Managing brain-hype: understanding and discriminating overemphasized brain-based allegations

Main Article Content

Marta Vassallo
Mario Picozzi

Keywords

brain-hype, neuro-hype, neurorealism, neuroessentialism, brain-based allegations

Abstract


Research about our brain’s function is today essential for the assessment of the human species and for our self-comprehension. However, since the neuroscientific turn took place in several areas of research such as psychology, philosophy, and AI, the consequential interdisciplinarity this event created gave birth to an important phenomenon that is still in place today: neuro-hype or brain-hype. As a matter of fact, we are increasingly overstimulated by brain-based observations, research, and alleged discoveries. But, how much of this hype around our brains is justified? This is an essential question if we aim to assess and understand neuroscientific research today. Therefore, in this work, we analyze this phenomenon and its outcomes by investigating different topics ranging from newspaper titles to the relationship between brains and research. In addition to that, we discuss several theories such as neuroessentialism that have made an attempt to explain and understand this phenomenon, which has important ethical implications concerning both scientists and society in its entirety.


Abstract 46 | PDF Downloads 42

References

1. Lilienfeld SO, Sauvigné KC, Lynn SJ, Cautin RL, Latzman RD, and Waldman ID. Fifty psychological and psychiatric terms to avoid: a list of inaccurate, misleading, misused, ambiguous, and logically confused words and phrases. Front Psychol 2015, 6:1100.
2. Liu Y, Lu H. Microfluidics in systems biology-hype or truly useful?. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2016; 39:215–20.
3. Abola MV, Prasad V. The Use of Superlatives in Cancer Research. JAMA Oncol 2010; 2(1):139–41.
4. Caulfield T, Rachul C, Zarzeczny A. “Neurohype” and the Name Game: Who’s to Blame?. AJOB Neuroscience 2010; 1(2):13–5.
5. Racine E, Quintal A, Sample M. Neuroessentialism in Discussions About the Impact of Closed-Loop Technologies on Agency and Identity. AJOB Neuroscience 2017; 8(2):81–3.
6. Lunbeck E, Silverman C, Pickersgill, Stahnisch FW. A Book Forum on Being Brains: Making the Cerebral Subject by Fernando Vidal and Francisco Ortega. Somatosphere 2018 [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322007866
7. Ahmed A, Aziz S, Abd-alrazaq A, Farooq F, Househ M, Sheikh J. The Effectiveness of Wearable Devices Using Artificial Intelligence for Blood Glucose Level Forecasting or Prediction: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res 2023; 25:e40259.
8. Templer S. Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Systems: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2022; 13:919942.
9. Poulis N, Zaytseva P, Gähwiler EKN, et al. Tissue engineered heart valves for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: current state, challenges, and future developments. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2020; 18(10):681–96.
10. Garbade J, Bittner HB, Lehmann S, Mohr FW, Barten MJ. Miniaturization of left ventricular assist devices: the ongoing trend. Expert Rev Med Devices 2012; 9(1):49–58.
11. Chavda VP, Yao Q, Vora LK, et al. Fast-track development of vaccines for SARS-CoV-2: The shots that saved the world. Front Immunol 2022; 13:961198.
12. Abbott M, Ustoyev Y. Cancer and the Immune System: The History and Background of Immunotherapy. Semin Oncol Nurs 2019; 35(5):150923.
13. Nikanjam M, Kato S, Kurzrock R. Liquid biopsy: current technology and clinical applications. J Hematol Oncol 2022; 15:131.
14. Parati E, Picozzi M, Sattin D, Vassallo M. Thinking outside the box for a new epistemology in neurosciences. UAB Igmovila; 2022 Jun.
15. Vidal F. Historical and Ethical Perspectives of Modern Neuroimaging. In: Clausen J, Levy N, editors. Handbook of Neuroethics. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015 pp 535–50.
16. Sandi C, Haller J. Stress and the social brain: behavioural effects and neurobiological mechanisms. Nat Rev Neurosci 2015;16(5):290–304.
17. Park S, Han CH, Im CH. Design of Wearable EEG Devices Specialized for Passive Brain-Computer Interface Applications. Sensors (Basel) 2020; 20(16):4572.
18. Kreitmair KV. Dimensions of Ethical Direct-to-Consumer Neurotechnologies. AJOB Neurosci. 2019;10(4):152–66.
19. Parens E, Johnston J. Does it make sense to speak of neuroethics? Three problems with keying ethics to hot new science and technology. EMBO Rep 2007; 8 Spec No(Suppl 1):S61–S64.
20. Miller L. Neurobabble. Psychol Today 1986; 70.
21. Loewenstein G, Rick S, Cohen JD. Neuroeconomics. Annu Rev Psychol 2008; 59:647–72.
22. de Jong IM, Kupper F, Arentshorst M, et al. Responsible Reporting: Neuroimaging News in the Age of Responsible Research and Innovation. Sci Eng Ethics 2016; 22:1107–30.
23. Racine E, Waldman S, Rosenberg J, Illes J. Contemporary neuroscience in the media. Soc Sci Med 2010; 71(4):725–33.
24. Whang O. A.I. Is Getting Better at Mind-Reading. The New York Times. 2023 May 2; Sect. B:1.
25. Racine E, Bar-Ilan O, Illes J. fMRI in the public eye. Nat Rev Neurosci 2005; 6(2):159–64.
26. Sima R. Your brain can experience awe and that is awesome. The Washington Post. 2022 Sep 15. Available online at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2022/09/15/awe-mental-health/#:~:text=Emerging%20research%20shows%20that%20experiencing,tend%20to%20be%20more%20creative.
27. Sima R. How to train your brain to enjoy doing hard things. The Washington Post. 2022 Sep 29. Available online at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2022/09/29/train-brain-for-hard-things/
28. Sanders L. How the brain perceives time. Science News. 2015 Jul 15. Available online at: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-brain-perceives-time
29. Casini S. Beyond the Neuro-Realism Fallacy. From John R. Mallard’s Hand-painted MRI Image of a Mouse to BioArt Scenarios. Nuncius 2017; 32(2):440–71.
30. Simon J. Brain Imaging Shows What Happens When We Question Fake News. UT News. 2022 Apr 27. Available online at: https://news.utexas.edu/2022/04/27/brain-imaging-shows-what-happens-when-we-question-fake-news/
31. Eldridge L. In our control: the complete guide to contraceptive choices for women. New York: Seven Stories Press; 2010.
32. Vidal F. Brainhood, anthropological figure of modernity. Hist Human Sci 2009; 22(1):5–36.
33. Leefmann J, Hildt E. Neuroethics and the neuroscientific turn. In: Johnson LSM, Rommelfanger KS, editors. The Routledge handbook of neuroethics. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2018. pp. 14–32.
34. Cooter R. Neural veils and the will to historical critique: why historians of science need to take the neuro-turn seriously. Isis 2014; 105(1):145–54.
35. Glannon W. Our brains are not us. Bioethics 2009; 23:321–9.
36. McEwen BS. Hormones and behavior and the integration of brain-body science. Horm Behav 2020; 119:104619.
37. Lee J. The brain during life and in adjudicating death: Reduced brain identity of persons as a critique of the neurological criteria of death. Bioethics 2022; 36(6):628–34.
38. Racine E, Quintal A, Sample M. Neuroessentialism in Discussions About the Impact of Closed-Loop Technologies on Agency and Identity. AJOB Neurosci 2017; 8(2):81–3.
39. Uttal WR. The new phrenology: the limits of localizing cognitive processes in the brain. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2001.
40. Sechrest L. Incremental validity: A recommendation. Educ Psychol Meas 1963; 23(1):153–8.
41. Satel S, Lilienfeld SO. Brainwashed: The seductive appeal of mindless neuroscience. New York: Basic Books; 2013.
42. Lilenfeld SO, Aslinger E, Marshall J, Satel S. Neurohype. In: Jonhson LSM, Rommelfanger KS, editors. Routledge Handbook of neuroethics. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2018. pp. 241–61.