Sep 29, 2026 · 35 min · 10 segments
What does it take to turn a scientific discovery into meaningful impact for people living with brain disorders? In the opening episode of Brain Talks Season 6, we explore the three pillars at the…
Tomás RyanGuest
Martien KasGuest
Frédéric DestrebecqGuest
Sam PaulyHost
Martin, Thomas, Fred, thank you so much for focusing and exploring on those three different pillars.
If you had to choose one priority for the next decade of brain innovation, what would it be? Fred, let me come to you and then Thomas, I'll come to you and then Martin will finish with you.
It's really a catch-22 in the sense that, as each of us was saying, it's the interconnectivity of these three elements that are actually essential.
And I would say that the pillar I would focus on is how to create the virtuous cycle across those three elements of the team.
Thomas, what would be the one priority you'd choose for the next decade of brain innovation?
I think the most effective thing we can do in brain innovation, particularly in Europe, would be to ensure that the priorities for brain research come in a bottom-up manner from the investigators, from the scientists at every stage in the process.
I think one of the limitations with how neuroscience has been progressing in Europe has been that so many of our funding mechanisms are what we call top down.
They're based on specific priorities that are negotiated either by government or by government in collaboration with civil society.
But the reality is that the most effective science comes from the most competitive scientists following their own intuition, their gut instinct and competing with other scientists around the world.
And I'm talking about funding mechanisms like the European Research Council and indeed the European Innovation Council.
So what I would like to see is more of a prioritization on what we call bottom-up investigator-led research.
Yeah, I think we're in an exciting moment of discovering a lot about neuroscience and the brain.
I think we went through such a cycle for cancer research where we had no ways to cure cancer, but there were major investments in cancer research.
And now I think we actually can pinpoint exactly what cancer types and what type of interventions can be used.
We're at the juncture now for psychiatry to make that similar transition, and I think Translation of these novel scientific findings needs appropriate infrastructure as well as resourcing.
While setting that priority, I think laboratory, clinic and healthcare systems need to be connected from the beginning rather than sequentially.
So we need a continuously evolving ecosystem where scientific discovery and clinical implementation are aligned and working together.
Martin, Thomas, Fred, thank you so much for focusing and exploring on those three different pillars.
If you had to choose one priority for the next decade of brain innovation, what would it be? Fred, let me come to you and then Thomas, I'll come to you and then Martin will finish with you.
It's really a catch-22 in the sense that, as each of us was saying, it's the interconnectivity of these three elements that are actually essential.
And I would say that the pillar I would focus on is how to create the virtuous cycle across those three elements of the team.
Thomas, what would be the one priority you'd choose for the next decade of brain innovation?
I think the most effective thing we can do in brain innovation, particularly in Europe, would be to ensure that the priorities for brain research come in a bottom-up manner from the investigators, from the scientists at every stage in the process.
I think one of the limitations with how neuroscience has been progressing in Europe has been that so many of our funding mechanisms are what we call top down.
They're based on specific priorities that are negotiated either by government or by government in collaboration with civil society.
But the reality is that the most effective science comes from the most competitive scientists following their own intuition, their gut instinct and competing with other scientists around the world.
And I'm talking about funding mechanisms like the European Research Council and indeed the European Innovation Council.
So what I would like to see is more of a prioritization on what we call bottom-up investigator-led research.
Yeah, I think we're in an exciting moment of discovering a lot about neuroscience and the brain.
I think we went through such a cycle for cancer research where we had no ways to cure cancer, but there were major investments in cancer research.
And now I think we actually can pinpoint exactly what cancer types and what type of interventions can be used.
We're at the juncture now for psychiatry to make that similar transition, and I think Translation of these novel scientific findings needs appropriate infrastructure as well as resourcing.
While setting that priority, I think laboratory, clinic and healthcare systems need to be connected from the beginning rather than sequentially.
So we need a continuously evolving ecosystem where scientific discovery and clinical implementation are aligned and working together.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.