Proposal to Establish a Neurophysics Group
in the Department of Physics and Astronomy
Introduction
The Department of Physics and
Astronomy at the UR has had a long standing interest in the field of Biological
Physics, represented by the research program of Prof. Robert Knox, a recipient
of the 1994 Biological Physics Prize of the American Physical Society. Tom Foster, Prof. of Imaging Sciences
in the Medical Center, received his Ph.D. from the Department as student of
Prof. Knox, and has held a joint appointment in Physics and Astronomy since
1992. However since Prof. Knoxıs
retirement in 1997 the Department has had no primary appointment in Biological
Physics. At the same time, the
field of Biological Physics has experienced a period of rapid growth, with most
leading Physics departments seeking to establish programs in this area. The 1997 report of the Departmentıs
Faculty Recruiting Strategy Committee (FRS) concluded that there was a
consensus in the Department in favor of a new recruitment in the field of
Biological Physics. However, due
to the constraints on Department size under the Universityıs Renaissance Plan,
and the need to maintain strengths and balance in traditional core areas, only
one full time position was projected for an effort in Biological Physics.
In the Fall 1998, following
the FRS report, a Committee to Explore the Future of Biological Physics was
constituted. The Committee was
charged with educating the Department about the field of Biological Physics,
and in particular to consider the rationale for an appointment in Biological
Physics within the Department of Physics and Astronomy, to investigate the
environment for interdisciplinary activity in Biological Physics at the
University, and to gauge the potential for the success and impact of such an
appointment. In April 2001, after
a series of University wide interviews, the Committee submitted its final
report (attached as Appendix D), which was accepted by the Department. The
report identified three areas of Biological Physics that seemed the best
potential targets for recruitment: (i) probing biological systems at the single
molecule scale, (ii) neuroscience, and (iii) bioinformatics. The report concluded that:
In
its effort to continue exploring the above fields of Biological Physics, the
Department invited Karel Svoboda of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) to
give a Department colloquium in November 2003. Svoboda is an internationally recognized pioneer in the use
of multi-photon microscopy to image neural activity in the living brain. Svobodaıs visit generated considerable
excitement in the Department.
Moreover Svoboda, in private discussions, made it clear that he intended
ultimately to leave CSHL. Although CSHL offered excellent support in the life
sciences, he viewed that his efforts would be limited by the absence of
technical support in advanced optics and electronics. Svoboda indicated that he
viewed Rochester favorably, but that he was looking to make a move to a
university that would be making several coordinated hires in his area. In
response to this visit, the Chair of Physics and Astronomy initiated
discussions within the University to see if it might be possible to recruit
Svoboda to UR. While there was
strong support for this in Physics and Astronomy, as well as other Departments
at the University, this effort ended when there appeared no way to coordinate
the recruitment of the several positions that Svoboda indicated would be
necessary for him to move. Svoboda
subsequently left CSHL this past summer for the new Howard Hughes Medical
Institute Campus at Janelia Farm.
The
Departmentıs experience with Svoboda highlighted the following points: (1) High
quality candidates exist that would be eminently fitting for an appointment in
Physics and Astronomy, and that such candidates can be attracted to the
University if we are allowed to make competitive offers, and (2) Our ability to
attract the highest quality candidates will be greatly increased if we are able
to make multiple faculty recruitments in a focused field. However such multiple recruitments
necessitate the ability of the Department to grow modestly beyond its
Renaissance Plan size.
In response to the Collegeıs
strategic planning exercise, the Department thus proposes a bolder initiative
than that originally envisioned by our Committee to Explore Biological
Physics. For the reasons detailed
in the remainder of this proposal, the Department seeks College support to
establish a new group in the field of neurophysics, i.e. physics as it relates to neuroscience (target
(ii) of the 2001 Biological Physics Committee report). The conclusions of the following
sections of this proposal may be summarized as follows:
The building of such a group
should take place in consultation with leading physicists outside the
University who are working in this area.
Based on such consultations, different paths might develop: hiring one
senior level researcher who will then provide direction and mentoring for
recruiting the rest of the group; hiring simultaneously more than one senior
researcher; hiring over a span of several years a group of outstanding junior
level researchers.
Below we outline our
arguments in support of this proposal.
We start with a brief discussion of the historical and present day
context for neuroscience as an area of Biological Physics. We then present the case why the
University of Rochester is in a unique position to play a leading role in this
area. In Appendix A we review several speakers who have visited the Department
recently, and comment on them as models for the sort of people and programs we
might seek to recruit. In Appendix B we include letters of support from related
programs in the College. In
Appendix C we give a list of links to people and programs mentioned in this
proposal. In Appendix D we attach
the 2001 report of the Departmentıs Committee to Explore the Future of
Biological Physics.
Neuroscience and Biological Physics
The discipline of physics has
had a long history of major contributions to the field of neuroscience, from
the experimental foundations of the field of electrophysiology during the time
of Galvani, to the theoretical and experimental contributions of Helmholtz on
axons, to the work of Cole on ionic transport through biological membranes and
its influence on the subsequent work of Hodgkin and Huxley. More recently, new theoretical ideas
and experimental techniques from physics have continued to make a significant
impact on the field.
In theory, ideas from
statistical physics have been applied in developing models of neural activity,
information processing and computation in the brain. Perhaps the best known example of such theoretical work is
the seminal work of John Hopfield (current president of the American Physical
Society) on ³spin glass² models of neural networks. Other leading theoretical physicists in this area include
Bill Bialek (Princeton), Haim Sompolinsky (Hebrew University), Larry Abbott (Columbia),
Terry Sejnowski (UCSD), Sebastian Seung (MIT) and Wulfram Gerstner (Lausanne).
The role that theoretical physics has to play in modern neuroscience is
evidenced by two recent workshops held at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical
Physics at UC Santa Barbara: Dynamics of Neural Networks, July 23 - Dec. 22, 2001, and Understanding the
Brain, July 19 – Oct. 1,
2004. Another symposium recently
organized by the Institute for Complex Adaptive Matter was, Frontiers in
Biological Physics III: Neural Biology,
July 18-20, 2004, Aspen. The
recognition by the neuroscience community that physics has an important role to
play is evidenced by the creation in 1994 by the Sloan Foundation of five
Centers for Theoretical Neurobiology (at Brandeis, Caltech, NYU, Salk
Institute, and UCSF), whose goal was to ³bring young theoreticians from the
physical, mathematical and computer sciences into neurobiology.² In 2000, the
Swartz Foundation joined in the funding of these centers. The Swartz Foundation, established to
³explore the application of mathematical physics, computer science, systems
analysis and behavioral psychology to neurobiology,² also supports centers in
Computational Neuroscience at Cold Spring Harbor, Columbia, and UCSD.
Experimentally, imaging of
individual neuronal synapses and networks by multi-photon spectroscopy and
other advanced optical techniques have allowed unprecedented investigations of
neuronal plasticity and metabolism.
The Howard Hughes Medical Institute has just opened the Janelia Farm
Research Campus with plans for up to 250 resident staff (including 24 group
leaders and 20 fellows) to focus on problems in neuronal networking and
imaging. It mission is: (i) ³The
identification of general principles that govern how information is processed by
neuronal circuits,² and (ii) ³The development of imaging technologies and
computational methods for image analysis.² Experimentalist Harald Hess, a well known condensed matter
physicist formerly at AT&T Bell Laboratories, is the Director of the
Applied Physics and Instrumentation Group at Janelia Farm. Other experimental physicists, who will
join Janelia Farm as Group Leaders, include Eric Betzig (formerly at Bell
Laboratories) and Karel Svoboda (moving from Cold Spring Harbor). Charles Shank, former director of
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and presently Professor of Chemistry,
Physics, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at UC Berkeley, has been
appointed as a Senior Fellow at Janelia Farm. Other leading experimental
physicists working in neuroscience include David Kleinfeld (UCSD), David Tank
(Princeton), and Winfried Denk (Heidelberg).
We believe that neurophysics
represents an ideal direction for the Department of Physics and Astronomy in
seeking to establish a program in Biological Physics. While the connection between physics and neuroscience is old
and well established, and while many physicists have gone on to success
obtaining faculty appointments in neurobiology related departments,
neurophysics as a sub-field within a physics department has so far received
less attention than other recently growing areas of Biological Physics (such as
molecular motors, single molecule manipulations, investigations of physical
properties of DNA, protein folding, etc.). However several such physics department based groups do
exist, and more are being created. Established groups in physics departments
include David Kleinfeld (experiment) at UCSD, Haim Sompolinsky (theory) at
Hebrew University, and John Hertz (theory) at NORDITA. More recent hires into physics
departments include Bill Bialek (theory) at Princeton, Rob de Ruyter
(experiment) at Indiana U, Ralf Wessel (experiment) at Washington U, and Paul
Tiesinga (theory) at U North Carolina Chapel Hill. Other well established condensed matter physicists are known
to be making efforts to develop programs in this field (these include in
theory: Daniel Fisher at Harvard, Mehran Kardar at MIT; in experiment: Josef
Kas at Liepzig, Elisha Moses at Weizmann). We therefore believe that neurophysics represents an
opportunity for Physics and Astronomy at Rochester to enter early into a
promising and growing field.
The Broader UR Context for
a Program in Neurophysics
A small research University
like Rochester will increase its chances to achieve prominence in any
particular field if it can leverage its strengths across multiple academic
units. Biological Physics is by its very nature an interdisciplinary
subject. As outlined below, we
believe that a group in neurophysics within the Department of Physics and
Astronomy will be an unparalleled match to the unique strengths at the
University of Rochester. It thus
will help to establish a broad interdisciplinary program in brain research at
the University that will be a recognized leader in the field, while at the same
time providing a new educational opportunity attractive to both undergraduate
and graduate students. The
programs with which we see a clear potential for strong interactions are now
discussed below.
The Department of Brain and
Cognitive Science (BCS) is, like Physics and Astronomy, one of the strongest
departments in the College. It is
one of the few such departments of its kind in the country, where the focus is
on studying brain function and the fundamental processes underlying perception
and cognition. Interaction between
BCS and a neurophysics group would be natural and would leverage the strengths
of each department. Teitel, a
theorist in condensed matter physics, has started collaboration with Pouget in
BCS to develop a program in neural computation. The current strategic planning report of BCS lists
plasticity and neural computation as the two areas in which BCS is seeking to
grow. Plasticity, which at the
cellular level involves changes in neuronal connectivity and circuitry, and neural
computation, which involves statistical models of information transmission and
processing in the brain, are both areas with direct connections to
neurophysiscs. The Chair of BCS,
Elissa Newport, expressed considerable enthusiasm over the potential for such
interactions (see attached letter in Appendix B).
Many of the new imaging
techniques being developed to study activity in the brain involve advanced
optical methods. Multi-photon
microscopy is one clear example of a recent optical technique that has gone on
to have dramatic impact in the field of neuroscience. The Institute of Optics, another unique UR department, can
provide an outstanding human and technical resource for interactions to promote
the development and application of this and newer optical methods applied to
brain imaging. Robert Boyd, Parker
Givens Professor of Optics, has already expressed his interest in this area
(see attached email in Appendix B).
Wayne Knox, Director of the Institute is similarly enthusiastic (see
attached letter inAppendix B). The
recently created Biomedical Engineering Department has ³neuroengineering² and
perceptual systems as one of its focus areas of research. David Pinto and others in this
department offer natural possibilities for collaboration (see attached letter
from Rick Waugh, Chair of BME).
Facilities in the new Biomedical/Optics building may serve as an
attractive resource and environment for interactions with a neurophysics group. The potential for collaboration with
Computer Science exists through, for example, the sub-fields of machine
learning or biological computation.
The Center for Visual Science
is an existing interdisciplinary program currently involving BCS, BME, and the
Departments of Neurobiology and Anatomy, Neurology, and Opthamology in the
Medical Center. The Director of CVS, David Williams, expressed his view that
there should be many close and exciting collaborations between a neurophysics
group in the Physics Department and CVS members (such as Aslin, Bavelier,
Merigan, Majewska, Weliky, and Williams) involved with optical imaging of neural
activity (see attached letter in Appendix B).
The University Medical Center
is another very attractive resource.
That our Medical Center is only a short walk from the College (and not
on the other side of town, or in a different town) is another advantage of
Rochester that is lacking at many other universities. Neuroscience in the Medical Center is primarily housed in
the Center for Aging and Developmental Biology (Howard Federoff, Director) and
in the Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy (Gary Paige, Chair). Other relevant activity exists in the
Department of Neurosurgery (for example the group of Maiken Nedergard). Both Federoff and Paige were
interviewed by the Biological Physics Committee in 2001, and both were
enthusiastic about possible collaborations with Physics. We recognize that there is a
significant difference in culture and climate between the College and the
Medical Center, so interactions may need to proceed carefully. However the Center for Visual Science
and the Department of Biomedical Engineering may offer models and support for
successful collaborations across Elmwood Avenue.
Most recently an effort has
been underway to create the ³Rochester Institute for Brain Sciences and
Neuromedicine.² This is one of the
four proposals put forward by the Collegeıs Sciences Working Group Interim
Report of 2/06. This is envisioned as a major interdisciplinary institute
cutting across departments in the College such as BCS, Computer Science,
Physics, Optics and BME, and in departments in the Medical Center such as
Neurology, Neurosurgery, Neurobiology and Anatomy, and the Center for Aging and
Developmental Biology. The
Institute is intended to integrate brain related research throughout the
University, in both basic science and clinical disciplines. The Institute will be formed around
five centers, housed in a new facility: (i) Center for Translational
Neuroscience, focusing on basic
science relevant to understanding neurological disease, (ii) Center for
Imaging Sciences, devoted to new
imaging technologies for investigating brain function, (iii) Center for Bain
Plasticity, Repair and Regeneration,
dealing with the neural mechanisms of learning, memory, and cognition and how
they are implemented at the cellular and molecular level with a focus on the
potential for neural plasticity and regeneration, (iv) Center for
Computation and the Brain, focusing
on how the brain encodes, transmits, and processes information, and (v) Center
for Best Practices and Neuromedicine Health Planning, dealing with regional neuromedicine disease
management and cost effectiveness of care.
Clearly, if such a Brain
Institute goes forward, it will have a major impact on all neuroscience related
activity at the University. A
neurophysics group in the Department of Physics and Astronomy could become an
important component of such centers, while the resources of such an institute
(the potential for new center related recruitments and presence of core
facilities) would greatly increase the visibility and breadth of interactions
of such a group. If, however, the Rochester Brain Institute should ultimately
not be created, there remains enough firmly established activity within the
College to ensure a broad base of strong interdisciplinary interactions.
While the opportunities and
the enthusiasm for interdisciplinary interactions between a neurophysics group
and other units of the University are thus manifest, we stress that we seek a
neurophysics group in the Department of Physics and Astronomy that will have
its own distinct profile.
Physicists, educated and trained in physics departments and
laboratories, have already made numerous seminal contributions to the field of
neuroscience. It seems evident
that new experimental methods and instrumentation, and new theoretical
approaches and paradigms, yet to arise from physics research in possibly
unrelated areas, will develop into new opportunities for investigating and
thinking about problems in neuroscience.
We therefore seek to recruit neurophysicists, dedicated to questions of
basic science, that, while interacting with neuroscientists across a broad
spectrum of activity, nevertheless wish to maintain strong ties to the physics
community at large, have a home base in a physics department, and train
students with a physics background.
Such a group will enhance the true synergy that is the strength of
interdisciplinary research.
Conclusion
Neurophysics is an exciting
and growing area of Biological Physics with an established record of important
contributions to the field of neuroscience. A group in neurophysics within the Department of Physics and
Astronomy will enjoy excellent opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration
that will leverage the unique strengths of the University across multiple
academic units. Creation of a
group in neurophysics will allow the Department of Physics and Astronomy to
rise to a position of national prominence in the area of Biological Physics,
while contributing to the prominence of the University in the more general
field of brain research.
Creation of such a new group,
representing a thrust into a new area of physics research, will be difficult to
achieve within the confines of the existing Department size. We estimate a group of three full time
faculty to be the minimum size necessary to create a cohesive effort that can
span both experimental and theoretical activity and establish a major presence
and visibility for the Department in this field. While starting such a new effort, however, care must be
exercised to retain our existing strengths while balancing activities in other
core areas of physics and astronomy.
We therefore believe that growth is a necessary condition for the
achievement of the program outlined in this proposal. We therefore propose a group of three
full time faculty. One of these
positions would be the Biological Physics position allocated according to the
Departmentıs last long range strategic plan (FRS1). Two new positions would be created by investing College
resources to allow for a net growth in Department size.
Appendix A
Recent Visitors to the
Department of Physics and Astronomy in Neurophysics
Since the
Departmentıs acceptance of the Biological Physics Committeeıs final report,
numerous visitors have been brought to the Department to give colloquia and
seminars in the field of neurophysics.
These talks generally attracted a broad audience from a variety of
departments and programs at the University including, Brain and Cognitive
Science, Center for Visual Studies, Institute of Optics, and the Medical
Center. A complete list of these
visitors is attached at the end of this Appendix. Here we comment in greater detail on three of these visitors
who can serve as models for the sort of candidates and programs we might try to
recruit.
William Bialek
(Princeton)
Bialek received his Ph.D. in
Biophysics from UC Berkeley in 1983.
After postdoctoral positions at Groningen and the Institute for
Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, he was an Assistant Professor of Physics
and Biophysics at Berkeley from 1989-1991. From 1990-2001 he was a Senior Research Scientist and then
an Institute Fellow at NEC Research Laboratories. In 2001, the same year he visited Rochester, he moved to the
Physics Department at Princeton where he is currently Wheeler/Battelle
Professor of Physics, a Member of the Institute for Integrative Genomics and an
Associated Faculty in the Department of Molecular Biology and the Programs in
Applied and Computational Mathematics and Neuroscience. He has been a lecturer and co-director
of a Summer Course on Computational Neuroscience at the Woods Hole Marine
Biology Laboratory since 1991, a visiting faculty at the Sloan-Swartz Center
for Theoretical Neurobiology at USCF since 1994, and a consultant at the Center
for Theoretical Neuroscience at Columbia since 2005. He is currently on the advisory boards of the Kavli
Institute for Theoretical Physics, Santa Barbara (since 2005), the Max Planck
Institute for Dynamics and Self–Organization (since 2004), and the Scuola
Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati (since 2001). He has served on the National Research
Council Board on Physics and Astronomy (1999-2002), and on the Editorial Boards
of Annals of Physics (since 2002), Journal of Statistical Physics (1997-99),
and Neural Computation (since 1993). Bialekıs area of interest is in codes, computation and
learning in the nervous system and its connections to statistical physics and
information theory. More generally
he is interested in issues relating to noise and the physical limits it places
on biological functions, and the notion of biological information from the
molecular and cellular scales to perception and learning in the brain. He is a
co-author of the seminal book, Spikes: Exploring the Neural Code.
Bialek
was invited to Rochester in November 2001 to give the Eighteenth Annual David
L. Dexter Lecture in the Department of Physics and Astronomy. His talk was very well received in the
physics department, and an informal poll by Dave Williams of CVS (Center for
Visual Studies) members attending the talk indicated that Bialek was the sort
of person who could fit well with CVSıs mission. During his visit Bialek mentioned his view that the physics
of neural systems was somewhat less on the radar screen of departments seeking
to build programs in biological physics as compared to other ³hot² topics such
as single molecule fluorescence spectroscopy or optical tweezers. Yet he noted that Princeton physics had
just (in 2001) hired two faculty in this area – himself (from NEC) and
David Tank (from Bell Labs).
Karel
Svoboda (formerly at Cold Spring Harbor, now at HHMI Janelia Farm)
Svoboda
received his B.A. in Physics from Cornell and his Ph.D. in Biophysics from
Harvard in 1994. After a postdoctoral
position at AT&T Bell Labs he joined Cold Spring Harbor in 2000 as a Howard
Hughes Medical Institute Investigator.
In the summer of 2006, Svoboda moved to become a group leader at the new
Howard Hughes Medical Institute Research Campus at Janelia Farm. Svobodaıs research involves the use of
novel imaging methods to study plasticity in the developing and adult
neocortex. He is a pioneer in the
use of 2-photon scanning laser microscopy to study the changes in individual
synapses, neurons and networks, in response to experience driven learning in
living mice over extended periods of time (up to one month). One of his papers, Long-term in vivo
imaging of experience-dependent synaptic plasticity in adult cortex, Nature 2002, has 270
citations. Another paper, Experience-dependent
plasticity of dendritic spines in the developing rat barrel cortex in vivo, Nature 2000, has 230
citations. His most cited works, both in Science 1999, are, Rapid spine
delivery and redistribution of AMPA receptors after synaptic NMDA receptor
activation,
with 473 citations, and Rapid dendritic morphogenesis in CA1 hippocampal
dendrites induced by synaptic activity, with 454 citations.
Svobodaıs
visit to Rochester in November 2003, to give a colloquium in the Department of
Physics and Astronomy, generated considerable excitement. Privately, he discussed his future
career plans, indicating that he did not wish to remain at Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory (CSHL) forever.
Although CSHL offered excellent support in the life sciences, he viewed
that his efforts would be limited by the absence of technical support in
advanced optics and electronics. In casual conversation he indicated that
Rochester was the sort of University he could see himself winding up at after
some years, and that he was impressed with plans for the new Biomedical/Optics
Building. He said that when he
decided to leave CSHL, he would be looking to move somewhere that would be
hiring a group of two or three faculty on the same time scale. In response to this positive feedback,
the Chair of Physics and Astronomy initiated discussions within the University
to see if it might be possible to recruit Svoboda to UR. While there was strong support for this
in Physics and Astronomy, as well as other Departments at the University, this
effort ended when there appeared no way to coordinate the recruitment of the
several positions that Svoboda indicated would be necessary for him to move.
Harshad Vishwasrao
(Columbia)
Unlike Bialek and Svoboda,
Vishwasrao is a junior researcher.
Vishwasrao received his Ph.D. in Physics from Cornell in 2004, under the
supervision of Prof. Watt Webb.
Webb is the ³father² of multi-photon spectroscopy as applied to imaging
in biological systems. His earlier
Ph.D. students in this field include David Tank (Princeton), Winfried Denk
(Heidelberg), and more recently Ed Brown (UR Biomedical Engineering). Vishwasraoıs thesis involved the use of
2-photon fluorescence microscopy to quantitatively study metabolism in
astrocytes and neurons in brain tissue slices. His most cited paper is Neural activity triggers neuronal
oxidative metabolism followed by astrocytic glycolysis, in Science 2004, which has received 79
citations. Vishwasrao is currently
a postdoctoral associate in the Columbia University Center for Neurobiology and
Behavior.
Vishwasrao visited the
Department in March 2006 to give a Biological Physics Seminar. Vishwasrao made a very strong positive
impression on members of the Department, from a wide variety of physics
sub-fields, who attended his talk.
Many commented that he appeared to be a rising ³star.² Vishwasrao has a strong connection to
Rochester. Karl Kasischke (M.D.),
who collaborated with Vishwasrao when Kasischke was a postdoc in Webbıs lab, is
currently a Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Neurosurgery and
in the Center for Aging and Developmental Biology at the UR. Vishwasrao indicated that he would
probably not be looking for a faculty position for another several years.
List of Recent Talks in
Neurophysics in the Department of Physics and Astronomy
Joint
BCS/Biological Physics Seminar 12/3/01
Rob
de Ruyter van Steveninck
NEC
Research Institute
How
to Estimate Self Motion, and How the Blowfly Does It
(de
Ruyter has since moved to the physics department at Indiana University)
Physics
and Astronomy Colloquium 11/7/01
Eighteenth
Annual David L. Dexter Lecture
Prof.
William Bialek
Physics
Department, Princeton University
Pushing
the Physical Limits: Optimization in Neural Coding and Computation
Physics
and Astronomy Colloquium 2/12/03
Prof.
Laurence Abbott
Volen
Center for Complex Systems and Dept. of Biology, Brandeis University
Timing-Dependent
Mechanisms for Shaping and Maintaining Neural Circuits
(Abbott
has since moved to the Center for Neurobiology and Behavior at Columbia)
Physics
and Astronomy Colloquium 11/19/03
Prof.
Karel Svoboda
Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory
Using
Light to Study the Brain at the Level of Molecules, Synapses, and Neural
Circuits
(Svoboda
is moving to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Janelia Farm Research Campus)
Joint
Physics and Optics Colloquium 3/17/04
Prof.
Mark Raizen
Dept.
of Physics, Univ. of Texas, Austin
New
Frontiers in Controlling the Motion of Matter with Light: from Single Atoms to
Neurons
Biological
Physics Seminar 3/27/06
Dr.
Harshad Vishwasrao
Center
for Neurobiology and Behavior, Howard Hughes Medical Institute & Columbia
University
Two-Photon
Fluorescence Microscopy and Spectroscopy of Neuro-Metabolic Dynamics
Appendix B – Letters
of Support from other Programs within the College
Email from Elissa Newport,
Chair of the Department of Brain and Cognitive Science
attached
Letter from Wayne Knox,
Director of the Institute of Optics
Email from David Williams,
Director of the Center for Visual Science
attached
Email from Richard Waugh,
Chair of the Department of Biomedical Engineering
attached
Email from Robert Boyd,
Parker Givens Professor of Optics
attached
X-Original-To:
stte@pas.rochester.edu
Delivered-To:
stte@pas.rochester.edu
Date:
Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:08:38 -0400
To:
stte@pas.rochester.edu
From:
Elissa Newport <newport@bcs.rochester.edu>
Subject:
Neurophysics and BCS
Cc:
newport@bcs.rochester.edu
Dear
Steve,
I'm
writing, as chair of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, to express my enthusiastic
support for the direction your department is considering in adding a
neurophysics group. As you know,
there have already been exciting interactions beginning between Physics and
BCS. Since your Bridging
Fellowship to BCS and Alex Pouget's Bridging Fellowship to Physics, there has
begun to be a very exciting research group building around the topic of
computational neuroscience that has already attracted some of our strongest
applicants for graduate and postdoctoral training from backgrounds in physics
and in neuroscience. The students
in our department that are currently working with Alex and with you are, I'm
sure, only the tip of what we can expect to see in outstanding talent that a
group in this cutting edge field can attract. As you know, BCS has a larger group of faculty working on
computational approaches to perception, cognition, learning and the brain that
will interface with a neurophysics group as well.
More
generally, because of the strengths of your department and ours in many
surrounding fields, as well as the strength in CVS, BME, CS, ECE, and the
Neuroscience cluster in the Medical Center, I am confident that you can attract
remarkable faculty members to this field.
Such a group will be an important component in our interdisciplinary
community and can help to move forward a university-wide Institute for Brain
Sciences. This is therefore an
ideal area in which to add a new group.
You can be assured that our strengths in these fields in other parts of
the university will assist your department in attracting the very best
scientists to Rochester.
I
look forward to continuing to work with you - please let me know if there is anything else that BCS or I
can do to support this exciting initiative.
Best,
Elissa
Elissa
L. Newport
Chair,
Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences
George
Eastman Professor
From:
Rick Waugh
<<mailto:richard_waugh@urmc.rochester.edu>richard_waugh@urmc.rochester.edu>
Date:
October 6, 2006 8:58:29 AM EDT
To:
N Bigelow <<mailto:nbig@lle.rochester.edu>nbig@lle.rochester.edu>
Subject:
Re: Physics Initiative
Nick,
My
first appointment ended early and this seems like just enough
time
to look over your proposal. In
general I think it is a great idea.
You
should be aware of two other individuals who could serve as
resources/contacts
as you move forward. David Pinto
in BME/NBA is working
on
applications of dynamical systems analysis to understand somato-sensory
networks. His work is both theoretical and
experimental. Ania Majewski
shares
the lab with Ed Brown and is using two-photon fluorescence to study
neuroplasticity. Also working on related topics are
Kevin Davis, who is
sorting
out auditory processing in the brain stem using experimental
approaches
and signal processing analysis. Finally,
Greg Gdowski works on
systems
modeling of the control of head and neck movements. Thus, I think
that
your proposed initiatives would have a lot of tie-ins with what BME
has
tried to build in the application of physical sciences to neural
function.
BME
can also help in bridging the cultural differences between
the
College and SMD you mention in your report. You should not be daunted
by
these. There is too much of value
to your program to let this be any
kind
of barrier to collaborating with SMD investigators. You do not
mention
ties to the Brain imaging center, but this could also be a
valuable
resource for you depending on who you consider for faculty
positions.
Finally,
I would be cautious about hiring theoreticians who are not very
well-connected
to experiment. There is a lot
going on in abstract
analysis
of how the brain functions, but my impression is that this tends
to
be a field unto itself, without viable contacts to experimentalists or
to
the true physics underlying brain function. Dave Pinto can give a more
expert
opinion about this.
Overall
I think it is an excellent idea and well tuned to
existing
strengths and opportunities at Rochester.
Rick
X-Original-To:
stte@pas.rochester.edu
Delivered-To:
stte@pas.rochester.edu
Date:
Sat, 7 Oct 2006 04:33:00 -0400
To:
Stephen Teitel <stte@pas.rochester.edu>
From:
David Williams <david@cvs.rochester.edu>
Subject:
Re: proposal from physics
Cc:
newport@bcs.rochester.edu
Dear
Steve,
I
think that your proposal represents a very exciting direction for UR.
Many
members of the Center for Visual Science would interact closely with
the
neurophysics group you envision.
In particular, there would be
especially
close links in the area of optical imaging of neural activity.
Dick
Aslin, Daphne Bavelier, Bill Merigan, Ania Majewska, Mike Weliky, and
I
are examples of such CVS faculty. Maiken Nedergard's laboratory in SMD
may
also tie in as they are engaged in work on two photon, functional
imaging
of astrocytes among other things.
My laboratory is moving rapidly
into
the use of, for example, fluorescent compounds attached to AAV
vectors
to selectively label individual retinal neurons. We are
especially
interested in new functional biomarkers that will allow us to
monitor
the activity of retinal neurons in vivo. I would think that
Aslin's
Rochester Center for Brain Imaging could tie in with your
initiative,
if your group developed a focus on the physics of fMRI. All
of
these activities would find great synergy with a group in physics that
had
expertise in the development of novel methods of interrogating neurons
and
neuronal circuitry. I
can well imagine your new group being a key
component
of the Rochester Institute for Brain Sciences and Neurmedicine,
especially
in the area of imaging. Please let
me know how your discussion
goes
on Wednesday and whether I can be of additional help. I am having
discussions
with various people both in the College and SMD about the
neural
imaging thrust of the proposed Brain Institute and would welcome
the
chance to help physics develop their plans in the context of the
developing
strengths in related areas elsewhere in the College and SMD.
Best
Wishes,
David
X-Original-To:
stte@pas.rochester.edu
Delivered-To:
stte@pas.rochester.edu
Date:
Sat, 23 Sep 2006 13:55:24 -0400
To:
Stephen Teitel <stte@pas.rochester.edu>,
"Nicholas P. Bigelow" <nbig@lle.rochester.edu>
From:
"Robert W. Boyd" <boydrw@mac.com>
Subject:
Re: neuroscience proposal
Cc:
wknox@optics.rochester.edu
X-Brightmail-Tracker:
AAAAAA==
X-Brightmail-scanned:
yes
Dear
Steve and Nick
I
am writing to let you know that I am interested in this topic area. I
have
a collaboration under way with a vision person (Vengu for short) in
the
area of measuring the human visual response for quantum states of
light. (Past studies have used light pulses
containing a statistical
distribution
of photon numbers.) This work
could fit in with the general
structure
of this program.
If
and when you need specific input from me, please let me know.
Bob
Appendix C - References to People and Programs Cited in the Proposal
People (by no means a
complete list of physicists working in the field)
Theorists:
Larry Abbott
Professor Neurobiology and
Behavior, Columbia
PhD in Physics
http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/dept/neurobeh/Abbott.html
Bill Bialek
Professor Physics, Princeton
PnD 1983 in Biophysics, UC
Berkeley
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/www/jh/research/bialek_william.html
Daniel Fisher
Professor Physics, Harvard
PhD 1979 in Physics, Harvard
University
http://www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/fisher.html
Wulfram Gerstner
Director Laboratory of
Computational Neuroscience, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
PhD 1993 in Theoretical
Biophysics, Technical University of Munich
http://diwww.epfl.ch/~gerstner/
John Hertz
Professor Physics NORDITA,
Copenhagen
PhD 1970 in Physics,
University of Pennsylvania
John Hopfield
Professor Molecular Biology
(and Physics), Princeton
PhD 1958 in Physics, Cornell
http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/research_facultymember.php?id=41
http://genomics.princeton.edu/hopfield/Biography.html
Mehran Kardar
Professor Physics, MIT
PhD in Physics
Terry Sejnowski
Professor Computational
Neurobiology, Salk Institute
PhD in Physics, Princeton
http://www.salk.edu/faculty/faculty/details.php?id=48
Sebastian Seung
Professor Brain and Congitive
Science, MIT
PhD in Physics, Harvard
http://hebb.mit.edu/people/index.html
Haim Sompolinsky
Professor Physics and
Interdisciplinary Center for Neural Computation, Hebrew University
PhD in Physics
http://neurophysics.huji.ac.il/~haim/
Paul Tiesinga
Assist Prof Physics, U North
Carolina at Chapel Hill
PhD 1996 in Physics, Utrecht
University
Experimentalists:
Eric Betzig
Group Leader, HHMI Janelia
Farm
PhD in Applied and
Engineering Physics, Cornell
http://www.hhmi.org/research/groupleaders/betzig_bio.html
Winfried Denk
Director Dept of Biomedical
Optics, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research, Heidelberg
Professor Physics, University
of Heidelberg
PhD in Physics 1990, Cornell
http://wbmo.mpimf-heidelberg.mpg.de/winfriedDenk/index.html
Rob de Ruyter van Steveninck
Professor Physics and Progarm
in Neural Science, Indiana University
PhD. 1986, U of Groningen
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/faculty/DeRuyter.shtml
Harald Hess
Director Applied Physics and
Instrumentation, HHMI Janelia Farm
PhD in Physics, Princeton
http://www.hhmi.org/janelia/hess.html
Josef Kas
Professor of Physics, U of
Leipzig and Director Instit. of Soft Matter Physics
Dr. rer. nt. 1993 in Physics,
Technical University of Munich
http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~pwm/kas/jkas/jkcv.html
David Kleinfeld
Professor Physics and Program
in Neuroscience, UC San Diego
PhD 1984 in Physics, UC San
Diego
http://physics.ucsd.edu/neurophysics/kleinfeldcv.html
Elisha Moses
Professor Physics of Complex
Systems, Weizmann Institute
PhD ~1987 Physics, Weizmann
Institute
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/fnmoses/home.html
Charles Shank
Senior Fellow, HHMI Janelia
Farm
PhD 1969 in Electrical
Engineering, UC Berkeley
Director Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, 1989-2004
http://www.hhmi.org/janelia/shank.html
Karel Svoboda
Group Leader, HHMI Janelia
Farm
PhD 1994 in Biophysics,
Harvard
http://www.hhmi.org/research/groupleaders/svoboda_bio.html
David Tank
Professor Molecular Biology
(and Physics), Princeton
PhD 1983 in Physics, Cornell
http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/research_facultymember.php?id=43
Ralf Wessel
Professor Physics, Washington
University
PhD 1992 in Physics,
Cambridge
http://physmail.wustl.edu/Fac/Wessel.html
Centers and Programs
Sloan-Swartz Centers for
Theoretical Neurobiology
http://www.sloan.org/programs/scitech_supresearch.shtml
Brandeis
http://sloan.caltech.edu/
Caltech
http://sloan.caltech.edu/
Salk
Institute http://www.sloan-swartz.salk.edu/home.htm
UC
San Francisco http://www.sloan.ucsf.edu/sloan/
Swartz Centers for
Computational Neuroscience
http://www.theswartzfoundation.org/research.asp
Cold
Spring Harbor http://www.cshl.edu/public/releases/swartz.html
Columbia
http://www.neurotheory.columbia.edu/index.html
UC
San Diego http://www.sccn.ucsd.edu/
Howard Hughes Medical
Institute Janelia Farm Campus
Kavli Institute for
Theoretical Physics, Santa Barbara
Dynamics
of Neural Networks, July 23 to December 23, 2001
http://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/activities/auto2/?id=3
Understanding
the Brain, July 19 to October 1, 2004
http://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/activities/auto2/?id=287
Institute for Complex
Adaptive Matter (ICAM)
Symposium:
Frontiers in Biological Physics III: Neural Biology, July 18-20, 2004, Aspen
http://icam.lanl.gov/aspen/frontiers.html
Appendix
D
Report
of the Committee to Explore the Future of Biological Physics
within
the Department of Physics and Astronomy
attached
and available at:
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~stte/bio/