The Neurocritic: Professor Richard Frackowiak on Retirement (and the Human Brain Project)

A neuroimaging pioneer, distinguished Professor Richard Frackowiak, has come out in favor of retirement:

I retired aged 65 – I am known for being very pro-retirement. Older scientists should advise, if asked, by the next generation, which they trained. They should refrain from occupying leadership positions or directing implementation – the time for that is past.

This is an important public stance to take in a time of dwindling resources and opportunities for junior scientists. On the one hand, with the steady increase in life expectancy since 1935, many aging Boomers plan to work well into their 70s. But on the other hand, this glut of working elders deprives many talented young researchers entrée into tenure track positions. The fact that a senior scientist wants to move aside to allow the next generation to occupy leadership positions is notable, in my view.

Prof Frackowiak's opinion on retirement was included in his comment on a post about Henry Markam and the Human Brain Project (HBP). In The laborious delivery of Markram’s brainchild, science journalist Leonid Schneider takes Markram to task for his dictatorial HBP leadership, his publishing empire (Frontiers), and most of all his hubris (e.g., 2009 TED talk):

“I hope that you are at least partly convinced that it is not impossible to build a brain. We can do it within 10 years, and if we do succeed, we will send to TED, in 10 years, a hologram to talk to you”.

Frackowiak found the post “scurrilous” and specifically objected to Schneider's mischaracterization of his own retirement as “resigning” from the HBP:

I note one mistake that could easily have been checked. Makes me wonder about the accuracy of this scurrilous blog. I did not resign from the HBP. I remain a task leader in the Medical Informatics Platform.

Henry Markram dethroned, @HumanBrainProj under new leadership, with obscure goals. Story of hubris & empty promises https://t.co/CIGXtzxIqL
— Leonid Schneider (@schneiderleonid) July 15, 2016

https://t.co/4FqQbP53c9 I didn't resign from HBP. I lead a task. How many other errors in this scurrilous piece? @prsjf @HumanBrainProj
— Richard Frackowiak (@prsjf) July 15, 2016

But many have objected to the goals and governance of the HBP from the very beginning. In fact, two years ago, 156 Principal Investigators (eligible for HBP funding) and 660 others signed an Open message to the European Commission concerning the Human Brain Project. I won't rehash those issues (see further reading below).

Schneider ends with some pointed links to highly embarrassing Frontiers papers, including one endorsing chemtrail conspiracy theories. Frontiers has issued an Expression of Concern about this paper:

An expression of concern on
Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification
by Herndon, J.M. (2016). Front. Public Health 4:139. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139

With this notice, Frontiers states its awareness of several complaints and serious allegations surrounding the article “Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification” published on 30 June 2016. Our Chief Editors, Joav Merrick and Anwar Huq, will direct an investigation in full accordance with our complaints procedures. The situation will be updated as soon as the investigation is complete.

UPDATE (17 July 2016): The chemtrails article has been retracted by Frontiers (via @Neuro_Skeptic):

Based on information discovered after publication and reported to Frontiers in July 2016, the article was examined, revealing that the complaints were valid and that the article does not meet the standards of editorial and scientific soundness for Frontiers in Public Health. The retraction of the article was approved by the Field Chief Editor of Frontiers in Public Health and the Specialty Chief Editor of Environmental Health. The author considers the retraction to be unwarranted and therefore does not agree to the statement.