The Human Brain Project Between Politics, Science, and Engineering

Abstract

AbstractThis article investigates the unfolding of increased political interest in research infrastructure at the practical level. As a case study, I examine the European Commission’s (EC) Human Brain Project (HBP). The HBP is a large-scale interdisciplinary project that aims to build a web-accessible digital research infrastructure for neuroscience, medical research, and information technology. The project provides a unique study case for observing interdisciplinary interaction within a large-scale project for infrastructure building in brain science, where small-scale research has been the norm. I analyze how the stances of the EC and the HBP members on the project’s goal and organization have co-evolved by focusing on the project’s two radical reorientations. Thus, I describe the HBP’s tangled trajectory as the result of the project’s shifting definition between research and infrastructure construction or between politics, science, and engineering.KEYWORDS: Research infrastructureEuropean commissionhuman brain projectboundary workepistemic cultures Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Cramer and Hallonsten, Big science and research infrastructures in europe.2 DG-RESEARCH, Developing World-Class Research Infrastructures for the European Research Area (ERA).3 Moskovko, Ástvaldsson, and Hallonsten, “Who Is ERIC?”4 ESFRI, “ESFRI Roadmap.”5 Hallonsten, “Unpreparedness and Risk in Big Science Policy.”6 EU, “Council Regulation (EC) No 723/2009 of 25 June 2009 on the Community Legal Framework for a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC).”7 Hallonsten, Big Science Transformed.8 Hackett, The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies.9 Knorr-Cetina, Epistemic Cultures.10 Chompalov, Genuth, and Shrum, “The Organization of Scientific Collaborations.”11 Swedlow, “Three Cultural Boundaries of Science, Institutions, and Policy.”12 Bucher et al., “Contestation about Collaboration.”13 Gieryn, “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science.”14 Bucher et al., “Contestation about Collaboration.”15 Lewis and Bartlett, “Inscribing a Discipline.”16 Fujimura, “Constructing ‘Do-able’ Problems in Cancer Research.”17 Langley et al., “Boundary Work Among Groups, Occupations, and Organizations”18 Palmer, “Weak Information Work and ‘Doable’ Problems in Interdisciplinary Science”; Penders, Horstman, and Vos, “Large-Scale Research and the Goal of Health.”19 Penders, Horstman, and Vos, “Large-Scale Research and the Goal of Health.”20 Lassen, Bønnelycke, and Otto, “Innovating for ‘Active Ageing’ in a Public – Private Innovation Partnership.”21 Baylac-Paouly, “Vaccine Development as a ‘Doable Problem’.”22 Hilgartner, “Constituting Large-Scale Biology.”23 Lewis and Bartlett, “Inscribing a Discipline.”24 Corbin and Strauss, Basics of qualitative research.25 Charmaz, Constructing grounded theory, Chapter 2.26 When quoting the interviews, I cited the interviewees by their discipline (e.g., “HPC2”).27 Biernacki and Waldorf, “Snowball Sampling.”28 Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures.29 Biesbroek et al., “Opening up the Black Box of Adaptation Decision-Making.”30 E.g., Cramer and Hallonsten, Big Science and Research Infrastructures in Europe; D’Ippolito and Rüling, “Research Collaboration in Large Scale Research Infrastructures”; Hallonsten, “Research Infrastructures in Europe”; Moskovko, Ástvaldsson, and Hallonsten, “Who Is ERIC?”; Papon, “European Scientific Cooperation and Research Infrastructures.”31 Hallonsten, “Research Infrastructures in Europe,” 2.32 Cramer et al., “Big Science and Research Infrastructures in Europe,” 3.33 Hallonsten, “Continuity and Change in the Politics of European Scientific Collaboration.”34 McDonald, “’Unity in Diversity’. Some Tensions in the Construction of Europe.”35 Also see Mahfoud, “Visions of Unification and Integration.”36 Boch and Fiala, “Perspective on Future and Emerging Technologies.”37 EC, “FET Flagships,” 1.38 Hallonsten, “Unpreparedness and Risk in Big Science Policy.”39 Ulnicane, “Ever-Changing Big Science and Research Infrastructures.”40 Frégnac and Laurent, “Neuroscience.”41 HBP, The Human Brain Project.42 Shin, “For or Against the Molecularization of Brain Science?”43 Shin, “Policy for Interdisciplinarity.”44 Lehrer, “Out of the Blue”; Markram, “Seven Challenges for Neuroscience.”45 Latour, “Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World.”46 Panese, “Cerveau Et Imaginaire Sociotechnique.”47 E.g., Aicardi, Christine et al., “Opinion on ’Responsible Dual Use’ Political, Security, Intelligence and Military Research of Concern in Neuroscience and Neurotechnology”; Mahfoud, “Visions of Unification and Integration”; Ulnicane, Mahfoud, and Salles, “Experimentation, Learning, and Dialogue.”48 Kim, “The Travelling Vision and the Wave of Big Neurosciences.”49 Panese, “Cerveau Et Imaginaire Sociotechnique.”50 Mahfoud, “Visions of Unification and Integration.”51 Ulnicane, “Ever-Changing Big Science and Research Infrastructures.”52 Aicardi and Mahfoud, “Formal and Informal Infrastructures of Collaboration in the Human Brain Project.”53 German Research Complex, GNC, and GSC are psedonyms.54 Marquardt, “Human Brain Project Mediation Report.”55 Interview.56 HBP, The Human Brain Project.57 Panese, “Cerveau Et Imaginaire Sociotechnique.”58 Marquardt, “Human Brain Project Mediation Report,” 20.59 Amunts, Lindner, and Zilles, “The Human Brain Project.”60 HBP, “Human Brain Project Framework Partnership Agreement,” 48.61 Marquardt, “Human Brain Project Mediation Report,” 44.62 Interview, CN1.63 Hilgartner, “Capturing the Imaginary.”64 Interview, IN1.65 Interview, EN1.66 Interview, CN2.67 Interview, CN3.68 Edwards, A Vast Machine; Galison, “Computer Simulations and the Trading Zone.”69 Dudai and Evers, “To Simulate or Not to Simulate.”70 Interview, NI271 Interview.72 Marquardt, “Human Brain Project Mediation Report,” 23.73 Kandel et al., “Neuroscience Thinks Big (and Collaboratively).”74 Abbott, The System of Professions.75 Chompalov, Genuth, and Shrum, “The Organization of Scientific Collaborations.”76 Interviews, CN1, HPC1.77 Hill and Markram, “The Blue Brain Project.”78 Ulnicane, “Why Do International Research Collaborations Last?”79 Aicardi and Mahfoud, “Formal and Informal Infrastructures of Collaboration in the Human Brain Project.”80 Interviews, NI1, HPC1.81 HBP, “CDP3 Components Report.”82 i.e., Knorr-Cetina, Epistemic Cultures.83 Interview, PO1.84 Aicardi and Mahfoud, “Formal and Informal Infrastructures of Collaboration in the Human Brain Project.”85 Mahfoud, “Visions of Unification and Integration.”86 Aicardi and Mahfoud, “Formal and Informal Infrastructures of Collaboration in the Human Brain Project.”87 The FET-Flagships funding is composed of 4 stages: Ramp-up (October 2013 – February 2017), SGA1 (April 2016 – March 2018), SGA2 (April 2018 – March 2020), and SGA3 (April 2020 – March 2023).88 Interview.89 Interviews, EN1, EN3, EN4, CN1, HPC4.90 Aicardi, Mahfoud, and Rose, “Formal and Informal Infrastructures of Collaboration in the EU’s Human Brain Project.”91 HBP, “Transforming the Human Brain Project Platforms into a Community-Driven Infrastructure for Brain Research.”92 Interview, HPC1.93 Interviews, HPC1, HPC2, HPC3.94 Interview, HPC1.95 See https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html96 Interview, HPC2.97 Smith, “Engineering.”98 Interview, HPC2.99 Interview, PO1.100 Amunts, Lindner, and Zilles, “The Human Brain Project”; Amunts et al., “The Human Brain Project.”101 Aicardi and Mahfoud, “Formal and Informal Infrastructures of Collaboration in the Human Brain Project.”102 Interview, HPC1.103 Interview, HPC4.104 Interview, HPC4.105 Knorr-Cetina, Epistemic Cultures.106 Hilgartner, “Capturing the Imaginary.”107 Kandel et al., “Neuroscience Thinks Big (and Collaboratively).”108 See Downey, Lucena, and Mitcham, “Engineering Ethics and Identity.”109 Bucher et al., “Contestation about Collaboration.”110 Interview.111 Interviews, PO1, HPC1.112 Kroes, “FET Flagship Winners Press Conference.”113 Interview, EN2.114 EC, “FET Flagships.”115 Braun, “The Role of Funding Agencies in the Cognitive Development of Science”; Franssen et al., “The Drawbacks of Project Funding for Epistemic Innovation.”116 Penders, Horstman, and Vos, “Large-Scale Research and the Goal of Health.”117 Interview, EN1.118 Interview, PO2.119 Kupferschmidt, “European Commission Kills Billion-Euro Flagship Concept.”120 Le Temps, “Too Big to Fail.”121 Also see. Aicardi and Mahfoud, “Formal and Informal Infrastructures of Collaboration in the Human Brain Project.”122 Interview, HPC1.123 The HBP platform, named EBRAINS, has become integrated into the ESFRI Roadmap in 2021 (https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en/follow-hbp/news/ebrains-selected-for-the-esfri-roadmap-of-european-research-infrastructures/).124 I.e., Kaplan, Milde, and Cowan, “Symbiont Practices in Boundary Spanning.”125 Interview, HPC5.126 Interviews, PO1, HPC3.127 Association Internationale Sans But Lucratif (International Non-Profit Association).128 Penders, Horstman, and Vos, “Large-Scale Research and the Goal of Health.”129 Interview, HPC3.130 Interview, TN1.131 Interview, CN1.132 Interview.133 Interview.134 Interview, HPC3.135 Created by the author based on The Human Brain Project.136 Created by the author based on the HBP website. https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en/about-hbp/project-structure/work-packages/.