AI: Is Connectome Research the Future of Brain Science?

By David Stephen 

What is the theory behind the necessity to map the brain, in connectomics research, as a solution to the unknowns about the brain?

Simply, what makes it necessary to continue to map the whole brain to understand how the brain works, if as much as is known about the brain [already] has yet to be explained in any encompassing theory, by those involved?

The Future of Brain Science?

What neuroscience needs now, for psychiatry, neurology and human intelligence is a central theory of how the brain mechanizes functions.

Just an explanation, based on evidence, not about prediction for now or anything else. Just use established evidence to explain functions, mental disorders, neurological disorders and human intelligence.

Connectomics, the research to map the entire human brain, is at least 30 years away on a fair estimate but close to 100 years or more, on an extreme estimate.

While it is true that new useful information will emerge from clarity about paths, distances and more across the brain, there is nothing that says that there should not be a mature theory at present, of how the brain works to explain disorders, or prospect what may be important in mapping of the brain.

It does not matter if connectomics research is funded in the academe or in the industry, there is no theory, from them, of how the brain works to make certain determinations. Just a theory, a sweeping explanation that exceeds, labels and descriptions to use what is already obtainable to tell a new direction to go.

There is a recent [July 24, 2026] report in The Transmitter, Neuroscientists weigh in on White House proposal for ‘moonshot infrastructure’ for connectomics, stating that, “A White House report on U.S. scientific priorities released this week recommends a “moonshot infrastructure” to map connections in mammalian brains.”

“The initiative would seed collaborations between industry and academia to increase the translational benefit from connectome research, “much as the Human Genome Project commoditized genetic sequencing,” according to the report, titled “Science: A New Golden Age,” published 21 July by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. “For medicine, these circuit diagrams would offer a way to map the circuitry implicated in depression, addiction, and autism.””

“The report’s author, Michael Kratsios, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, told members of Congress in a hearing earlier this week that the guidelines in the 72-page report “ensure that taxpayer-supported science produces the largest returns possible for the benefit of all Americans.””

“The report’s section on budget recommendations for the fiscal year 2028 outlines several core research missions, including artificial intelligence, quantum computing, fusion energy, space, robotics and semiconductors.”

“The report says that startups and not just universities are performing basic research, giving early-career scientists a new path.”

Conceptual Brain Science

What exactly is depression in the brain? This question means that what components are closest to the function of depression, what do they do in the episode, differently from when there isn’t a depression?

What exactly is an emotion in the brain? This means that if an emotion is identified as a function, there should be a difference between an emotion and a feeling or an emotion and a memory, what is that difference?

What is an addiction in the brain? Like how does addiction work? This means that if someone with a substance use disorder were to be told what is happening in the mind, what are the components in the events and what are their mechanisms?

This is where neuroscience is, today, for psychiatry, at least. It is also connected with functional aberrations from structural anomalies in neurological disorders. In a neurodegenerative disease, when there is lack of motor control or steadiness, what went wrong, conceptually? If there is a lack of self in a situation, what got blocked? Was it just in one part or in every part?

What is the postulation of how subjectivity arises in the brain? The same for intent or free will, the same for attention and so on. Just how should these be explained, given how much neuroscience has come in the last century.

The first option is neurons, established across the central nervous system to be responsible for functions. But neurons never work without their electrical and chemical signals. Also, whatever the connection, network, or whatever is said about the brain, electrical and chemical signals are at work.

So, for over a century there has not been an overall theory of how the brain works, by neurons, in spite of the number of academic and industry experts on it: psychology, psychiatry, cognitive science, neurology, neurosurgery, and others.

This indicates that while it is possible to keep waiting to develop an explanation of how the brain works by neurons, it is possible to move on to electrical and chemical signals, to explain functions, disorders, as well as features of functions, like attention, subjectivity and intent.

This would be a great leap forward in the direction of progress, just to explain first, while other efforts follow, towards exploring areas that are yet to be understood.

This is what should be focused on, not just seeking connectomics that has had several investments, experiments, and so forth, but has been unable to make much difference in basic understanding of brain disorders.

The postulate in Conceptual Biomarkers and Theoretical Biological Factors for Psychiatric and Intelligence Nosology, extends around electrochemical psychiatry, as well as electrochemical neurology and electrochemical intelligence.

The objective is to at least have the signals as components in the brain, then present some mechanisms and have those take leads in how the brain is understood towards better care.

The human mind is defined as the collection of all the electrical and chemical signals with their interaction and features, in sets — in clusters of neurons — across the central and peripheral nervous systems.

Simply, for functions to occur, electrical and chemical signals, in sets, have to interact. However, attributes for those interactions are obtained by the states of electrical and chemical signals at the time of the interactions.

This is the direction for to win the future of brain science at least going ahead from August, 2026, not connectomics.

David Stephen does research in conceptual brain science and served as a visiting scholar in medical entomology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He did computer vision research at Rovira i Virgili University in Tarragona.

See more breaking stories here.