The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Assessing the Decade of the Brain
Abstract
T he 1990s were designated the Decade of the Brain (DOB) by the U.S. Congress. Originally sponsored by Congressman Silvio Conti (R-Mass.) on the recommendation of leaders of the neuroscience community, the proclamation was signed by President George Bush in July 1990. Noting that continued study of the brain was needed to combat the large number of debilitating neural diseases and conditions, it concluded by stating: “To enhance public awareness of the benefits to be derived from brain research, the Congress, by House Joint Resolution 174, has designated the decade beginning January 1, 1990, as the Decade of the Brain and has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation in observance of this occasion.” Although no additional research funding was implicit in this resolution, it stimulated a number of initiatives that have substantially benefited neuroscience. The DOB has been marked by an extraordinary increase in the visibility of neuroscience. Although the clinical benefits of research findings may have provided more stimulus than the congressional mandate, the DOB resolution provided a forum in which to publicize brain research. The annual DOB Award given by the Society for Neuroscience to an important Washington figure helped raise awareness inside the Beltway. Other programs, such as Brain Awareness Week (sponsored by the Dana Alliance with enthusiastic grassroots support from the Society for Neuroscience), were targeted annually to the country at large. Advocacy groups for individual diseases also became more visible during this period. Public recognition of the importance of studies of the spinal cord, brain, behavior, and mind is evident in the remarkable bipartisan congressional support for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in general, and for neuroscience in particular, during the past few years. There has also been more media attention to breakthroughs in neuroscience during the DOB. Many factors have influenced this interest, including recognition of the staggering costs of chronic neurological and neuropsychiatric diseases, currently estimated at more than $400 billion per year, as well as the rapid translation of breakthroughs in fundamental knowledge to the treatment of some of humankind's most devastating disorders, notably stroke and spinal cord injury.[*][1] Even when a cure or effective treatment does not yet exist, as in Alzheimer's disease, the attention attracted by recent breakthroughs such as those in stem cell research and the genetics of Parkinson's disease has induced a clear expectation that treatments are not too far away. Identification of the pathophysiology underlying chronic brain and mind disorders has also helped to reduce the stigma attached to these conditions. There has been explosive growth in the number of scientists identifying themselves as neuroscientists, with more than 1000 new members being added to the Society for Neuroscience in every year of the DOB. Many came from disciplines such as molecular biology and computer science, which are outside the traditional purview of neuroscience, leading to the widespread use of such new techniques as functional imaging and molecular genetics. Also emerging from the DOB has been a remarkable alliance between congressional leaders, the administration, representatives of disease advocacy groups, scientists themselves, and the new breed of leaders at NIH in promoting the cause of neuroscience. When large resources are required for the pursuit of fundamental research, only continuing commitment by all segments of a democratic society can ensure success. We believe that the DOB has strongly “enhance[d] public awareness of the benefits to be derived from brain research.” Its success gives us hope for continued extraordinary progress as we cross the threshold of the new millennium. [1]: #fn-1
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Pescosolido, B. A., Martin, J. K., Long, J. S., Medina, T. R., Phelan, J. C., & Link, B. G. (2010) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09121743 · Cited by 1,262
Evolution of public attitudes about mental illness: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Schomerus, G., Schwahn, C., Holzinger, A., Corrigan, P. W., Grabe, H. J., Carta, M. G., & Angermeyer, M. C. (2012) · Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2012.01826.x · Cited by 906
The ENIGMA Consortium: large-scale collaborative analyses of neuroimaging and genetic data
the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, E. C., Thompson, P. M., Stein, J. L., Medland, S. E., Hibar, D. P., Vasquez, A. A., Renteria, M. E., Toro, R., Jahanshad, N., Schumann, G., et al. (2014) · Brain Imaging and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11682-013-9269-5 · Cited by 838
Pescosolido, B. A., Medina, T. R., Martin, J. K., & Long, J. S. (2013) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2012.301147 · Cited by 349
Annual Research Review: Educational neuroscience: progress and prospects
Thomas, M. S. C., Ansari, D., & Knowland, V. C. P. (2019) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.12973 · Cited by 265
Metadata
- Authors
- Jones, E. G., & Mendell, L. M.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 1999-04-30
- Volume
- 284
- Issue
- 5415
- Pages
- 739-739
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W2039279241
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing the Decade of the Brain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1126/science.284.5415.739
- The paper
- Jones, E. G., & Mendell, L. M. (1999). Assessing the Decade of the Brain. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5415.739
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.