Now I'm not going to defend the outlandish claims some people have been making using neuroscience research or the claims of those who wish to extend neuroscientific research too far. A good example is the recent plea to associate poverty and brain development (here, here, here and here). Poverty is not a singular independent variable that influences brain development. With poverty, there are issues of nutrition, the amount of education, parental bonding and/or levels of abuse, levels of stress (and the amount of cortisol, which definitely does impact neural development), there can also be issues of the parents' habits such as smoking, drinking, drugs, etc., all of which can have an impact on childhood brain development. To simply state that poverty (income) influences brain development doesn't mean much. There is a lot to consider when discussing the variables contained within 'poverty' and its influence. Income alone does not determine brain development. There are many brilliant minds who grew up poor.
Granted that there has been some poor reporting on neuroscience and its potential to determine certain things. Most neuroscientists (cognitive neuroscience, neurobiology, neurochemistry, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, etc. etc.) that I've come across are well aware of its reductive nature and that it is not a necessary predictor of behaviour. Although neuroscience is illuminating and can be a source of great insight, many philosophical inquiries are still there and philosophers concerned with consciousness and the philosophy of mind continue to collaborate, conduct research, and discern/interpret the evidence. But to suggest that neuroscience is neuro-nonsense is just, to be frank, arrogantly ignorant.
As one who began his studies in Biology with a specialization in Neuroscience, pre-med, and having worked in several neurologically oriented labs - Neuropsychology, Cognitive Neurobiology, Neurology, Neurochemistry - for several years (2003-2007), the dismissal of neuroscience is off-putting. Most, it would seem, really have no idea what goes into neuroscience research and presume that it all involves putting people into neuro-imaging machines, looking at colors in a picture and making outlandish conclusions. This is just wrong and reflects a perverse misunderstanding of what goes into neuroscientific research. While neuroimaging techniques have a definite place within research, it is NOT the end all be all of neuroscientific work. Neuroscience really begins with understanding the brain and everything associated with the brain on an observable empirical level. This includes the interaction of synapses, the creation of synapses, where certain neurochemicals are produced, where they are attached in terms of neuroreceptors, brain structures and the function of particular brain regions and so on and so on.
There are definitely basic things about the brain that we know, which is also reflected in the mind and behaviour. Two truly basic examples that any undergraduate interested in Neuropyschology will learn about is Broca's and Wernicke's area of the brain (shown in the image below) and their roles in language. In the most rudimentary way, Broca's area is involved with speech production and Wernicke's area is involved with speech comprehension. As you can see, if you know the jargon, Wernicke's is at the juncture between the temporal and parietal lobe of the brain (more specifically, the posterior superior temporal gyrus) and Broca's area is at the juncture between the frontal and parietal lobe (the posterior inferior frontal gyrus). One way of investigating the function of brain areas is with lesions - patients who have damaged a particular area of the brain. Aphasia is just one example.
Aphasia is usually caused by damage (a brain lesion) to one or both of these areas in the brain - most typically through stroke or tumor. If the Broca's area is damaged or removed then you have Broca's aphasia. If Wernicke's area is damaged or removed then you have Wernicke's aphasia. I don't know how much more straightforward we can get. You remove or damage an area of the brain then your mind and behaviour is affected.
Broca's aphasia patients have trouble with speech production but capable with speech comprehension. Grandma in this clip has Broca's NOT Wernicke's as the title suggests.
A more extreme form of Broca's aphasia can be seen here with Grandpa:
Wernicke's aphasia patients have trouble with speech comprehension but maintain speech production abilities. Grandma here has Wenicke's aphasia:
And there are those with Global aphasia, which has been affected by lesions in both Wernicke's and Broca's area as well as other areas of the left hemisphere.
And even more: if you haven't heard of Phineas Gage then look him up. He is arguably the most famous patient in neuroscience. This man experienced a metal rod going through his skull damaging his orbitofrontal cortex and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (I think). Remarkably other areas of his brain were intact. Damage to this area, showed a dramatic change in personality for Phineas Gage. His friends remarked that Phineas was no longer himself. His behaviour is also marked by increased inappropriate behaviour and impulsiveness. People with lesions in this area are much more impulsive than those without any brain lesions and those who do not have lesions in this area.
Another famous patient is H.M., who had his hippocampus and amygdala removed. For some reason, doctors thought that removing those areas would cure his epilepsy. H.M. was able to conduct tasks involving short-term memory and procedural memory but was unable to conduct anything that involved long-term episodic memory (More here and I guess they've preserved his brain.). And since then, there have been many patients with amnesia from which neuroscientists have been able to draw information from.
More recently, neuroscientists and some philosophers have been investigating the role of the emotions with reasoning capabilities and empathy. The relationship with deliberation and emotion was most famously investigated by Antonio Damasio and explicated in his books: 'Descartes' Error' and 'Looking for Spinoza'. Recently there has been considerable work done on psychopaths or sociopaths and their inability to empathize or sympathize with others.
Brain lesions is just one way in which neuroscience research is conducted and how particular functions of particular brain regions are determined. It is usually the case that one area has several functions and that there is always a interconnectedness across the brain.
Another method is with animal studies. If the research was on memory, investigators can train a rat to do one thing over and over again. And then, do some surgery - creating a lesion in a particular area. And after the rat heals. See how the rat responds. In more gruesome research, rats can be injected with a drug to see how certain brain areas are affected. Later on rats are "sacked". A particular area of the brain is taken and through several standard procedures it is possible to see how much of what neurochemical was most involved. This also provides insight by analogy into what may be occurring in human brains.
The creativity and methods are diverse in the neurosciences. I've only really described two other methods from neuro-imaging techniques: animal studies and comparative studies (brain lesions).
As one who prefers to take a bottom-up approach, I take stock in the research about the brain and the neurosciences. I am well aware of the fallability of science, its shortcomings and that there is still much more to be learned about the brain, which is all the more reason I keep an ear to the research coming out of respected journals of neuroscience.
I find it amusing and, quite often, frustrating how science can be misconstrued by journalists and even other academics who really have no clue. The flippant dismissal of neuroscience simply reflects the incompetence of too many. And is a testament of how the media, and respected academics, can mislead and misconstrue research and evidence to its eager science-hungry consumers; academics and intellectuals included. But really, especially with the brain and human sciences, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The latest farce in science media: women with big butts are smarter
No comments:
Post a Comment