CAJ: Being Aware of Wrongly Interpreted Neuroscientific Data

It is common knowledge that the media sometimes outlines stories or facts slightly more different than they actually are. That is what journalists always did and always will do, we all know that. However, we must be aware that in articles, in particular on scientific issues, some news or advancements may be misinterpreted.

Some of you have perhaps encountered some ("scientific") articles claiming that eating walnuts will make you smarter or orange juice will reduce aggressiveness in a person. (These examples are exaggerated by me) Nonetheless, we read them because everyone wants to become more intelligent or less grumpy in an easy way. Everyone knows that those claims can't, in fact, be entirely true but weirdly we want to believe them.

The other day I was reading THIS article by Jeremy Laurance, the author on health issues in "The Independent", about the findings by neuroscientist Molly Crockett. She and her colleagues conducted an experiment how serotonin, a neurotransmitter, could influence people's decisions when they are treated unfairly. They gave a lemon-flavored and protein-rich artificial drink to participants and this drink contained tryptophan, which is the preliminary stage of serotonin. The results suggested that people with low serotonin levels are more likely to avenge themselves than those with a high one.

Laurance mentions in his article that if you eat a sandwich you will get a pay rise. This argument does not speak in favor of the article's logos. Also, he only gains credibility in using the phrase "scientists have found" and in describing Molly Crockett's experiment. However, he draws rather far-fetched conclusions which were definitely not part of Crockett's results. On the other hand, Laurance appeals a great deal to the readers empathy in illustrating how easy it is to successfully make decisions. You only have to eat a simple cheese sandwich to make all your dreams come true.


Here is Crockett's explanation on this matter:

She talks about:

• Who she is and what she does
• her experiment founding: when tryptophan was low people are more likely to take revenge
• the headlines that came out after they conducted the experiment
• how tryptophan can also be found in cheese and chocolate which grabbed people's attention 

• how oversimplifying of scientific data happens all the time 
• neuroscience appearing more and more in marketing
• if there is a image of a brain next to something, it will sell better

• jumping into conclusions based on brain activity in one specific region which actually has many different functions 

• a scientist who claims boosting oxytocin increases trust and cooperation in people
• which is only one side of the coin

• SPECT imaging, including radioactive injection in order to track blood flow in the brain
• neuroscience is not able to track mental illnesses from a single brain scan yet

• there is potential for neuroscience to do all the amazing things many scientists or marketing-oriented people claim to be possible
• but neuroscience is not there yet and we should bring something into question before taking it as it is

And here is a picture of a cool brain. Maybe my post will be more appealing for you to read (and comment on) now.

source text and source video

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-cheesy-secret-behind-successful-decision-making-841419.html#

https://www.ted.com/talks/molly_crockett_beware_neuro_bunk