On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:39:02 +0100, "Brian" <zhil at online.no> wrote:
>"Richard Norman" <rsnorman at mediaone.net> skrev i melding
>news:e9iottkgf1j0vj0d1v6qgn9r39foc11ld4 at 4ax.com...>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 15:25:13 +0100, "Brian" <zhil at online.no> wrote:
>> I am well aware that CREB-1 (ala Kandel) is well established as a
>> major player in long-term plasticity in neurons). However, I believe
>> you did write (no doubt as a jocular suggestion): "If you can find a
>> way to increase the production of CREB-1, you'll solve most
>> problems.". Since CREB-1 is involved in a LOT of process besides the
>> neuronal one you mention, increasing CREB-1 is also likely to cause a
>> lot more problems. It would be interesting to find a technique to
>> selectively stimulate something like CREB-1 in only a particular
>> subset of cells. Targetting the response is a real problem, though.
>>Well, if we talk about genetic engineered viruses - the problem should be
>solvable, don't you think ?
>One problem with vectors are their accuracy; will it target the right
>cell(s).
>So, we could in theory circumvent the whole issue this way.
>As I mentioned to Yan, the patch-clamp techniques to integrate electronics
>and neuron(s)/ganglia(groups of neurons) are the old techniques - the far
>more elegant solution would be to reprogram the neuron to addapt towards the
>electronic interface.
>I suggested that the patch-clamp tech. would come within the next decade,
>but will be released shortly after that, from 2014-2020 by
>vector-programming.
>Why do I take the aspect of programming so (blatantly) easily ?
>I have myself programmed in machine-code (6 years ago) - could it possibly
>be more difficult if we follow the ground-rules set by microbiology
>(chemical bonds etc.)?
>As I see it, scientists are for finding those rules by which nature
>operates, while techies will do the dirty work of actually DO the stuff
>(they aren't as well paid as the former, so it's cheaper to do it this way).
>Anyway, I'm not saying programming is easy, because it certainly isn't !!
>>Brian
I would guess that you are not a wet-lab hands-on neurobiologist.
Otherwise, you would be a lot more cautious about these predictions.
The ideas are interesting, but at this time merely blue-sky
speculation. In the lab, things go much more slowly.