English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

National or intra-national research programs (like FP7 or H2020, in EU zone) foster and reinforce specific ways to do research, selecting the best proposals to implement next researches thanks the provided funds. Very frequently, these programs are based on beliefs about the reliability and best chances of becoming successful researches. We analyse how EU flagship Human Brain Project (henceforth, HBP) was overestimated as a successful innovative project and, on the other side, how other innovative ways to work on neuroscientific research (fMRI, statistical data analysis) have led the discipline to important dead-end epistemological results. Other flaws into new methodological implementations offer an insight to the complexity of research field advances. The keys of the guidance and orientation in scientific innovation are, thus, revised under the light of these phenomena. *Correspondence to: Jordi Vallverdú, MD, Department of Philosophy, Room B7/104, 08193 Bellaterra (BCN), Catalonia, Spain, Tel: 935812964; E-mail: jordi.vallverdu@uab.cat

Why do we foster and grant wrong innovative scientific methods? The Neuroscientific Challenge