Search

Despite similar computational approaches, there is surprisingly little interaction between the computational neuroscience and the systems biology research communities. In this review I reconstruct the history of the two disciplines and show that this may explain why they grew up apart. The separation is a pity, as both fields can learn quite a bit from each other. Several examples are given, covering sociological, software technical, and methodological aspects. Systems biology is a better organized community which is very effective at sharing resources, while computational neuroscience has more experience in multiscale modeling and the analysis of information processing by biological systems. Finally, I speculate about how the relationship between the two fields may evolve in the near future.

Neuroscience increasingly uses computational models to assist in the exploration and interpretation of complex phenomena. As a result, considerable effort is invested in the development of software tools and technologies for numerical simulations and for the creation and publication of models. The diversity of related tools leads to the duplication of effort and hinders model reuse. Development practices and technologies that support interoperability between software systems therefore play an important role in making the modeling process more efficient and in ensuring that published models can be reliably and easily reused. Various forms of interoperability are possible including the development of portable model description standards, the adoption of common simulation languages or the use of standardized middleware. Each of these approaches finds applications within the broad range of current modeling activity. However more effort is required in many areas to enable new scientific questions to be addressed. Here we present the conclusions of the "Neuro-IT Interoperability of Simulators" workshop, held at the 11th computational neuroscience meeting in Edinburgh ( July 19-20 2006; http://www.cnsorg.org ). We assess the current state of interoperability of neural simulation software and explore the future directions that will enable the field to advance.

The requirements for neuroinformatics to make a significant impact on neuroscience are not simply technical--the hardware, software, and protocols for collaborative research--they also include the legal and policy frameworks within which projects operate. This is not least because the creation of large collaborative scientific databases amplifies the complicated interactions between proprietary, for-profit R&D and public "open science." In this paper, we draw on experiences from the field of genomics to examine some of the likely consequences of these interactions in neuroscience. Facilitating the widespread sharing of data and tools for neuroscientific research will accelerate the development of neuroinformatics. We propose approaches to overcome the cultural and legal barriers that have slowed these developments to date. We also draw on legal strategies employed by the Free Software community, in suggesting frameworks neuroinformatics might adopt to reinforce the role of public-science databases, and propose a mechanism for identifying and allowing "open science" uses for data whilst still permitting flexible licensing for secondary commercial research.

There is significant interest amongst neuroscientists in sharing neuroscience data and analytical tools. The exchange of neuroscience data and tools between groups affords the opportunity to differently re-analyze previously collected data, encourage new neuroscience interpretations and foster otherwise uninitiated collaborations, and provide a framework for the further development of theoretically based models of brain function. Data sharing will ultimately reduce experimental and analytical error. Many small Internet accessible database initiatives have been developed and specialized analytical software and modeling tools are distributed within different fields of neuroscience. However, in addition large-scale international collaborations are required which involve new mechanisms of coordination and funding. Provided sufficient government support is given to such international initiatives, sharing of neuroscience data and tools can play a pivotal role in human brain research and lead to innovations in neuroscience, informatics and treatment of brain disorders. These innovations will enable application of theoretical modeling techniques to enhance our understanding of the integrative aspects of neuroscience. This article, authored by a multinational working group on neuroinformatics established by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), articulates some of the challenges and lessons learned to date in efforts to achieve international collaborative neuroscience.

Neuroscience is generating vast amounts of highly diverse data which is of potential interest to researchers beyond the laboratories in which it is collected. In particular, quantitative neuroanatomical data is relevant to a wide variety of areas, including studies of development, aging, pathology and in biophysically oriented computational modelling. Moreover, the relatively discrete and well-defined nature of the data make it an ideal application for developing systems designed to facilitate data archiving, sharing and reuse. At present, the only widely used forms of dissemination are figures and tables in published papers which suffer from inaccessibility and the loss of machine readability. They may also present only an averaged or otherwise selected subset of the available data. Numerous database projects are in progress to address these shortcomings. They employ a variety of architectures and philosophies, each with its own merits and disadvantages. One axis on which they may be distinguished is the degree of top-down control, or curation, involved in data entry. Here we consider one extreme of this scale in which there is no curation, minimal standardization and a wide degree of freedom in the form of records used to document data. Such a scheme has advantages in the ease of database creation and in the equitable assignment of perceived intellectual property by keeping the control of data in the hands of the experts who collected it. It does, however, require a more sophisticated infrastructure than conventional databases since the software must be capable of organizing diverse and differently documented data sets in an effective way. Several components of a software system to provide this infrastructure are now in place. Examples are presented, showing how these tools can be used to archive and publish neuronal morphology data, and how they can give an integrated view of data stored at many different sites.