Q&A｜李毓龙教授专访：神经科学前沿、国际合作与青年科研

李毓龙

北京大学教授

We work in the neuroscience field, which fits well with this Society for Neuroscience meeting. More specifically, we focus on how the nervous system changes in function in both health and disease—looking at the neurochemicals neurons use to communicate in vivo. How these important neurochemicals change over time, and how they’re released during diseases, is still largely unknown. So, we’re targeting these challenging questions by developing cutting-edge probes that can specifically detect and report those neurochemicals in living systems—sometimes even simultaneously within the same cells.

I see breakthroughs in two main areas. First, how we manipulate or perturb neuronal and glial cell activities. There have been great advances in optogenetics and chemogenetics—using light or small molecules to control specific cell types’ activity or intracellular signals.

Second, how we read out information from the brain, again with cell-type specificity. A classic example is GCaMP, a genetically encoded calcium indicator that became widely used around 2006. But over the past ten years, neurochemical sensors, including ones we develop called GRABs, have become very important for reading specific neurochemical signals.

We also have better electrophysiology tools: traditionally, people used tetrodes for single-unit recordings, but now Neuropixels-like dense electrode arrays can record thousands of channels at once. Plus, flexible electronics have improved biocompatibility for long-term imaging.

Overall, we see progress both in manipulating and reading out brain activity—and even techniques that combine both to address neuroscience questions more comprehensively.

Many of these advances are already happening, at least in animal models. We have a better understanding of individual cells thanks to transcriptional and spatial transcriptomics, which help categorize different cell types. Combine that with real-time activity measurement, and the field is now able to define neural circuits underlying specific behaviors much better.

We also have a deeper understanding of non-neuronal cells like microglia and their roles in diseases. Going forward, this better understanding could enable more rational design of therapeutic approaches.

That’s a tough one, especially with the geopolitical changes and tensions we’ve seen lately. These issues definitely impact global collaboration. But neuroscience and biomedical research tackle some of humanity’s biggest challenges, so in principle, we need to work together—these problems affect all of us. Sadly, geopolitical constraints cast a shadow over that ideal.

In my view, the most effective collaborations are open and complementary. When teams bring complementary expertise, collaborations tend to be more productive. But if groups share the same expertise, competition may overshadow cooperation. So, openness and complementarity really matter.

Young scientists face different challenges depending on their country. For example, in China, where I’ve worked at Peking University for 30 years, there’s a phenomenon called “Juan” — which means a very high level of competition. It’s a tough word to translate exactly, but it often leads to a lot of pressure.

Research shows human performance follows a bell curve when it comes to stress: a lttle pressure can boost productivity, but too much actually harms it.  So I think I need to be more tolerant of failure and offer more encouragement. Honestly, I could do better in this regard. At the same time, it is important to identify particular fields that might have new opportunities and encourage young people to pursue those, rather than sticking to traditional paths and making only incremental improvements. This is something I have been thinking about for my team, which includes many students and postdocs. That is the advice I give them. But then, where can these opportunities be found?

For example, in my lab, we combine chemistry and neuroscience to design new probes for in vivo applications. Chemical biologists have great synthesis skills but may lack neuroscience context; neuroscientists know the brain but may not have chemistry expertise. This intersection offers exciting opportunities to advance science and help the community.

When I first attended the Society for Neuroscience in 2000, there were very few Chinese scientists or companies present, even though the attendance was over 20,000.

Today, despite geopolitical constraints, many Chinese companies have emerged—from biological instrumentation like RWD to reagent and software companies. This growth matches China’s economic development and is reshaping the research landscape.

In publications, Chinese institutes now contribute a large share of submissions to top journals, sometimes even surpassing the US or EU. The presence of Chinese scientists and companies in neuroscience instrumentation is also growing steadily.

As I mentioned earlier, Chinese companies are gaining more presence, but their overall share is still relatively small. For a global company like RWD, attending conferences with a long tradition, such as SfN, provides an opportunity to connect international scholars with Chinese researchers.

Sponsoring international symposia, talks, or special lecture series can increase RWD’s visibility and help Chinese scientists gain global recognition. Collaborations with organizations like SfN to promote Asian and Chinese neuroscience research would be valuable.

Also, gathering feedback from global customers can help RWD develop or improve instruments that benefit researchers both domestically and internationally. Neuroscience and biomedical science in China are advancing fast, and instruments developed locally can make a real global impact.