Belcher on Neuroscience Journalism

Mimi Belcher, a postdoctoral fellow at the MacArthur Law and Neuroscience Project, sent me an email criticizing some recent neuroscience journalism and gave permission to post her thoughts on the Neuroethics & Law Blog.  (Incidentally, it seems clear that Mimi is writing in her own personal capacity).  My own views are less caustic than Mimi's, so I'll add a brief remark in the comments section.  Here is the relevant portion of Mimi's email which I've copied verbatim:

An April 6 blog posting in the online Scientific American described a recently-published paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry (http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=is-wisdom-in-the-brain-2009-04-06). The original paper is a review of the current state of what is known regarding the neurobiology of attributes related to wisdom, and the authors (Thomas Meeks, and Dilip Jeste, both of whom are MDs at UC San Diego) draw correspondences in brain areas purportedly involved in aspects of this age-old construct. Although the authors concede that there may be more ways in which to define "wisdom", they operationally characterize it as "prosocial attitudes/behaviors, social decision making/pragmatic knowledge of life, emotional homeostasis, reflection/self-understanding, value relativism/tolerance, and acknowledgment of and dealing effectively with uncertainty." From the SciAm article:

Jeste describes those regions' roles in wisdom this way: "The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is like a proverbial father: a disciplinarian, cold, calculating, rationale. The ventromedial prefrontal cortex is probably like a mother: kind, nice, helpful, sociable, emotional. The anterior cingulate is the proverbial uncle who when you have a fight between father and mother, you go to your uncle. The limbic striatum is a friend, a reward system."

Although I can appreciate the blog writer's challenge of filling a "60-second science spot" with condensed information, it's frustrating to see that this synthesis takes the form of reducing the description of the science to animistic will-bearing brain structures. Arguably, the responsibility for this dribble resides with the author of the study, who would do well to stick to a description of the science that doesn't incorporate an episode of "All in the Family". But it's ultimately the responsibility of the author of the newspiece (Jordan Lite) to make sure that these soundbites don't occupy the space where proper science writing should occur. As if lay comprehension of neuroscience wasn't already riddled with problems... now we have brain areas starring as members of our very own family.

Comments

[Adam Kolber]

It seems like your primary criticism goes to Jeste for the quote that Lite used. In the relevant passage, Lite is simply reporting what Jeste had said. I think you're right that science journalists should avoid oversimplifying for entertainment value. In this case, however, it would be a lot to ask of journalists to "outscience" the scientists about whom they're reporting.

Also, there's no easy answer to the following question: Just how abstract and metaphorical should journalists be when explaining scientific concepts to audiences that do no have much background in a particular area. I know nothing about topology, for example. When math/science journalists write about topology, it is often quite clear to me that they are dramatically oversimplifying. But absent such oversimplifications, it's not clear how much they can say to a general audience.

[The Neurocritic]

Not that this was a stellar piece of science journalism, but I do believe that Jeste deserves the bulk of the criticism for his silly sexist analogies.

[Daniel S. Goldberg]

I also maintain that it is far too convenient and easy to pick on journalists covering neuroscience, even if such criticisms are often legitimate. There is good reason to believe, as this discussion may indicate, that physicians and scientists too play an active role in misconstruing, triumphalizing, and overstating the possible conclusions to be drawn from neuroscience.

For better or worse, I'm not generally surprised when laypersons or the media misinterpets scientific or clinical findings, but think the greater sin is with the professionals, who IMO ought to know better.

[waltinseattle]

Its hard to single out a culpret for "humanizing"/"personifying" brain functions. Its a cultural pastime. A recent read of mine spent inordinate time contorting past the history of the church and pure philosophy (bunk)so as to get a clearing within which to investigate mind. So much baggage!

Add that they (Meeke, Juste)perported to "operationally" characterize or define wisdom, when it is surely a cultural opinion of an observation (perhaps an evaluation of the internal event, played through the bias of culture--would be more exact?), NOT an operationally definable event...it becomes painfully aware that language is non longer an exact anything. Even in "science." Remember we still yap on about "the soul." Not much progress since the darker ages I might argue. Postmodern Science? oh joy!
And the audience requires it ?!

I find the agnostic approach recently undertaken at DARPA to be more scientific, being (as I prefer- Taoist that I am) an investigation of "what" and not of how, WHY and other premature or perhaps even meaningless questions. Name what needs a name, not what those before you wished to be relevant in some religiopollitick.

Just "what" for me! that's plenty to observe.