'The psychotronics project draws similarities to part of the controversial program MKUltra in the US. The CIA program ran for 20 years, has been highly documented since being investigated in the 1970s and was recently dramatized in the 2009 movie “The Men Who Stare at Goats.”'
Malkovich and his movie was written for this time and it is indeed a very, very, very, very big concern for 99% black, white, brown citizens.
Let's see, what is the politics of America today? Lying, cheating, stealing, no morals or ethics, no US Rule of Law far-right wing extreme wealth extreme poverty militaristic, authoritarian LIBERTARIAN MARXISM. Not a good time for these BRAIN CONTROL experiments.
When media tells us amputees are asking to have healthy limbs amputated just to have a super-duper prosthetic we need to question if those feelings are true ---the transhuman is a goal of global Wall Street.
The USSR spent $1B on mind-control programs
December 28, 2013 | 8:39am
2009's "The Men Who Stare at Goats" starring George Clooney provided a farcical look at the CIA's mind-control program which was matched by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Everett Collection
The race to put man on the Moon wasn’t enough of a battle for the global super powers during the Cold War.
At the time, the Soviet Union and the United States were in an arms race of a bizarre, unconventional kind – that has been exposed in a new report.
Beginning in 1917 and continuing until 2003, the Soviets poured up to $1 billion into developing mind-controlling weaponry to compete with similar programs undertaken in the United States.
While much still remains classified, we can now confirm the Soviets used methods to manipulate test subjects’ brains.
The paper, by Serge Kernbach, at the Research Centre of Advanced Robotics and Environmental Science in Stuttgart, Germany, details the Soviet Union’s extensive experiments, called “psychotronics”. The paper is based on Russian technical journals and recently declassified documents.
The paper outlines how the Soviets developed “cerpan”, a device to generate and store high-frequency electromagnetic radiation which was used to affect other objects.
“If the generator is designed properly, it is able to accumulate bioenergy from all living things – animals, plants, humans – and then release it outside,” the paper said.
The schematic drawing made by Soviet scientist detailing the bio-circuitry of the human nervous system.B.B.KazhinskiyThe psychotronics program, known in the US as “parapsychology”, involves unconventional research into mind control and remote influence – and was funded by the government.
With only limited knowledge of each other’s mind-bending programs, the Soviets and Americans were both participating in similar secret operations, with areas of interest often mirroring the other country’s study.
The psychotronics project draws similarities to part of the controversial program MKUltra in the US. The CIA program ran for 20 years, has been highly documented since being investigated in the 1970s and was recently dramatized in the 2009 movie “The Men Who Stare at Goats.”
Scientists involved in the MKUltra program researched the possibility of manipulating people’s minds by altering their brain functions using electromagnetic waves. This program led to the development of pyschotronic weapons, which were intended to be used to perform these mind-shifting functions.
The illegal research subjected humans to experiments with drugs, such as LSD, hypnosis and radiological and biological agents. Shockingly, some studies were conducted without the participant’s knowledge.
Kernbach’s paper on the Soviet Union’s psychotronics program fails to mention one thing – the results. He also doesn’t detail whether there are ongoing mind-control programs in the US or Russia, but there are suspicions.
Russian President Vladimir Putin made mention of futuristic weaponry last year in a presidential campaign article.
“Space-based systems and IT tools, especially in cyberspace, will play a great, if not decisive role in armed conflicts. In a more remote future, weapon systems that use different physical principles will be created (beam, geophysical, wave, genetic, psychophysical and other types of weapons). All this will provide fundamentally new instruments for achieving political and strategic goals in addition to nuclear weapons,” he wrote.
The newly declassified information outlined in the report only touches on the Soviet psychotronics program and the bizarre experiments undertaken. With so much information still classified, will we ever know the whole truth?
There are global propaganda about these scientific advancements including mind-control and mind-reading. Scientists took a few decades to map the DNA genetic code and so far have determined there are too many complexities to definitely identify, develop, and install successful corrections of disease vectors by identifying genetic code that may be tied to that disease. We have a few---breast cancer et al being held as reliable diagnostics but overall the mapping of DNA has led to mostly businesses tied to HEREDITARY lineage.
The problems of complexity not only of the organ called BRAIN but the environmental chemistry, the myriad of functions all driving the same highway of circuitry makes actual intervention on a grand scale unlikely. We see VITRO studies and advances of neuron generation in lower animals that have yet to be addressed VIVO in humans. The science says this transfer from VITRO to VIVO will be the most difficult science to overcome.
SCIENTISTS ALWAYS WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM AND UNDERSTAND COMPLEX BIOLOGY ---IT IS GOOD TO GAIN THESE RESEARCH KNOWLEDGE.
When we look at the difficulty medical science has had in creating actionable medical devices and procedures using genetics against disease vectors we know the road will be tremendous with brain science. Meanwhile we are seeing rounds of patents being released from alcohol and drug treatment to alzheimer's treatment much of which was deemed ineffective before release but it is allowed to hit the medical market to recover and replenish global corporate medical research funding.
December 15, 2007
Sequence, Therefore I Am: Decoding Your DNA in the 21st Century
The knowledge of one’s personal and familial history — be it genealogical, cultural, or medical — is usually restricted to memories, anecdotes and paper documents. The availability and increasing affordability of DNA sequencing has the potential to change that. Now a multitude of companies are offering to decode your DNA and claiming a crystal ball glimpse into your past, present and future. Are you a descendent of Genghis Kahn? Why does ice-cream cause you pain? Will you develop heart disease? As with any new technology, it can be difficult to decipher what exactly it offers, let alone fully understand the implications of obtaining such information. Do you really want to know your chances of developing cancer? Do the data actually justify being concerned? And will this information be safe from prying eyes? While DNA equals neither identity nor destiny, sequencing can offer a limited but informative glimpse into your genetic make-up.
'Berger boldly predicts that someday chips like his might restore memory capacity to stroke victims or help soldiers instantly learn complex fighting procedures, like the characters in The Matrix. But in some respects Berger is quite modest. He acknowledges that his memory chips could not be used to identify and manipulate specific memories. His chips can simulate “how neurons in a particular part of the brain change inputs into outputs. That’s very different from saying that I can identify a memory of your grandmother in a particular series of impulses.” To achieve this sort of mind-reading, scientists must compile a “dictionary” for translating specific neural patterns into specific memories, perceptions, and thoughts. “I don’t know that it’s not possible,” Berger says. “It’s certainly not possible with what we know at the moment.”
“Don’t count on it in the 21st century, or even in the 22nd, ” says Bruce McNaughton of the University of Arizona'.
Please be careful from where you get these kinds of reports----a TED TALK is largely propaganda on a global scale. There is nothing that can allow a person to transmit commands through air to control behavior of another. What we do have are neurological impulse connections to computers to allow paralyzed citizens to control their computer interactions----as with HAWKINGS.
Are you thinking what I’m thinking? The rise of mind control
Mind control still sounds like the stuff of sci-fi movies. But it’s coming closer, with implants that can help people with paralysis and, further off, devices to send thoughts between humans
Tom Ireland tries out transcranial magnetic stimulation at the Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University. Photograph: Gary Calton for the Observer Saturday 22 August 2015 14.30 EDT Last modified on Wednesday 22 February 2017 13.06 EST
A hundred electrodes are pressed tightly against my scalp and a mixture of salt water and baby shampoo is dripping down my back. The goings-on in my slightly agitated brain are represented by a baffling array of graphs on a screen in front of me. When I close my eyes and relax, the messy spikes and troughs become neat little waves.
Next, scientists here at Newcastle University’s Institute of Neuroscience induce small electric currents in different parts of my head, using a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). If they fire the device a few millimetres to the left of my brain’s motor cortex, I feel nothing. Hit my “sweet spot”, however, and my arm moves of its own accord.
What is the neuroscience behind empathy? When do children develop it? And can it be taught?
Listen I’m here for a demonstration of the tools underpinning what many call “mind control” technology. Neuroscientists believe it will soon be possible for humans to control robotic avatars using the power of thought alone, or even to send thoughts or intentions from one person’s mind directly into another – a terrifying prospect for fans of cult sci-fi films such as Scanners, where society is controlled by an elite force with mind control and telepathic powers.
Some even think that people will one day connect their brains together, via the internet, to form an enormous collective super-brain.
Here in Newcastle, researchers hope such technology can be used to restore movement to people affected by paralysis or disability. In another demonstration, electrodes detect the storm of electrical activity coming from my brain down to the nerves and muscles of my arm as I move my fingers. I hear the crackle of individual motor units in my hand muscles firing, amplified through hissing speakers.
The team here are using such signals to help people control robotic limbs, or reroute nerve impulses back into the body to bypass damaged nerves. Such devices are known as brain-computer interfaces, or BCIs, and have developed rapidly over the last decade.
Internationally, neuroscientists have gone a step further, sending information from one brain into the another to create a brain-to-brain interface, or BBI. Researchers have even made one person move when another person wants them to, all by connecting their brains.
Greg Gage demonstrates the new ‘human to human’ interface.“Mind control” is suddenly not just plausible, but actually rather easy. You can buy a “DIY human-human interface” online for just over £165, part of a project aiming to make neuroscience more accessible to young people. In one video by neuroscientist Greg Gage, two on-stage volunteers are connected to the device – little more than a few wires, some flashing circuitry and a laptop. When one subject curls their arm, the other is powerless to stop their arm curling too.
“When you lose your free will and someone else becomes your agent, it does feel a bit strange,” Gage says to his young volunteers.
At the cutting edge of this technology, things get a little weirder. In 2013 researchers from Harvard Medical School announced they had made a device that allowed a human volunteer to move a rat’s tail via thought alone. That same year, neuroscientists from the University of Washington sent brain signals via the internet from one individual wearing an electroencephalography (EEG) headset to another with a TMS device, remotely controlling the recipient’s hand movements. One person, watching a computer game, imagined moving their hand to shoot down an enemy missile. His thoughts stimulated another person’s finger to hit the trigger at the appropriate time.
Then there’s the paralysed teenager who kicked the first ball of last year’s Fifa World Cup opening ceremony, wearing an exoskeleton controlled by his mind. And scientists at the Starlab facility in Barcelona, who claim to have demonstrated “conscious transmission of information” – sending the word “hola” from one mind to another, without either person using their senses.
Such experiments understandably make many people feel uneasy. Rumours that the US military is funding research in this area only add to concerns about frightening potential uses. Could people be forced to move or act against their will, or have their innermost thoughts and feelings extracted from their head?
The robotic exoskeleton used at the 2014 World Cup opening ceremony.The answer, at the moment, is almost certainly no. Even the most seemingly profound experiments can be a little underwhelming when looked at in detail. The Barcelona experiment, for example, might sound as if one person thought “hola” and the recipient then heard the word as an inner voice in their head. The reality is very different: the “sender” spelled out the word in binary code by imagining moving their hands or feet – one movement meant “0”, the other meant “1”. The “receiver” then received two types of brain stimulation: one, which caused them to perceive flashes of light, represented the 1s, another pulse with no effect represented the 0s. So, really, one person spelled out a word by thinking about moving, and one person got a kind of futuristic Morse code blasted into their head. Impressive, but hardly The Matrix.
The problem is, brain-to-brain technology in humans is currently restricted to non-invasive technologies, such as the slimy EEG device that is draped over my head in Newcastle. From outside the skull, such devices can only detect flurries of activity in the outer parts of the brain, or large spikes of activity deep in the brain.
“Reading brain activity with EEG is like trying to follow a football match while stood outside the stadium,” says Dr Andrew Jackson, senior research fellow at the Newcastle institute. “You can tell when someone’s scored a goal. But that’s about it.”
Activity associated with movement is one of the easiest types of brain activity to detect and reproduce. Capturing thoughts and feelings, which involve highly specific, synchronised activity, is something very different.
Sending sensations into the receiver’s brain is even less precise. Transcranial magnetic stimulation, the device used to make my arm twitch, can induce electric currents in extremely precise areas of the brain, activating neurons only in those areas. But again, creating complex sensations such as words and thoughts is far beyond the current scope of these devices.
Jackson says: “On the whole the technology [for sending signals] is less precise than the technology we have for recording – it is hard to control where you are stimulating. And we don’t really know much about the language of brain function – we don’t know what sensation will be created by stimulating different areas.”
Giulio Ruffini, who helped to devise the “hola” experiment, says the transmission of real thoughts or messages, rather than a sequence of 0s and 1s, is probably only likely with invasive technology – the implantation of devices directly into the brain.
“It is a far more interesting goal – the brain perceives something and you stimulate that exact experience in someone else. It has been demonstrated with invasive technologies in animals, and I believe it will be done in humans soon too.”
Such implants contain hundreds of minute needle-like electrodes, placed in precise locations in the brain to monitor or stimulate individual neurons. Researchers this year connected the brains of three monkeys using invasive technology, and found the animals quickly learned to synchronise brain activity to collaborate in tasks. In a similar experiment, four rats connected with intra-cortical devices were able to perform tasks to a higher level than single animals.
Ruffini is excited about what implants could achieve in humans. “It is so much more powerful. Already you can connect humans to an interface that controls a robot which you use to grab things. If we establish links between brains that are powerful enough, could those people actually be thought of as one and the same person? Could we even communicate with other species?”
Miguel Nicolelis, a pioneer in the field, says that if invasive technology was deemed safe and ethically permissible, “doing something like controlling a car with your thoughts would be fairly trivial”. In his book Beyond Boundaries, Nicolelis envisages a future where people “download their ancestral memory bank” or “experience the sensations of touching the surface of another planet without leaving your living room”. On the phone, however, he is more pragmatic. “Higher order brain functions are not available to be transmitted. If it cannot be reduced to a channel, it cannot be transmitted.”
Like Nicolelis, many working in this field like to entertain all hypothetical possibilities, despite the technology’s limitations and the complexity of the brain. Tellingly, when the UK’s scientific ethics committee looked into emerging “neurotechnologies”, such as BCIs and BBIs, they decided the discrepancy between what might be done and what is actually possible was so large that there is no need for any regulatory action for now.
Commercial attempts to create mind-reading EEG gadgets have largely been gimmicks, and when I try the £165 DIY human-human interface from the videos, I seem to just give my friends electric shocks. It all adds up to a confusing mixture of genuinely brilliant science and speculative hype.
“With some experiments I’ve seen I’m not quite sure what the point is, other than to be the first person to do it,” admits Jackson.
Nonetheless, invasive devices are likely to be coming to a hospital near you, and soon. “Invasive technologies are actually more desirable for a patient who is missing a limb or is paralysed,” says Jackson. “They might not want to have to wear something on their head, they might want something permanent and incorporated into their body.” As I remove this summer’s least sought-after headwear from my poor head, I see his point. The challenge now is creating safe implants that can function beneath the skin for decades.
Others, including Ruffini, remain convinced that humans will be able to link brains more meaningfully, perhaps wirelessly, within this century.
“Humans need to communicate. We have always tried to widen the bandwidth with which we can do it – with language or letter, phone or internet. It may take 50 or 100 years before we are communicating thoughts, but I think it is inevitable.”
Non-invasive brain-to-brain interfaces
Activity in the brain is detected by a device held on the scalp, such as electroencephalography (EEG). This gives an indication of patterns of neural activity, mainly in areas of the outer brain.
■ The data is amplified, processed, and analysed by a computer, and converted to a signal that can be transmitted into another brain.
■ Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) uses a magnetic field to induce electric current in areas of the brain, stimulating neurons to “fire”. The sensations that can be created by sending impulses into the brain in this way are extremely limited, eg muscle movements or the perception of flashes of light.
Invasive brain-to-brain interfaces
■ A special chip containing tiny, needle-like electrodes is inserted into the brain and fixed to the skull. Electrodes can be placed with enough precision to measure the activity of individual neurons.
■ Activity is detected, processed and analysed by a computer.
■ Electrodes can be placed to stimulate precise areas of the brain. Though more precise than TMS, stimulating complex effects like thoughts or controlled movements is still not yet possible.
Here we see these transmissions between two mice were less mind-control and mostly neural electromagnet transmission via an internet/computer interface. These developments are amazing-----very interesting-----but as articles we read show nothing actionable on these mind-control arenas are coming any time in this or next century.
'Very little is known about how thoughts are encoded and how they might be transmitted into another person's brain – so that is not a realistic prospect any time soon. And much of what is in our minds is what Sandberg calls a "draft" of what we might do. "Often, we don't want to reveal those drafts, that would be embarrassing and confusing. And a lot of those drafts are changed before we act.
"Most of the time I think we'd be very thankful not to be in someone else's head."
Brain-computer interface advance allows fast, accurate typing by people with paralysis
In a Stanford-led research report, three participants with movement impairment controlled an onscreen cursor simply by imagining their own hand movements.
Feb 21 2017A clinical research paper led by Stanford University investigators has demonstrated that a brain-to-computer hookup can enable people with paralysis to type via direct brain control at the highest speeds and accuracy levels reported to date.
The report involved three study participants with severe limb weakness — two from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also called Lou Gehrig’s disease, and one from a spinal cord injury. They each had one or two baby-aspirin-sized electrode arrays placed in their brains to record signals from the motor cortex, a region controlling muscle movement. These signals were transmitted to a computer via a cable and translated by algorithms into point-and-click commands guiding a cursor to characters on an onscreen keyboard.
Each participant, after minimal training, mastered the technique sufficiently to outperform the results of any previous test of brain-computer interfaces, or BCIs, for enhancing communication by people with similarly impaired movement. Notably, the study participants achieved these typing rates without the use of automatic word-completion assistance common in electronic keyboarding applications nowadays, which likely would have boosted their performance.
One participant, Dennis Degray of Menlo Park, California, was able to type 39 correct characters per minute, equivalent to about eight words per minute.
‘A major milestone’
This point-and-click approach could be applied to a variety of computing devices, including smartphones and tablets, without substantial modifications, the Stanford researchers said.
“Our study’s success marks a major milestone on the road to improving quality of life for people with paralysis,” said Jaimie Henderson, MD, professor of neurosurgery, who performed two of the three device-implantation procedures at Stanford Hospital. The third took place at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Henderson and Krishna Shenoy, PhD, professor of electrical engineering, are co-senior authors of the paper, which was published online Feb. 21 in eLife. The lead authors are former postdoctoral scholar Chethan Pandarinath, PhD, and postdoctoral scholar Paul Nuyujukian, MD, PhD, both of whom spent well over two years working full time on the project at Stanford.
Stanford's Jaimie Henderson and Krishna Shenoy are part of a consortium working on an investigational brain-to-computer hookup.
“This study reports the highest speed and accuracy, by a factor of three, over what’s been shown before,” said Shenoy, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator who’s been pursuing BCI development for 15 years and working with Henderson since 2009. “We’re approaching the speed at which you can type text on your cellphone.”
“The performance is really exciting,” said Pandarinath, who now has a joint appointment at Emory University and the Georgia Institute of Technology as an assistant professor of biomedical engineering. “We’re achieving communication rates that many people with arm and hand paralysis would find useful. That’s a critical step for making devices that could be suitable for real-world use.”
Shenoy’s lab pioneered the algorithms used to decode the complex volleys of electrical signals fired by nerve cells in the motor cortex, the brain’s command center for movement, and convert them in real time into actions ordinarily executed by spinal cord and muscles.
“These high-performing BCI algorithms’ use in human clinical trials demonstrates the potential for this class of technology to restore communication to people with paralysis,” said Nuyujukian.
Millions of people with paralysis reside in the United States. Sometimes their paralysis comes gradually, as occurs in ALS. Sometimes it arrives suddenly, as in Degray’s case.
Now 64, Degray became quadriplegic on Oct. 10, 2007, when he fell and sustained a life-changing spinal-cord injury. “I was taking out the trash in the rain,” he said. Holding the garbage in one hand and the recycling in the other, he slipped on the grass and landed on his chin. The impact spared his brain but severely injured his spine, cutting off all communication between his brain and musculature from the head down.
“I’ve got nothing going on below the collarbones,” he said.
Degray received two device implants at Henderson’s hands in August 2016. In several ensuing research sessions, he and the other two study participants, who underwent similar surgeries, were encouraged to attempt or visualize patterns of desired arm, hand and finger movements. Resulting neural signals from the motor cortex were electronically extracted by the embedded recording devices, transmitted to a computer and translated by Shenoy’s algorithms into commands directing a cursor on an onscreen keyboard to participant-specified characters.
The researchers gauged the speeds at which the patients were able to correctly copy phrases and sentences — for example, “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.” Average rates were 7.8 words per minute for Degray and 6.3 and 2.7 words per minute, respectively, for the other two participants.
A tiny silicon chip
The investigational system used in the study, an intracortical brain-computer interface called the BrainGate Neural Interface System*, represents the newest generation of BCIs. Previous generations picked up signals first via electrical leads placed on the scalp, then by being surgically positioned at the brain’s surface beneath the skull.
An intracortical BCI uses a tiny silicon chip, just over one-sixth of an inch square, from which protrude 100 electrodes that penetrate the brain to about the thickness of a quarter and tap into the electrical activity of individual nerve cells in the motor cortex.
This is like one of the coolest video games I’ve ever gotten to play with.Henderson likened the resulting improved resolution of neural sensing, compared with that of older-generation BCIs, to that of handing out applause meters to individual members of a studio audience rather than just stationing them on the ceiling, “so you can tell just how hard and how fast each person in the audience is clapping.”
Shenoy said the day will come — closer to five than 10 years from now, he predicted —when a self-calibrating, fully implanted wireless system can be used without caregiver assistance, has no cosmetic impact and can be used around the clock.
“I don’t see any insurmountable challenges.” he said. “We know the steps we have to take to get there.”
Degray, who continues to participate actively in the research, knew how to type before his accident but was no expert at it. He described his newly revealed prowess in the language of a video game aficionado.
“This is like one of the coolest video games I’ve ever gotten to play with,” he said. “And I don’t even have to put a quarter in it.”
The study’s results are the culmination of a long-running collaboration between Henderson and Shenoy and a multi-institutional consortium called BrainGate. Leigh Hochberg, MD, PhD, a neurologist and neuroscientist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Brown University and the VA Rehabilitation Research and Development Center for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology in Providence, Rhode Island, directs the pilot clinical trial of the BrainGate system and is a study co-author.
“This incredible collaboration continues to break new ground in developing powerful, intuitive, flexible neural interfaces that we all hope will one day restore communication, mobility and independence for people with neurologic disease or injury,” said Hochberg.
Stanford research assistant Christine Blabe was also a study co-author, as were BrainGate researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital and Case Western University.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (grants R01DC014034, R011NS066311, R01DC009899, N01HD53404 and N01HD10018), the Stanford Office of Postdoctoral Affairs, the Craig H. Neilsen Foundation, the Stanford Medical Scientist Training Program, Stanford BioX-NeuroVentures, the Stanford Institute for Neuro-Innovation and Translational Neuroscience, the Stanford Neuroscience Institute, Larry and Pamela Garlick, Samuel and Betsy Reeves, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the MGH-Dean Institute for Integrated Research on Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke and Massachusetts General Hospital.
Stanford’s Office of Technology Licensing holds intellectual property on the intercortical BCI-related engineering advances made in Shenoy’s lab.
Stanford’s departments of Neurosurgery and of Electrical Engineering also supported the work. Shenoy and Henderson are members of Bio-X and the Stanford Neuroscience Institute.
Stanford has been allowed to patent its research for decades which is why it is now a global IVY LEAGUE research and development corporation with endowments growing by the billions because they are being allowed as a private corporation to receive Federal funding to move forward these advances. Would other public university research facilities make the same findings if they received that Federal funding that before CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA would go to them?
OF COURSE -----NERDS AND GENIUSES GO TO WHERE THE MONEY IS. WE HAVE WATCHED AS OUR BEST AND BRIGHTEST USED TO DISCOVER IN PUBLIC FACILITIES BRINGING TO 99% OF CITIZENS THE FRUITS OF THESE STUDIES.
Clinton/Bush slowly moved the funding to private universities---then private IVY LEAGUE universities and these several years of Obama have created massive global corporate R and D of only IVY LEAGUE universities----taking the public out of all medical research and development.
'The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (grants R01DC014034, R011NS066311, R01DC009899, N01HD53404 and N01HD10018), the Stanford Office of Postdoctoral Affairs, the Craig H. Neilsen Foundation, the Stanford Medical Scientist Training Program, Stanford BioX-NeuroVentures, the Stanford Institute for Neuro-Innovation and Translational Neuroscience, the Stanford Neuroscience Institute, Larry and Pamela Garlick, Samuel and Betsy Reeves, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the MGH-Dean Institute for Integrated Research on Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke and Massachusetts General Hospital.
Stanford’s Office of Technology Licensing holds intellectual property on the intercortical BCI-related engineering advances made in Shenoy’s lab'.
You can bet these products will be expensive but rather than the financial gains coming back to public coffers it will go to a Stanford University who will then be able to decide to whom it SELLS THE PATENT.
If anyone is DR NO tied to ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE global militarized security moving forward to far-right authoritarianism-----it is Stanford and Hopkins and they lead in controlling much of these patented projects.
Notice 35 years is tied to Clinton era when Federal funding was moved to private universities. This is how the global 1% now controls all economic development and 99% of WE THE PEOPLE have no access to growing small businesses and local economies from these research gains AND why WE THE PEOPLE are not having public, open discussions on ethics and morals---it all goes to private corporate entities with their own agenda and goals.
Again, IT MATTERS WHO IS ALLOWED TO POSSESS THESE PATENTS. WHO DOES HOPKINS SELL THESE PATENTS TO? WHO WILL STANFORD SELL THESE PATENTS TO?
Johns Hopkins leads nation in research spending for 35th year in a row
$2.2B spent on medical, science, engineering research in FY2013
By Jill Rosen
/ Published Feb 6, 2015Johns Hopkins University led the U.S. in higher education research spending for the 35th consecutive year in fiscal 2013, with $2.2 billion for medical, science, and engineering research, according to the National Science Foundation.
The university also once again ranked first on the NSF's separate list of federally funded research and development, spending $1.89 billion in fiscal year 2013 on research supported by NSF, NASA, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Defense.
At Johns Hopkins, research and development money supports investigations into everything from the origins of the universe to potentially lifesaving medical treatments. Recently researchers have studied the implications of climate change, better protection for those treating Ebola, brain injuries in NFL players, how race and ethnicity might link to asthma, and how black holes can block stars.
"This ranking indicates that in an ever more challenging environment, Johns Hopkins faculty continues to secure funding for research that saves lives, leads to technological breakthroughs and inspires new views in the arts and humanities," said Denis Wirtz, the university's vice provost for research and co-director of Johns Hopkins' Institute for NanoBioTechnology.
The total funding ranking includes research support not only from federal agencies, but also from foundations, corporations and other sources.
Johns Hopkins has led the NSF's total research expenditure ranking each year since 1979, when the agency's methodology changed to include spending by the Applied Physics Laboratory—a research-focused division—in the university's totals.
In fiscal year 2002, Johns Hopkins became the first university to reach the $1 billion mark on both lists, recording $1.4 billion in total research and $1 billion in federally sponsored research that year.
Johns Hopkins research is also supported by funding from private sources and from return on investment from past discoveries. In fiscal 2013, Johns Hopkins earned $22.7 million from more than 800 licenses and their associated patents. During that time the institution spun off 12 new companies.
In the new survey, the University of Michigan ranked second in research and development with $1.27 billion. Rounding out the list's top five are: the University of Washington, Seattle, at $1.2 billion; followed by the University of Wisconsin, Madison, at $1.1 billion; and University of California, San Diego, at $1 billion.
Looking at all colleges and universities—645 were included in the survey—total research spending in 2013 rose slightly from the previous year to $67 billion, compared with $65.7 in fiscal 2012.
However, the portion of that total that came from federal agencies fell 1.7 percent, from $40.1 billion in 2012 to $39.4 billion. The decrease in research funding has been particularly hard on young scientists, Johns Hopkins president Ronald J. Daniels wrote in a recent article in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Many citizens really believed all the forensic technology seen on CSI ------all TV is make-believe and today even our national journalism is propaganda so please watch out as to scientific developments around DNA coding and DECADE OF THE BRAIN developments and please be knowledgeable of new PHARMA and medical techniques being allowed to move to market with no solid testing. We will lose tons of health care funding to Medicaid for these addiction treatments ---behavior modification ---robotics.
Real forensic scientists shake their heads at TV 'CSI' counterparts
By Pat Reavy@DNewsCrimeTeam
Published: Nov. 30, 2011 4:00 p.m.
Laura Seitz, Deseret News
Nigerian police officers Elias Vzoemeka and Sherifat Adesunkanmi work with Darren Warnick, validation scientist at Sorenson Forensics, during DNA forensic training at Sorenson in Salt Lake City on May 27, 2010.
We don't go driving around in new Hummers and cruise the beaches in Miami. SALT LAKE CITY — Sorenson Forensics Executive Director Tim Kupferschmid will turn on the TV every once in a while and watch crime shows with forensic labs, like "CSI."
But it's not because he expects he'll be inspired with a great new idea or watch something realistic.
"I watch them for the entertainment value," he said. "A lot of these things just don't happen in the real world. You don't identify DNA and then get a driver's license pop up (on a computer) and a GPS coordinate leading you to that person."
But because of popularity of shows like "CSI," Kupferschmid said he is asked by members of the public constantly about things that don't happen in real life.
"They find out what I do and say, 'That's so cool,' and they think it's so glamorous," he said.
The reality is being a forensic scientist can be very tedious and involve long hours of work.
Because of the many misconceptions about forensic scientists and DNA laboratories, Kupferschmid compiled a list of the Top 10 TV Crime Lab Myths. Topping the list is the idea that DNA can be gathered, tested and the results returned in a matter of hours.
"When they do their lab analysis, it seems instantaneous," Kupferschmid said.
In reality, the turnaround for analysis on a DNA case is two to five days. And that's if there isn't already a backlog in cases. But crime labs across the country are faced with huge backlogs, he said. Some labs have a 30- to 60-day waiting period before a case will even be looked at. For cases that aren't high profile or don't involve crimes against a person, the waiting list at some labs in the U.S. can be years, he said.
Another CSI myth is that the person who conducts the lab work also interrogates suspects, makes arrests and does police work.
"We don't go driving around in new Hummers and cruise the beaches in Miami," Kupferschmid said of his real life job.
Very rarely do you find forensic scientists today who are also certified law enforcers, he said.
"You wouldn't send someone to the police academy and then stick them in a lab. It would be a waste of their training. Just like you wouldn't send someone to be a scientist and then put them on the street for patrol," he said.
Another misconception: forensic scientists don't keep track of all their cases once they finish testing evidence.
"We do so many cases, we just can't possibly follow them all. We may follow some of them. Very rarely do we find out the final disposition of the case," Kupferschmid said.
Because only about 10 percent of the cases Salt Lake-based Sorenson Forensics handles come from Utah, Kupferschmid said most of the time his scientists have no idea if the case they're working on is high profile. In Utah, several cases handled by Sorenson have received a lot of attention because they helped solve cold cases.
Sorenson Forensics opened in 2006 and geared itself toward helping the law enforcement community by providing casework services for federal, state and local crime laboratories. The company made a mark immediately by solving several cold case homicides in Utah.
Interest in forensic science has exploded over the past several years as fast as the technology itself. Kupferschmid said the "CSI effect" is evident in today's courtrooms where some jurors have developed unrealistic expectations about how extensive and decisive forensic science truly is.
But on the flip side, the "CSI effect" has also resulted in many more people wanting to become forensic scientists.
"It's good for society to be aware of DNA. Before the OJ (Simpson) case, no one knew what DNA was. Now, it's part of normal conversation everyone has. As a whole, our public is much more aware of what we do," he said.
So if not for the glamor and excitement, why does Kupferschmid — an internationally recognized scientist with 20 years of forensic DNA experience — and other forensic scientists like him continue to do what they do?
"The pride aspect. We're doing something that has an immediate effect on people's lives every day," he said.
One other "CSI" myth Kupferschmid said isn't true are those scenes on TV where the forensic scientist is eating and drinking next to his work and joking around with colleagues.
“There’s no eating or drinking while conducting tests, and it’s hard to converse through a surgical mask," he said.
Top 10 TV crime lab myths
1. Crime labs can gather, prepare, test and have results from DNA and other forensic tests within a few hours.
2. A suspect will sit in an interrogation room wearing the same clothes he wore during the crime — and conclusive test results arrive just as you sit down to question him.
3. Crime scene investigators follow cases from start to finish and conclude investigations within a few days.
4. Crime scene investigators are directly involved with the investigation, raids and arrests.
5. Crime scene investigators can get DNA evidence from any surface.
6. DNA analyses provide two results: Yes, he did it, or no, he didn’t do it.
7. Crime scene investigators cannot only pull up DNA, but they can tell whether it came from tears, saliva, and sweat or cremated remains.
8. Everyone is in a DNA database.
9. When a DNA match is indicated, crime lab computers flash big red letters declaring a “99 percent match,” and a driver’s license photo for good measure.
10. Crime scene investigators conduct DNA testing while munching snacks or joking with colleagues.