Ethics

Trouble in Neuroparadise

By Adam Kolber

Hank Greely provides a helpful summary of recent research casting doubt on the reliability of the interpretation of fMRI studies.  (He also quite rightly points out that the field of neurolaw is about more than just fMRI.)  This tidbit is particularly troubling: 

Another article, by Sirota and Das, reports an experiment that showed substantially increased blood flow (and hence a BOLD signal) in the visual cortex of experimental subjects just before they were to be shown one in a series of visual stimuli, thus casting doubt, at least on some situations, on what the BOLD signal means.

Clearly, there is only one explanation as to why the BOLD signal increased before people saw the pertinent images: the BOLD signal proves that we have ESP! (Note to neuroparapsychologists: I'm just kidding.)

Of course, if scientists are having trouble interpreting their own data, it's no surprise that the lay media get it wrong.  Titles of articles notoriously get things wrong, in part because, as I understand it, the titles of pieces are often written not by the article's author but by an editor elsewhere in the food chain.  Still, one has to make fun of this recent title in the NYT: "In Pain and Joy of Envy, the Brain May Play a Role".  

I, for one, am on the edge of my seat waiting to discover whether the brain actually plays a role in the processing of emotions or, if perhaps, envy is governed by the pancreas.  Given the Sirota and Das paper, the most parsimonious explanation is that envy is associated with ESP.   

Full post as published by Neuroethics and Law on February 24, 2009 (boomark / email).