true

Yes, well, right now a lot of people have a superiority complex, about animals, I have heard people strongly object to the fact that the human animal is classified in the same taxa as other mammals.

I think that the existence of a device that is smarter than us, is more threatening to our superiority complex, than it is likely to create an inferiority complex. After all, doesn't the beauty of our environment in places like the grand canyon, or Mountanous areas just create a sense of Awe, instead of an inferiority complex?

Yeah, recently, a number of scientists have been looking at repetitive phrases in the human genome, There are at least 200 such phrases, and it is suspected that these phrases set enzyme levels in especially sensitive bio-chemical pathways. Since such sequences are 10 times as likely to have an error causing the string to shorten, or lengthen, and since the number of repetitions is important to regulation of a specific bio-chemical pathway, this suggests that there are over 100 places where bio-chemical pathways are significantly more likely to be damaged by mutation. In many cases, the same bio-chemical pathways are also damaged by Single Neucleotide Mutations, resulting in a multiple risk spectrum of disease.

The former concepts of diseases like depression being related to the levels of neurotransmitters, are suddenly, looking like they may have been especially naive. With polygenetic disease models, suddenly it doesn't seem so unlikely that at least 10 percent of depressives do not respond to Anti-depressants.

If you had tried to advance a genetic model of depression only 5 years or so ago, nobody would have listened to you, because they would have "Known" better. Now we can only look in awe at the complexity of the chemical environment within the cell, as it begins to become exposed by analysis of knockout mice. Mybe once we truely understand the human genome, our awe will be reduced, to the commonplace, but I don't think I ever got over my first exposure to high technology, so maybe we will always feel that Genomics is Awe invoking.

Haven't we already figured out most of the complexity of the genome? Where will further research take us? Will scientists be able to figure out the answer to many diseases such as cancer or alzheimers? Aren't we in the stages of being able to manipulate genes and cause / figure out mutation at the hands of our own species? Actually, I am in awe of my fellow man as much as you scientists are in awe of nature. Perhaps we have really come a long way in understanding and learning about neurotransmitters and the human brain. As an educator I look forward to advances in science that will one day possibly do away with learning disabilities. Surely the computer will serve as a personal assistant in many tasks for both teachers and learners. It seems as if the computer is evolving. If I am off base---correct me. If not, a humanoid robot just might do it in the future. It would not phase me at this point.

Not really Kees, complexity is going to be a big part of what we do from now on, partly because of the work of Methodologists like you, that are clearing the way for more complex models. Science has been held back to some extent, because it was forced to oversimplify complex systems, where there was no evidence of their ultimate complexity, in the symptomology for instance.

The idea of a Poly-Genetic Disease, flies in the face of Occazms Razor, which used to be thought of as the ultimate scientific principle. (Also known as the KISS principle [Keep it simple stupid])

Yet, the new models of mental disorders tend to involve complex bio-chemical pathways, that are dependent on many different genes, and so have multiple risk factors, and a spectrum of different and often co-morbid symptomology, that just isn't caught in the DSM IV Manual.

Further linkages at the Bio-chemical levels, are linking metabolic speeds to Circadean Rhythms, etc.

The Genome is mapped, but the next step is using it to map out the bio-chemistry of the cell, so we really understand what is going on in it.

The problem as I see it, is the difference between analysis and synthesis.

Science is really good at analysis, but synthesis, is much harder to approach, if only because of the number of people who are left brained, and the tendency of people with left brain dominance to be much tighter regulators of what passes into their brains, Selectivity is important, but it builds silo's of expertise, the specialists you were talking about, without allowing links between them.

Synthesis on the other hand, is easier for the right brained individual, the artists and architects, who tend to be generalists rather than specialists accepting a wider field of data, and mentally modeling it, to see where the trends are, or attempting to express it visually, or in some artistic realm to explain it to others.

Classically less than 1/3 of the population has this synthetic capability, yet we select for selective capability at the training centers, so only dual mode synthetic brains that are selective enough to make it through the screening process, and thus are left brain dominant are likely to achieve the level of support needed to make it to University to become a scientist.

Collaboration is therefore the only remaining answer, where people are put into clusters so that their knowledge is useful within the group, even though it is silo-ed outside the group. The problem with this approach is mostly knowing which disciplines you need, If you miss a discipline that is important, you miss the synthesis needed to complete the project.

Consider if you will, the scientists at MIT, and Stanford that are working on genetic diseases. They are both capably led teams, both looking to use genomics to guide disease analysis, and then do a bio-chemical analysis of what the disease model tells them, and from that find a cure for one of the spectrum of diseases they characterize. But one lab is curing people and the other lab, is not as effective. My guess is that the difference is one of these rare scientists that can come up with the model for a disease from the bio-chemistry.

But then, I am an outsider looking in.