most exciting new ideas about treatments are coming from, we call, natural products—coming from nature. Conotoxins are an example of that, where different animal species, plants and so on have very active compounds that have evolved, of course for different reasons, but we discover that they have many applications in human disease. I’m not an expert in this particular case, but I think I’m very excited in general by that kind of approach.
Interviewer: The second question is, “I would like to build up a group of neuroscientists in my institute. Could we connect with your institute to get some help?”
Robert Desimone: Yes. We’d be happy to talk with anyone who’s building a neuroscience program. We could share advice, knowledge – there might be possibility of collaboration and so on. We are very, very open to that kind of approach. As I said, these are really big problems we’re working on and they are absolutely going to talk the efforts of people all around the world, and we all benefit from this interaction. It’s not one way. It’s not us just helping someone else. What I’ve found always in my international interactions is that once you begin that dialogue with people in other countries, everyone benefits. We all benefit – we all gain new knowledge, we all gain new talent in the field and so on. So I look forward to it.
Tuan Nguyen: Thank you so much for your questions, my audience. We selected around 25 questions but we are running out of time so we cannot send all questions to Professor Desimone. So we have a few last minutes, what things can you say with our audience. In Vietnam now, it’s nearly 10pm. I received some emails from our people – our audience says thanks so much from Paris. You know it’s night time in Paris or very early morning. So they are watching now. So thank you very much for your enthusiasm. Professor, please say something with our audience from Paris, from Vietnam.
Robert Desimone: All these other countries, I think they’re all later than us, right? They’re all later or later in the day or nighttime and so I especially appreciate that you’re up late at night to watch this program. I travel around the world, of course, my biggest problem is jetlag, where my own brain is functioning—maybe that is the 10 percent capacity that people worry about – at very low capacity. Maybe people can review some of the scientific material in the morning when their brains are fresh. Again I really appreciate this opportunity to talk to the Boston Global Forum. I will really appreciate it if it’s had some impact so that if people around the world do follow-up, do contact us, do think about neuroscience research, how they might support it, how they might participate and so on. That’s the practical outcome that I think makes us all happy.
Tuan Nguyen: I hear that on April 30, The Institute will have a lecture by the Scholnick Prize winner…
Robert Desimone: Zogbi, yes. We try to put all of our lectures online. We have a large video archive. We have many distinguished neuroscientists who have given talks here. If you go to our website, many of them are available. I believe that Dr. Zogbi’s talk will also be online. I encourage you to watch that and follow up.
Tuan Nguyen: Yes, great. Thank you so much. I wish the best for your institute and new achievements. And we’ll prepare for the visit of Governor Micahel Dukakis in late April. Maybe the governor can visit. We hope your institute will be the first to unlock the human brain.
Robert Desimone: So do we.
Tuan Nguyen: Thank you so much. Thank you for your time—a very interesting talk and or taking your time to talk to our audience. And thank you so much again for your time and for sending questions to Professor Desimone and for watching in the early morning. See you later in another program. Thank you.
(BGF) – In this article from The Japan News discusses China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea and the aggressive measures it is taking to enforce those claims. As the article notes, China has had a number of aggressive encounters with the U.S. as a result of China’s aggressive territorial claims, the most recent of which occurred on December 5, 2013 when a Chinese warship nearly collided with the USS Cowpens in an attempt to cut-off U.S. naval passage in the South China Sea. These actions, the article argues, are the result of China’s unusual interpretation its exclusive economic zone. Moreover, China’s aggressive actions in its territorial disputes in the South China Sea result from its efforts to slowly bolster its territorial claims through small actions that ultimately add up to de facto territorial control, also known as the ‘cabbage strategy’ or ‘salami-slicing’. Click here to read the full article.
Japan-China Cold War / China’s maritime aggression distorts international norms
This is the seventh installment in a series on the worsening relations between Japan and China.
On Dec. 5 last year, a dangerous incident erupted in the South China Sea between the USS Cowpens, an Aegis-equipped missile cruiser, and a Chinese warship. The two vessels came close to a collision in international waters.
According to the U.S. Defense Department, the Chinese ship drew near to the Cowpens, as if to cut into the path of the U.S. vessel. The Chinese warship remained on course despite warnings from the Cowpens of a dangerously close approach.
The U.S. vessel heaved to an emergency halt, narrowly averting a collision with the Chinese vessel. The two ships were only about 100 yards, or 90 meters, apart.
The Dec. 5 incident was the third of its kind to be triggered by China in reaction to U.S. military operations in the South China Sea. In April 2001, a midair collision occurred between a U.S. Navy EP (Electronic Patrol) reconnaissance aircraft and a Chinese F-8 fighter. Another incident followed in March 2009 when the USNS Impeccable, an ocean surveillance ship, encountered obstructive conduct by five Chinese warships including a naval information-gathering vessel.
At the time of the Dec. 5 incident, the Cowpens is believed to have been monitoring the Liaoning, China’s only aircraft carrier, which was engaged in a military exercise. According to a U.S. government source, the Chinese Navy vessel involved in the near-collision deliberately attempted to collide with the Cowpens in what was not just a case of a dangerous near-miss.
During a press conference on Dec. 19, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel expressed strong apprehension about China’s aggressive action toward the Cowpens. “That’s the kind of thing that’s very incendiary. That could be a trigger or a spark that could set off some eventual miscalculation,” he said.
China’s aggressive behavior was built on its own interpretation of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Beijing has argued, “We oppose any party carrying out any military acts in our exclusive economic zone without permission.”
The U.N. treaty defines the exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, as a zone over which a sovereign state can claim rights over the research and exploitation of marine resources in an area stretching 200 nautical miles, or about 370 kilometers, from the shoreline of the state.
The convention requires signatories to pay “due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State.” However, there is a clear line drawn between EEZs and territorial waters over the freedom of the seas.
Under the pact, a belt of waters extending up to 12 nautical miles, or about 22 kilometers, from the shoreline of a coastal state is regarded as part of the nation’s sovereign territory. Meanwhile, the convention grants any country the freedom of navigation and aviation in the EEZ, as well as the right to conduct such activities as laying submarine electric cables and pipelines. It follows that the pact imposes no restrictions on military activities in the EEZ, including warship navigation aimed at gathering information in the zone.
However, China treats its EEZ in nearly the same way as its territorial waters, declaring it to be “oceanic national land” or “state-controlled waters.” Beijing also defended its obstructive behavior toward U.S. forces by insisting that “the U.S. surveillance missions conducted in our EEZ are the root of military security problems in the sea and in the air space between China and the United States.”
The assertions made by China over its “oceanic national land” are most conspicuously evident in its territorial disputes with some neighbors over the South China Sea. The Paracel Islands are claimed by China, Vietnam and Taiwan, and the Spratly Islands by China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei and Taiwan.
China has drawn nine short lines on the map at various points near the edges of the South China Sea. Although these line segments do not touch each other, they effectively add up to a “nine-dashed line” extending from China’s southern coast in a gigantic U shape. China asserts that the area enclosed by the dashed line belong to its sovereign territory. In recent years, China has been aggressive in sending personnel from its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to conduct activities aimed at protecting what it describes as its “territory.”
The Hainan provincial government then enforced a law in January requiring foreign ships operating within the dashed line to apply for permission.
Japan, the United States and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations have urged China to abide by international law. However, China cannot be expected to abandon its strategy for expanding maritime activities, based on its seemingly arbitrary interpretation of international regulations. “It’ll be no easy task to persuade such an overconfident major power only through reason,” said Hirotaka Watanabe, director of the Institute of International Relations, an institution affiliated with the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
China’s tendency to interpret international practice in an arbitrary manner is also evident in its abrupt action taken in November to establish an air defense identification zone in the East China Sea, where the Senkaku Islands are located. The move was followed by Beijing’s coercive demand for foreign airplanes to abide by instructions issued by its authorities. These actions are comparable to those taken by China in the South China Sea.
For Japan, the exacerbation of friction between China and some of its Asian neighbors is of grave concern. A report issued by a Defense Ministry research institute warns of such a risk. “The role of the People’s Liberation Army is expanding to areas of ‘military operations other than war’ [MOOTW] and non-traditional security fields, such as the protection of maritime rights and interests,” the National Institute for Defense Studies said in its “China Security Report.”
The report concluded that “the cooperation for protecting China’s maritime interests between the PLA and its maritime law enforcement agencies is likely to strengthen not only in the South China Sea but also in the East China Sea.”
(BGF) –The Eurasia Review recently published the testimony provided by Daniel R. Russel, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, which he presented to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. Mr. Russel’s testimony discusses President Obama’s strategy of rebalancing toward Asia, the U.S. relationship with both Japan and The Republic of Korea, and the opportunities and challenges present in both relationships. As Mr. Russel notes, the Asia-Pacific Region is hugely important: “The broader region boasts over half the world’s population, half of the world’s GDP, and nearly half of the world’s trade, and is home to some of the world’s fastest growing economies.” Thus, what happens in Asia-Pacific Region can have global impacts, with significant implications for U.S. interests. Much of Mr. Russel’s testimony is included below. Click here to read the full testimony.
Opportunities and Challenges in U.S.-Japan and U.S.-Republic of Korea Alliances – Testimony
By Eurasia Review
Chairman Cardin and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss this important topic.
Early in his first term, President Obama began implementing his vision for the Asia-Pacific rebalance, based on America’s enduring stake in a prosperous and stable region. The United States has been, we are, and we will remain a Pacific power. In the second term, the Administration is building out this strategy. The Department of State is focused on dedicating diplomatic, public diplomacy, and assistance resources to the region in a way that is commensurate with the truly comprehensive nature of our engagement. And under Secretary Kerry we are intensifying our support for U.S. companies, climate and energy cooperation, people-to-people exchanges, youth and exchange programs, education, women’s empowerment, and other initiatives.
The members of this Subcommittee know well the importance of the Asia-Pacific region to American interests. The broader region boasts over half the world’s population, half of the world’s GDP, and nearly half of the world’s trade, and is home to some of the world’s fastest growing economies. More and more American citizens are now living, working, and studying in the Asia-Pacific region; people-to-people and family ties have witnessed tremendous growth. Growing numbers of American companies are investing in and exporting products and services to rapidly expanding East Asian markets. And, as the region’s economies continue to grow and their interests expand, it becomes increasingly important that the governments and institutions there contribute to upholding and strengthening international law and standards – ranging from human rights to environmental protection to responsible policies on climate change, maritime security, and trade and investment. Simply put, the effects of what happens in the Asia-Pacific region will be felt across the globe and have direct implications for America’s interests.
For all of the changes in Asia, this much is constant: our alliances in the region have been and will remain the foundation of our strategy towards the Asia-Pacific. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well as Ranking Member Rubio and the other members of the Subcommittee for your leadership, travel, and public statements which have all underscored the importance of our alliances to our vision of a secure, stable, and prosperous Asia-Pacific region. As you have noted, shared values and a shared history of successful partnership with the United States place Japan and the Republic of Korea (R.O.K.) at the center of this administration’s rebalance strategy. The success stories of the R.O.K. and Japan are powerful reminders of the broad range of benefits that accrue from a sustained commitment to free markets, democracy, and close cooperation with the United States. Our alliances with the R.O.K. and Japan contribute significantly to expanded security, stability, and prosperity across the region.
I am pleased to report today that our ties with both countries have never been stronger. Polling shows that the U.S.-R.O.K. relationship enjoys record levels of favorability in South Korea – and the United States has enjoyed this high level of support for the last two years. Polling also shows that 84 percent of Japanese citizens support our bilateral alliance. But we do not take our allies for granted. We are working hard with our Japanese and South Korean partners to adjust our presence and to modernize our alliances to help maintain peace and security and address broader shared interests across the Asia-Pacific and around the globe. The upcoming visit by President Obama to Japan and the R.O.K. will propel our efforts.
U.S.-Japan Alliance
Let me begin with Japan. The U.S.-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region; we cannot achieve the President’s goals without strong and growing ties between the United States and Japan. Our two countries are coordinating closely on a wide range of issues, including regional security and global hot-spots. As Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Kishida emphasized during their meeting in Washington last month, we are working diplomatically and militarily to strengthen and modernize the U.S.-Japan alliance.
I cannot overstate the importance of our alliance with Japan to continued U.S. leadership in the Asia-Pacific. Over 50,000 U.S. military and civilian personnel are stationed in Japan under the U.S.-Japan security treaty and the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement, under which Japan provides facilities and areas for U.S. forces for the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security. The Japanese government provides over $2 billion annually to off-set the cost of stationing U.S. forces in Japan: including the USS George Washington, which is the only U.S. aircraft carrier in the world that is forward-deployed. This strategic posture means that U.S. forces in Japan are capable of carrying out missions throughout the region and beyond.
U.S. support for the Japan Self-Defense Forces’ humanitarian assistance operations in the wake of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami were demonstrations of the Alliance’s strength and capability and set the stage for U.S.-Japan coordination on Typhoon Haiyan relief in the Philippines in 2013. The unprecedented landing of a U.S. Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey on a Japanese ship during the Haiyan response demonstrated our joint capabilities, and highlighted the interoperability of the U.S. and Japanese militaries.
Our security relationship with Japan made remarkable progress in 2013. Two important successes that my colleague from the Department of Defense can discuss in further detail were the October 2013 “2+2” meeting between Secretaries Kerry and Hagel and their Japanese counterparts, which launched the review of our two countries’ Bilateral Defense Guidelines, and Okinawa Governor Nakaima’s signing of the landfill permit for the Futenma Relocation Facility. We hope to use the Defense Guidelines review process to modernize our respective roles, missions, and capabilities for an alliance truly capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century.
Another key development is the Japanese government’s review of what the UN Charter describes as, “the right of collective self-defense.” Collective self-defense is simply defined as one nation taking action to help defend another nation from attack by a third party.
Japan’s constitution is the only one in the world that explicitly renounces war as an instrument of foreign policy. In the past, Japanese governments have chosen to interpret their constitution as not permitting the exercise of this right to collective self-defense. It is my understanding that the Japanese government is studying this interpretation.
The practical effect of a decision by Japan that it would be permissible to conduct collective self-defense could include enabling its UN peacekeeping troops to defend other UN peacekeepers under attack. Under the current policy, if North Korea were to launch a ballistic missile toward the United States, Japan could not use its ballistic missile defense interceptors to destroy that missile in flight. We recognize this is a decision for the Japanese government and people, and we welcome Japan’s openness and its steps to consult with countries in the region about these deliberations.
U.S.-Republic of Korea Alliance
The U.S.-Republic of Korea alliance is the linchpin of stability and security in Northeast Asia. 2013 marked the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-R.O.K. Mutual Defense Treaty, which serves as the foundation of our alliance and a force for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia. Our alliance with the R.O.K. was forged in shared sacrifice in the Korean War, and it continues to anchor security in the region today.
As Secretary Kerry reaffirmed during his meetings with R.O.K. leaders in Seoul last month, the U.S.-R.O.K. alliance is a critical component of Washington’s strategic engagement with the Asia-Pacific. Our open societies, our shared commitment to democracy and a market economy, and our sustained partnership provide a foundation for the enduring friendship that tightly binds the American and Korean peoples. Over the past six decades, our close cooperation has evolved into an increasingly global partnership, encompassing political, economic, social, and cultural cooperation and providing prosperity for both our peoples.
The United States remains dedicated to the defense of the Republic of Korea, including through extended deterrence and the full range of U.S. military capabilities, both conventional and nuclear, as emphasized in the Joint Declaration issued by President Obama and President Park in May 2013.
The United States and the R.O.K. recently concluded negotiations on a Special Measures Agreement (SMA), by which South Korea will increase its contributions to help off-set the cost of stationing of U.S. troops on the Korean Peninsula to $867 million in this year alone, demonstrating that both nations are politically and economically committed to making our alliance more sustainable and adaptable.
We are constantly working to improve readiness and interoperability in order to meet existing and emerging security threats. As my colleague Deputy Assistant Secretary Helvey can describe in detail, last week the United States and the R.O.K. began two of our largest annual joint military exercises, Key Resolve and Foal Eagle. Another major annual military exercise, Ulchi Freedom Guardian, is scheduled for August. And even as our alliance continues to counter the threat from North Korea, we are expanding our cooperation to meet 21st-century challenges beyond the Korean Peninsula.
DPRK-related Tensions
Our alliances with the R.O.K and Japan provide deterrence and defense against the threat posed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (D.P.R.K.) continued pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology. We will continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies in the face of this growing North Korean threat.
Mr. Chairman, over the years we have seen a pattern of North Korean provocations followed by “charm offensives” aimed at extracting payoffs and concessions from the West. Despite the D.P.R.K.’s recent overtures at engagement, we have yet to see credible indications that North Korea is prepared to come into compliance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, or even negotiate on the key issue: denuclearization. The United States remains committed to authentic and credible negotiations to implement the September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks and to bring North Korea into compliance with its international obligations through irreversible steps leading to denuclearization. We will not accept North Korea as a nuclear-armed state. We will not reward the D.P.R.K. merely for returning to dialogue. As the President has said, the D.P.R.K. can achieve the security, respect, and prosperity it claims to seek by choosing the path of denuclearization. For our part, the United States pledges to continue working toward a world in which the people of North and South Korea are peacefully reunited, and the Korean Peninsula is democratic, prosperous, and free of nuclear weapons.
In addition to our concern about the security situation on the Korean Peninsula, the United States remains gravely concerned about the human rights situation in the D.P.R.K. The UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry released its report last month, documenting the deplorable human rights situation in the D.P.R.K. We are working tirelessly to persuade the D.P.R.K. Government to release Kenneth Bae, the U.S. citizen who has been held in North Korea for more than a year. We welcome the recent release of an Australian citizen, but continue to urge the D.P.R.K. Government to release the R.O.K. citizen still under detention, just as we seek resolution of the cases of the many R.O.K., Japanese, and other citizens abducted and held by North Korea over the decades.
Challenges: Regional Tensions
Mr. Chairman, the United States takes a clear position with regard to behavior of states in connection with their territorial or maritime disputes: we firmly oppose intimidation, coercion and the use of force. In the East China Sea, we are concerned by an unprecedented increase in risky activity by China’s maritime agencies near the Senkaku Islands. The United States returned administration of the Senkakus to Japan in 1972, and they fall within the scope of the U.S.-Japan mutual defense treaty, in particular its Article V. Tensions over the Senkakus have led to a sharp downturn in Sino-Japanese relations. China and Japan are the world’s second- and third-largest economies and have a shared interest in a stable environment to facilitate economic prosperity. Neither of these two important countries, nor the global economy, can afford confrontation and crisis.
We object to unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo or advance a territorial claim though extra-legal or non-diplomatic means. Unilateral attempts to change the status quo raise tensions and do nothing under international law to strengthen claims. Therefore we were also concerned by China’s sudden and uncoordinated announcement of the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea last November. One of the problems with the Chinese ADIZ announcement is that it purports to cover areas administered or claimed by Japan and the R.O.K. We have been clear that China should not attempt to implement or enforce the ADIZ and it should refrain from taking similar actions in other sensitive or disputed areas.
I do not believe that any party seeks armed conflict in the East China Sea, but unintended incidents or accidents may lead to an escalation of tensions or a tit-for-tat exchange that could escalate. As such, we wholeheartedly endorse calls for crisis-prevention mechanisms, including senior-level communications to defuse situations before they become full-blown crises.
Our concerns are amplified by the situation in the South China Sea, where we are seeing a similar pattern of coercive behavior, strident rhetoric, and ambiguous claims. This is an issue that senior Administration officials have raised directly and candidly with Chinese leaders.
I would like to underscore for the committee that the Obama Administration has consistently made best efforts to build a strong and cooperative relationship with China. Tangible, practical and visible cooperation between the United States and China is critical to addressing regional and global challenges, from North Korea to climate change. Similarly, the United States seeks good relations between China and its neighbors; we encourage all our allies to pursue positive and constructive relations with China. I want to make very clear that our alliances, in Northeast Asia and around the region, are not aimed at China.
The United States welcomes the rise of a stable and prosperous China which plays a greater role in strengthening regional stability, prosperity, and international rules and norms. A strong diplomatic, economic, and military presence by the United States has helped create the conditions that made China’s extraordinary growth possible and that presence remains essential to regional stability. No country should doubt the resolve of the United States in meeting our security commitments or our determination to uphold the principle of freedom of navigation and overflight. But neither should there be any doubt about the Administration’s desire for constructive relationship with China based on solving regional and global problems as well as managing disagreement and areas of competition.
Strategic Cooperation in the Region and Beyond
One of the strongest signs of the maturity of our partnerships with the R.O.K. and Japan is our cooperation on global issues beyond our respective borders, from humanitarian assistance to climate change. The benefits of our cooperation with Japan and South Korea are not limited to the people of our three countries, but increasingly accrue to citizens around the world.
Yet at this moment, and despite our many areas of cooperation and common interest, relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea are strained. The current tension between our two allies is a cause for concern, and a problem that requires sincere efforts by both parties to address. There is an urgent need to show prudence and restraint in dealing with difficult historical issues. It is important to handle them in a way that promotes healing. We are working closely with our Japanese and R.O.K. partners to encourage them to take the steps needed to resolve tensions caused by the legacy of the last century through patient and persistent diplomacy. The simple fact, Mr. Chairman, is that strategic cooperation among the United States, Japan, and the R.O.K. is essential to developing the security order in Northeast Asia, especially given the threats facing us and our allies from North Korea and other regional uncertainties. No one can afford to allow the burdens of history to prevent us from building a secure future.
That is why it is so important that we have been able to cooperate with Japan and the R.O.K. on relief efforts, development, and other important projects throughout Southeast Asia. For example, we saw the benefits of increased trilateral disaster response capacity just last fall when the United States, Japan, and South Korea were leading contributors of humanitarian and recovery assistance to the Philippines following the devastation left by Typhoon Haiyan. We are working trilaterally with the R.O.K. and Japan to further improve our interoperability and information sharing during a disaster.
Japan and South Korea are models for other nations in the region and around the world. Both the R.O.K. and Japan have transitioned from one-time recipients of foreign aid to important donors. Whereas once Peace Corps volunteers were seen throughout the R.O.K., the Peace Corps and its counterpart recently signed a memorandum of understanding that will enable both parties to cooperate in third countries around the world – in fact, the R.O.K.’s Peace Corps counterpart is now the world’s second-largest after our own Peace Corps. Last December, during Vice President Biden’s visit, the United States and Japan announced the initiation of a U.S.-Japan Development Dialogue between our respective foreign assistance and foreign affairs agencies. The first formal meeting of that dialogue took place last month in Washington.
The Republic of Korea and Japan have been active supporters of international efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue. We are working together on Syria, where Japan and the R.O.K. are providing assistance to address the humanitarian needs of the Syrian people and where both have strongly supported international efforts to find a political solution. U.S. and R.O.K. soldiers have served side by side in Afghanistan, where the Republic of Korea and Japan are major donors to reconstruction and stabilization efforts. Japan has provided over $1.35 billion in assistance to the Palestinians since the mid-1990s, making Japan one of the major donors to the Palestinians after the United States. Our cooperative partnerships with Japan and the Republic of Korea enable increased engagement and impact on a global scale. Both Japan and the R.O.K. are invaluable partners on the international stage, as well; both currently promote our shared values while serving on the UN Human Rights Council, and this year the R.O.K. will complete a successful term on the UN Security Council.
(BGF) – In this article, published in The Diplomat, Zheng Wang discusses the role of history in Chinese-Japanese relations. While the role of history is often discussed in Chinese-Japanese relations, Wang’s article focuses on a recent BBC documentary titled Missing Histories: China – Japanwhich takes a different approach. The documentary, as Wang notes, looks at the ways in which students in China and Japan are taught the history of 1931-1945, from Japan’s invasion of China through to the end of WWII. As Wang elaborates, Japan’s actions during WWII are often downplayed, whereas China’s traumatic national experiences during the period are emphasized. This means that there is a significant gap in the ways each nation teaches the history of the period. Most importantly, Wang argues, this gap means that increased dialogue between China and Japan is necessary so that China, Japan, and their citizens can have a better understanding of one another. Only once there is a deeper understanding of the historical relations between China and Japan, can the current tensions be resolved. Click here to read the full article.
‘Missing Histories’: History Education and China-Japan Relations
By Zheng Wang
When treating the ill or injured, doctors are incapable of diagnosing patients unless they know the source causing the condition. Similarly, resolving an international conflict of any magnitude requires the identification of source of the tension. The BBC’s recent documentary Missing Histories: China – Japanis a high-quality piece of journalism with the goal of discovering the sources of the conflict between the two countries. Throughout the investigative report, Japanese journalist Mariko Oi and Chinese journalist Haining Liu together visit schools in their respective home countries to observe the approach both countries take in teaching their shared history, focusing on the treatment of the wartime period (1931-1945, including Japan’s invasion of China to the end of World War II).
From the interviews conducted by Oi and Liu, they discovered a sizeable gap exists between both countries in their dedication and detail as it relates to the history of the wartime period. For instance in Japan, textbooks only use a small number of pages to chronicle the war. The description of the atrocities which took place is very bland. Japanese officials and textbooks editors who received Oi and Liu’s interviews even questioned whether the Japanese military actions in China and Korea could be called ‘invasions” and whether there was a “massacre” in Nanjing. Finding the facts of history education in Japan was a big shock to Haining Liu, the Oxford-educated Chinese journalist. She was shaking and crying after an interview. In the Chinese classroom, however, the curriculum is heavily loaded with the contents of China’s traumatic national experience from the Opium Wars through to the end of the Sino-Japanese War in 1945. State-run national patriotic education is conducted from kindergarten through college. Naturally, the younger generations in China and Japan are getting two completely different understandings of this period in history.
Often in conflicts among two nations, citizenries accuse the top leadership of not doing enough to avoid the tensions that exist. However, conflict often reflects the continuities of social discourses. The phenomenon of violent conflict cannot simply be understood through analyses of leadership; it is necessary to uncover the continuities in social discourses which enable conflict and give it legitimacy. Many individuals, from scholars to journalists, and even the general public, played some role either through intentional or unintentional action to contribute to the conflict, rather than peace. For example, the media in Japan and China have played a large role in shaping the perceptions of citizens by demonizing the other side. In order to stop the conflict, there should be bi-national joint efforts by people at different levels, not just the top leaders.
The BBC’s Missing Histories: Japan – China documentary is therefore a timely action. Joint efforts by journalists are rare, though reports covering discrepancies in history are common in both countries. Through their joint interviews, the two young ladies have been able to help citizens of their respective nations become more cognizant of the other state. Compared to the reports coming out of Japan or China which are often biased, this type of joint effort can help people of both sides pay more attention and listen to the other side’s experience of their shared history, rather than only being exposed to one-sided reports.
(BGF) – The latest installment of the BGF Leader Series featured Robert Desimone, the Director of the McGovern Institute and Don Berkey Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, and a member of the BGF Board of Thinkers. As a result of Professor Desimone’s work and the McGovern Institute’s accomplishments, the Boston Global Forum is going to recognize and honor the McGovern Institute’s research achievements and Edward M. Scolnick Prize in Neuroscience in the Boston Global Archive, and at a later stage the BGF will add it to the Boston Global Museum. Throughout his talk, which focused on the topic “unlocking the human brain”, Professor Desimone noted the important technological advances that are currently being made which are allowing for new breakthroughs in the field of neuroscience.
In many respects, the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT is at the forefront of these advances and breakthroughs in both technology and neuroscience. Currently, the McGovern Institute has a team of 19 faculty researchers of whom several are members of the National Academy of Science and one, Robert Horvitz, is a Nobel Laureate. Additionally, the faculty at the McGovern Institute features three members who are leading the way in optogenetics – the insertion of genetic material into neurons to make them sensitive to light thus giving researchers control over the neural circuits.
Given its extremely talented faculty, the McGovern Institute is well-placed to both drive advances the field of neuroscience, as well as ultimately translate those advances into beneficial treatments and therapies for patients suffering from brain disorders.
Looking back to his time at the National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH), Professor Desimone recalled having a realization that, despite the intelligence, dedication, and commitment of the clinicians and psychiatrists on staff, it was difficult for them to make any progress in developing new treatments for their patient population: “the sad fact was that the pipeline of new ideas – new drugs and so on – was really pretty dry”. It was at this point in his career that Professor Desimone became aware that it was essential to deepen our understanding of the fundamentals of how brains work if there was to be any progress in the development of new treatments.
It was also at this point that Professor Desimone happened to accept the offer to become the Director the McGovern Institute, an institute focused on understanding how the human brain functions and translating that knowledge into beneficial therapies and treatments for patients suffering with brain disorders. Additionally, in recent years, an array of new technological advances have driven the field of neuroscience forward. In particular, Professor Desimone mentioned three technological advances that have had particularly significant impacts on neuroscience research: the sequencing of the genetic code; advancements in brain imaging; and recent efforts at Stanford University to make the brains of animals transparent.
The effort to sequence the human genome was initially an extraordinarily large and expensive feat. However, in the years since the human genome was first successfully sequenced, the price of sequencing the genome has dropped so low that it is feasible to sequence an individual’s genome in order to identify genetic mutations. While direct links between genetic mutations and psychiatric disorders only exist in rare cases, being able to identify genetic mutations can play a crucial role in better understanding and recognizing genetic vulnerabilities that can lead to brain disorders. Moreover, a more in-depth knowledge of genetic vulnerabilities can help further deepen the understanding of how a genetic mutation can result in an abnormally functioning brain circuit that ultimately results in a brain disorder.
As for advances in brain imaging, the use of MRIs and the further developments in MRI technologies have greatly contributed to neuroscience research. MRI technology now allows researchers to image functional changes so that they can “track the activity patterns in the brain – at least on a coarse temporal time-scale – and you can actually see the brain at work as people solve problems, have emotions, understand situations, and so on, and its been applied now to many different patient groups to try and track down sources of abnormal neural circuits.”
Professor Desimone hopes that this technological advance will be merged with the advances in genome sequencing. He holds out hope that, if the advances in brain imaging and genome sequencing are combined, “We might be able to say that the vulnerability involves abnormal activity in certain particular brain circuits that we’ve identified in MRIs by imaging people that we’ve done this genotyping on. Once we’ve narrowed that down between the gene alteration and the abnormal activity in circuits, that is going to put us on the right path to new discoveries.”
Thirdly, researchers at Stanford University’s Karl Deisseroth Lab found a way to render the brains of animals transparent. This advance could make it easier for researchers to more accurately label and track the connections of neural circuits. As Professor Desimone noted: “People are just now gearing up to apply this new technology and human brain material from people who have died but have lived lives where they’ve suffered from schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s Disease, and so on and we will be able, with unprecedented ability, to track the abnormalities in this brain tissue from people who have died with disease.”
Professor Desimone also discussed the potential that neuroscience research could help us better understand cultural differences. As he noted, neuroscience research currently involves scientists working across the globe. Given the global scope of the research, it is possible that we may develop a deeper understanding of how the human brain functions in different cultures. This information could play a crucial role in helping to decipher cultural differences, minimize cultural misunderstandings, and facilitate greater cross-cultural understanding and collaboration.
The discoveries and advances Professor Desimone discussed during his BGF Leader Series lecture have all occurred recently, with some even occurring within the past year. Given the rapid pace of development in neuroscience it is likely that there will continue to be new and exciting discoveries about the fundamentals of the human brain for years to come, with exciting global implications. Although much uncertainty remains regarding the fundamentals of how the human brain functions, it is clear that the McGovern Institute will continue to lead the neuroscience research that will unlock the secrets of the human brain.
In a recent article in the Washington Post, Simon Denyer discusses the U.S. efforts to rebalance its foreign policy toward Asia. In particular, the article notes that the U.S. rebalancing has not been particularly effective in reducing regional tensions. As Denyer notes, the U.S. alliance with Japan means that the U.S. is hardly a neutral party in its efforts to balance its relations with China and Japan. Moreover, the fact that the U.S. was not given much, if any, notice about China’s imposition of an “air defense zone” in the East China Sea or Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to the Yasakuni Shrine shows that the U.S. efforts in the region are ineffective. Given these actions by both China and Japan, the risk of miscalculation is particularly high. This echoes a point made by Joseph Nye during his BGF Distinguished Lecture: neither side wants war but there is a risk of miscalculation. Thus the article concludes that crisis management in the region must be an immediate priority for the U.S. An excerpt of the article if provided below. Click here to read the full article.
Obama’s Asia rebalance turns into headache as China, Japan relations spiral down
By Simon Denyer
Beijing recently announced that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was simply not welcome there. At the same time, the media in both countries have stoked the fire with speculation about a possible military confrontation that could even suck in the United States, which is bound by treaty to defend Japan in case of attack.
U.S. officials and experts say conflict between the Asian powers remains unlikely, with both sides keen to preserve economic ties, and neither likely to emerge as a clear winner.
Nevertheless, as naval vessels spar in disputed waters and fighter jets patrol disputed skies, the risk of accidents or miscalculations has risen. Maintaining peace in Asia’s seas has become a major U.S. concern in the year ahead, officials say.
Obama had hoped his foreign policy “pivot” toward Asia would shift U.S. government attention away from trouble spots like Afghanistan and Iraq and toward a region brimming with economic opportunities. It aimed to strengthen longstanding alliances in Asia and bring new resolve to managing the relationship with China.
But experts say the U.S. effort to deepen relations with both China and its traditional Asian allies could become an impossible balancing act.
“In a perfect world you could do both simultaneously without conflict, but in practice, whatever you do with one side, the other side sees it as being done against them,” said Ely Ratner at the Center for a New American Security in Washington.
Daniel Russel, assistant U.S. secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, said the security umbrella provided by Washington had preserved regional peace for decades. The rebalance merely reinforces that commitment to Asia in a time of rising Chinese influence and assertiveness, he argued.
But some experts argue that the current emphasis on strengthening security links with Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia and the Philippines could actually be raising regional tensions.
“It is only encouraging those in China who have been saying for some time that Americans have reverted to Cold War thinking, and this is part of a containment strategy,” said Mel Gurtov, a professor of political science at Portland State University, and editor of the Asian Perspectivejournal.
America’s alliance with Japan means the United States is far from a neutral party in the China-Japan spat, “and the most important relationship we have to cultivate, with China, is bound to suffer.
In a sign of the increasing strain in U.S.-China relations, , American lawmakerswarned last week at a House subcommittee hearing that the United States must not tolerate China’s use of military coercion in pursuit of its territorial claims. Beijing’s nationalist Global Times newspaper responded by arguing that U.S. meddling risked “triggering an all-out confrontation with China,” – although the paper simultaneously advocated restraint and cooperation.
Tensions escalated in late November after China imposed an air defense identification zone over vast swathes of the East China Sea, including over islandsadministered by the Japanese. It demanded that all noncommercial aircraft entering the zone identify themselves or face “defensive emergency measures”. Calling China’s bluff, the United States flew two B-52 bombers through the zone within days.
Then, in December, Abe paid a visit to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, where 14 war criminals from World War II are honored. That stoked anger in both China and South Korea, where memories of Japanese wartime atrocities remain fresh, and prompted Beijing’s declaration that Abe had “shut the door to dialogue.”
U.S. efforts to calm tensions have so far had little apparent effect. Indeed, it is not clear either side is paying Washington much attention: U.S. officials say they learned less than an hour in advance about the air defense zone — which came just before Vice President Biden’s visit to the region– and got little notice about Abe’s visit to the shrine
Russel said the roll-out of China’s air defense zone had increased the risk of “miscalculation and an accident” that could lead to conflict.
“This was not simply a failure to communicate,” he said in a telephone interview. “It was an action that bypassed a consultative, collaborative process, and is a type of behavior that is inconsistent with the stature and status that China clearly seeks in the region.”
The Yasukuni visit, he said, was a concern of a much lower order of magnitude, but was nevertheless “very disappointing.”
Russel said Obama’s efforts to build a relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping had improved channels of communication and given Washington the chance “to speak very directly and very candidly to China about our concerns.”
Nevertheless,Beijing is not backing down from its territorial claims. Indeed, this month it announced an effort to exert tighter control over fishing in the waters of the South China Sea, which are contested by countries such as Vietnam and the Philippines: the State Department called that move “provocative and potentially dangerous.”
For Washington, the immediate priority is crisis management — getting both sides to agree to some rules of engagement in contested waters and skies, as well as encouraging them to set up hotlines.
Welcome! I am Tuan Nguyen, Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Boston Global Forum. I am very honored to introduce Professor Robert Desimone.
Robert Desimone is the director of the McGovern Institute and the Doris and Don Berkey Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT and a member of the Boston Global Forum’s Board of Thinkers. Prior to joining the McGovern Institute in 2004, he was director of the Intramural Research Program at the National Institutes of Mental Health, the largest mental health research center in the world. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a recipient of numerous awards, including the Troland Prize of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Golden Brain Award of the Minerva Foundation.
Governor Michael Dukakis, Chairman of Boston Global Forum visited the McGovern Institute on December 12, 2013. He is very impressed and has a high respect for the achievements of the McGovern Institute and Professor Robert Desimone. He and Kitty Dukakis will visit the Institute again in late April 2014. Today Chairman Michael Dukakis and Kitty Dukakis are in Los Angeles, they send their warmest regards to Professor Robert Desimone and the McGovern Institute for Brain Research.
Boston Global Forum will recognize and honor the McGovern Institute’s research achievements and Edward M. Scolnick Prize in Neuroscience in the Boston Global Archive, and at a later stage BGF will add it to the Boston Global Museum, an initiative we are working on for the future.
Today, We are honored to present to you Professor Robert Desimone on the BGF Leader Series.
Professor Desimone’s Presentation:
Photos from Chairman Dukakis’ visit to the McGovern Institute:
Chairman Michael Dukakis visiting with researchers from the McGovern Institute at MIT, and the McGovern Institute’s Director, Professor Robert Desimone.
Chairman Michael Dukakis learning more about the McGovern Institute’s groundbreaking research.
Chairman Dukakis meeting with a researcher from the McGovern Institute.
Robert Desimone is director of the McGovern Institute and the Doris and Don Berkey Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT and a member of the Boston Global Forum’s Board of Thinkers. Prior to joining the McGovern Institute in 2004, he was director of the Intramural Research Program at the National Institutes of Mental Health, the largest mental health research center in the world. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a recipient of numerous awards, including the Troland Prize of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Golden Brain Award of the Minerva Foundation.
This video, provided by the McGovern Institute, provides a brief introduction to Professor Robert Desimone’s background, research, and work at the McGovern Institute.
This video provides further information on Professor Desimone’s work.
For more information on Professor Desimone’s work, click here to read a profile on Professor Desimone contained in the McGovern Institute’s Brain Scan publication or visit the MIT news page to read an interview with Professor Desimone on the Federal BRAIN Initiative.
This brief introduction provides insight into the McGovern Institute’s research, objectives, and overall operating philosophy of linking a better understanding the brain to their efforts to improve the lives of people living with brain disorders.
This video provides a longer, more in-depth introduction to the research being conducted at the McGovern Institute, as well as the researchers who make it all possible.
Robert Desimone is director of the McGovern Institute and the Doris and Don Berkey Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT and a member of the Boston Global Forum’s Board of Thinkers. Prior to joining the McGovern Institute in 2004, he was director of the Intramural Research Program at the National Institutes of Mental Health, the largest mental health research center in the world. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a recipient of numerous awards, including the Troland Prize of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Golden Brain Award of the Minerva Foundation.
The Boston Global Forum is pleased to announce that the next installment of the BGF Leader Series will be taking place at 10:00AM on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 and will be live-streamed at bostonglobalforum.org. The BGF Leader Series will feature Robert Desimone, who is the Director of the McGovern Institute and the Doris and Don Berkey Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT and a member of the Boston Global Forum’s Board of Thinkers. Professor Desimone’s current research examines how our brains focus our attention, which is a cognitive fucntion that is often impaired in many brain disorders, in order to advance treatments that can improve attention in individuals suffering from brain disorders and impaired attention. Please attend at bostonglobalforum.org and send your questions to [email protected].
