Neuroethics 3

Hello everyone! Welcome to the neuroethics discussion page! Please comment on the facebook wall post with your response, then copy-paste the response into your student journals/drop-box so that they can be graded. Without adding your response to your student journals, you will not receive credit for the discussion. Thus, the only way you will be able to access and view the neuroethics discussion topics is by viewing the courestreet website and visiting this node. This is how the neuroethics discussions will be conducted from now on. So remember, post on facebook, then copy and paste into your student journal.

Neuroethics 3:

This week's neuroethics discussion topic concerns a common misconception in neuroscience, that is, how neuroimaging technologies (such as fMRI's and other techniques) generate data that are misinterpreted and misleading when portrayed by the media to the public and other people external to the field. In the article posted, "fMRI and the public eye", the authors elaborate on how images and data produced by these technologies do not necessarily reflect what they are meant to, which may mislead the public on what is actually happening and potentially reduce the validity of the studies. Factors such as an adapted communication style that differs from scientific communication styles and the nebulous interpretations of results produced by neuroimaging create a situation that is conducive to vast misconception about the salient messages the studies are supposed to be sending. As this happens, the real implications of the neuroscientific studies is compromised, and the research potentially invalidated.

Your task is to read the attached manuscript down to, and including "Implications for Neuroscience" (you can skip Genomics and Biotechnology if you like), and post your opinions about what this portrayal of this type of research means to the public and scientific communities. What do the authors mean by the terms "Neuro-realism", "Neuro-essentialism", and "Neuro-policy"? Can these misconceptions be harmful to the fields of neuroscience, clinical medicine, and science in general? As scientists, what can we do to prevent this type of digression from true scientific results and implications?

fMRI in the public eye

Please post your comments on the CU Neuroscience facebook wall, and then copy into your student journals by SEPTEMBER 12th!!!!!! Remember, there is no right or wrong answer for an opinionated response. We are here doing this because it is a healthy and intelligent way to convey one's thoughts on a complicated subject matter. Everyone's opinion is just as valid as everyone else's, so this discussion is open-minded and respectful. We are here to critically think about topics that may be relevant to all of our lives. Good luck!