Preface 



\isage the encouragement of conjoint research 

 projects, exchange of students and research work- 

 ers, conjoint course programs, special biblio- 

 graphic and publication devices, and the like. 

 The conference considered concrete measures that 

 might be taken for the mutual benefit of both 

 fimdamental and clinical neurobiology. It also 

 stressed the necessity of making borderline fields 

 more attractive to young research men. 



Future Acfton— Conscious of the situation as 

 outlined in the preceding passages, and aware 

 of the need for constructive remedial action, the 

 members of the conference felt that, in view of 

 the complexity and the far reaching implications 

 of the problem, it would be unwise to consider 

 any definite measures pending a much more care- 

 ful and systematic investigation of the present 

 and prospective needs and facilities for neuro- 

 biological research. The conference, therefore, 

 recommended to the NRC "the appointment of a 

 committee to survey the field in order to determine 

 and recommend to the Council such action as may 

 further the development of education and fun- 

 damental research on the nervous system." 



SCOPE OF SURVEY 



The Committee was charged with investigating if, 

 where, and what sort of action on a national 

 scale would be desirable. The committee was 

 to take stock of the situation by consulation with 

 fellow scientists in laboratories and clinics and to 

 collect and articulate the prevailing viewpoints 

 and interests. Specifically, the following prob- 

 lems were deemed in need of exploration: 



(1) Stirvcy of fields of research: Since sources of 

 information regarding the nervous system are 

 widely scattered and often to be found in un- 

 suspected areas ( e.g., insect control by DDT; 

 studies on asymmetry and handedness in identical 

 twins), a comprehensive listing of fields that would 

 contribute to, and benefit from, concerted neuro- 

 biological research should be prepared. 



(2) Survey of personnel: A list of individuals 

 engaged in research pertaining to neurobiology 

 and of societies representing allied interests, to 

 supplement item ( 1 ) . 



(3) Survey of trends and gaps: Attempts to (a) 

 extrapolate from the recent history of the various 

 specialties their prospective needs in the near fu- 

 ture; (b) estimate their various efficiency rates, 

 i.e., ratio of input in personnel, plant, funds, etc. 

 to rate of progress; (c) detect neglected and 

 "underprivileged" lines in need of promotion. 



(4) Survey of existing research facilities (exclu- 

 sive of personnel treated under ( 2 ) : Facilities of 

 plant; of technical equipment; endowment; in- 

 stitutional, foundational and public support; as- 



sistance; location ( e.g., proximity between labora- 

 tory and clinic; between primate laboratories and 

 neurosurgical centers; antivivisectionist restrictions; 

 etc.). 



(5) Survey of existing training facilities: Deter- 

 mination of the place of neurobiological disci- 

 plines in the curricula of major universities and 

 medical schools; also, matters of postdoctorate 

 training; training of technicians; fellowships. 



(6) Survey of channels of communication: List- 

 ing of existing periodicals; reviews and abstract 

 journals; bulletin services; editorial policies; costs, 

 distribution and availability of publications. Sur- 

 vey of facilities for personal communication; sem- 

 inars; regular society meetings; special symposia; 

 lectureships; exchange of personnel. 



(7) Survey of needs: Collection of opinions and 

 suggestions regarding possible concrete improve- 

 ments and innovations of technical, educational, 

 and organizational nature that would promise to 

 insure a more rapid, systematic and efficient de- 

 velopment of neurobiology; essentially, a deter- 

 mination of the difference between desirable fa- 

 cilities and those currently available under items 

 (1) to (6). 



(8) Survey of potential resources: Estimation of 

 the costs of the developments envisaged under 

 ( 7 ) and exploration of potential sources for the 

 rec2uired funds, including prospects of public 

 support. 



CONCLUSIONS 



Only at the end of such a survey, could the 

 Committee hope to be in a position to assess ju- 

 diciously the basic needs of future neurobiological 

 research, and to formulate recommendations for a 

 comprehensive and integrated program of promo- 

 tion, with the ultimate aim of a better scientific 

 understanding of the human mind and human 

 behavior. The findings of the Committee were 

 to be made available to all medical, educational, 

 governmental, philanthropic and other institutions 

 that might be concerned with the results. 



A comparison between the ideal task of 

 the Committee on Neurobiology, as set 

 forth in this memorandum, and its real at- 

 tainments, as summarized in the following 

 report, will indicate that the latter have re- 

 mained somewhat short of the goal, for 

 reasons inherent in the novelty, complex- 

 ity and magnitude of the task. Yet the 

 Committee feels that it has at least broken 

 ground for future more comprehensive ac- 

 tions in the interest of integration of ef- 

 forts in matters pertaining to the nervous 

 system and behavior. 



