THIS fall, science writers have made sport of yet another instance of bad neuroscience. The culprit this time is Naomi Wolf; her new book, Vagina, has been roundly drubbed for misrepresenting the brain and neurochemicals like dopamine and oxytocin.
Earlier in the year, Chris Mooney raised similar ire with the book The Republican Brain, which claims that Republicans are genetically different from and, many readers deduced, lesser to Democrats. If Mooneys argument sounds familiar to you, it should, scoffed two science writers. Its called eugenics, and it was based on the belief that some humans are genetically inferior.
Sharp words from disapproving science writers are but the tip of the hippocampus: todays pop neuroscience, coarsened for mass audiences, is under a much larger attack.
Meet the neuro doubters.The neuro doubter may like neuroscience but does not like what he or she considers its bastardization by glib, sometimes ill-informed, popularizers.
A gaggle of energetic and amusing, mostly anonymous, neuroscience bloggers including Neurocritic, Neuroskeptic, Neurobonkers and Mind Hacks now regularly point out the lapses and folly contained in mainstream neuroscientific discourse. This group, for example, slammed a recent Newsweek article in which a neurosurgeon claimed to have discovered that heaven is real after his cortex shut down. Such journalism, these critics contend, is shoddy, nothing more than simplified pop. Additionally, publications from The Guardian to the New Statesman have published pieces blasting popular neuroscience-dependent writers like Jonah Lehrer and Malcolm Gladwell. The Oxford neuropsychologist Dorothy Bishops scolding lecture on the science of bad neuroscience was an online sensation last summer.
As a journalist and cultural critic, I applaud the backlash against what is sometimes called brain porn, which raises important questions about this reductionist, sloppy thinking and our willingness to accept seemingly neuroscientific explanations for, well, nearly everything.
Voting Republican? Oh, thats brain chemistry. Success on the job? Fortuitous neurochemistry! Neuroscience has joined company with other totalizing worldviews Marxism, Freudianism, critical theory that have been victim to overuse and misapplication.
A team of British scientists recently analyzed nearly 3,000 neuroscientific articles published in the British press between 2000 and 2010 and found that the media regularly distorts and embellishes the findings of scientific studies. Writing in the journal Neuron, the researchers concluded that logically irrelevant neuroscience information imbues an argument with authoritative, scientific credibility. Another way of saying this is that bogus science gives vague, undisciplined thinking the look of seriousness and truth.
The problem isnt solely that self-appointed scientists often jump to faulty conclusions about neuroscience. Its also that they are part of a larger cultural tendency, in which neuroscientific explanations eclipse historical, political, economic, literary and journalistic interpretations of experience. A number of the neuro doubters are also humanities scholars who question the way that neuroscience has seeped into their disciplines, creating phenomena like neuro law, which, in part, uses the evidence of damaged brains as the basis for legal defense of people accused of heinous crimes, or neuroaesthetics, a trendy blend of art history and neuroscience.
Its not hard to understand why neuroscience is so appealing. We all seek shortcuts to enlightenment. Its reassuring to believe that brain images and machine analysis will reveal the fundamental truth about our minds and their contents. But as the neuro doubters make plain, we may be asking too much of neuroscience, expecting that its explanations will be definitive. Yet its hard to imagine that any functional magnetic resonance imaging or chemical map will ever explain The Golden Bowl or heaven. Or that brain imaging, no matter how sophisticated and precise, will ever tell us what women really want.
See original here:
Neuroscience: Under Attack
