Neuroscience - Under Attack - NYTimes.com

<base href="data:"><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 14px; color: black; text-align: left; "><div class="articleBody" style="margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.7em; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 10px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 15px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); position: static; z-index: auto; "><br><nyt_text><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">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.</div></nyt_text></div><div class="articleInline runaroundLeft" style="float: left; clear: left; display: inline; margin-top: 6px !important; margin-right: 15px !important; margin-bottom: 10px !important; margin-left: 0px !important; width: 190px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 10px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 15px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); position: static; z-index: auto; "><div class="inlineImage module" style="margin-bottom: 12px; clear: both; width: 190px; "><div class="image" style="margin-bottom: 2px; "><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/neuroscience-under-attack.html?_r=0" style="color: rgb(102, 102, 153); text-decoration: none; display: block; "><span itemprop="associatedMedia" itemscope="" itemid="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/25/sunday-review/25GRAY/25GRAY-articleInline.jpg" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizAdWXHeV-ZXjjMRvpRlFXiVXanDPkG6V5LIlXCFXgKvVuILicERzhpBNq9KyPNyVBt_NExonPKnEoFdyssF2l-NyRphcdJx4ScwXke2RNfMtjTFMQZaFtB8azJ7zV51ICzYkMKAMgMgM/s1600/25GRAY-articleInline-723335.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5827428049544730626" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizAdWXHeV-ZXjjMRvpRlFXiVXanDPkG6V5LIlXCFXgKvVuILicERzhpBNq9KyPNyVBt_NExonPKnEoFdyssF2l-NyRphcdJx4ScwXke2RNfMtjTFMQZaFtB8azJ7zV51ICzYkMKAMgMgM/s320/25GRAY-articleInline-723335.jpg" /></a></span></a></div><p style="margin: 0px; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.25em; "></p></div></div><div class="articleBody" style="margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.7em; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 10px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 15px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); position: static; z-index: auto; "><p itemprop="articleBody" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em; font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">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 Mooney's argument sounds familiar to you, it should," scoffed two science writers. "It's called 'eugenics,' and it was based on the belief that some humans are genetically inferior."</p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em; font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Sharp words from disapproving science writers are but the tip of the hippocampus: today's pop neuroscience, coarsened for mass audiences, is under a much larger attack.</p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em; font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">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.</p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em; font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">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 Bishop's scolding lecture on the science of bad neuroscience was an online sensation last summer.</p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em; font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">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.</p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em; font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Voting Republican? <em>Oh, that's brain chemistry.</em> Success on the job? <em>Fortuitous neurochemistry!</em> Neuroscience has joined company with other totalizing worldviews — Marxism, Freudianism, critical theory — that have been victim to overuse and misapplication.</p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em; font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">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.</p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em; font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">The problem isn't solely that self-appointed scientists often jump to faulty conclusions about neuroscience. It's 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.</p><p itemprop="articleBody" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em; font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">It's not hard to understand why neuroscience is so appealing. We all seek shortcuts to enlightenment. It's 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 it's 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.</p><nyt_author_id><div class="authorIdentification" style="margin-bottom: 2.8em; "><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic; ">Alissa Quart is <a href="http://www.alissaquart.com/" style="color: rgb(102, 102, 153); text-decoration: underline; font-size: 15px !important; line-height: 22px; ">the author</a> of "Branded" and "Hothouse Kids."</div></div></nyt_author_id></div></div><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/neuroscience-under-attack.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/neuroscience-under-attack.html?_r=0</a><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 14px; color: black; text-align: left; "><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>

Neuroscience - Under Attack - NYTimes.com

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.…

Read more »