Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 13 January 2009 | 457, 245 (2009) | doi:10.1038/457245a
News
Brain imaging studies under fire
Social neuroscientists criticized for exaggerating links between brain activity and emotions.
A study attacking some of the most prominent research in the burgeoning field of social neuroscience is flawed and unfair, according to top scientists who have been accused of overselling their results.
Social neuroscience is the study of the neurobiological mechanisms underlying social behaviour.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
"I was shocked ? this is not the way that scientific discourse should take place." It is just my personal belief that this is indeed the way scientific discourse needs to take place every so often. I respect Vul for making such direct criticisms of imaging methods. From experience working in an fMRI lab - there are students and faculty who are very knowledgeable and have a really strong grasp of their methodology, from both the data acquisition end [experimental design (hybrid, ER, etc.), pulse sequencing, explain their use of certain image imaging parameters (slice thickness, etc.)] to the data analysis [can explain what each data manipulation is doing to the data (things like 3dDeconvolve, unwarping, fieldmaps, motion correction, etc.)]. And there are others who just go down the list of plug-ins like a recipe, and if it gets an area of the brain to light-up, great, they will explain it in retrospect. The amount of published research from imaging experiments has drastically increased over the last 10 years, and if Vul can put it into the conscience of an experimenter that they better be sure they can explain themselves, then we will all benefit, particularly those who don't work in the field of brain imaging, and are at the mercy of the reviewers to assure them that those images weren't made in Photoshop.
How are mirror neurons incorporated/prevented into conscious behavior in a social context. How do the emotions affect mirror neurons? To what degree is the effect emotion driven? Under what circumstances? Peter Templar
The critcised authors complain about the immediate publicity of the criticisms. This may indeed not be the way that scientific discourse should normally take place. However, given the sensationalism with which some of the questioned findings were publicised, it seems appropriate that the criticisms address the same audience. Journals that accept manuscripts according to the chance that they make headlines in the popular press may want to reconsider this strategy.
For those interested, you can find our response to this reply here: http://edvul.com/voodoorebuttal.php Cheers, Ed.
RE: Self-criticism and Critics in Science -- As a retired (and published) scientist and now an independent reader-writer in the progress and philosophy of neuroscience, I think it is encumbered upon all competent scientists to be self-critical in their own work; and that all their published work (despite the normal peer-review mechanism) shall be subject to the open scrutiny (and test of reproducibility of their published work) by other competent scientists as well as interested readers-critics alike. I thought Vul et al had acted properly and professionally, and that their own published work shall now be subject to the scrutiny of other competent neuroscientists as well. As an ongoing competitive human endeavor, all published scientific work (including those of social science, psychology, etc) shall withstand or fall by the test of their own weight and self-criticism as well as the criticisms of others, including those of non-scientists and philosophers alike. Best wishes, Mong 1/15/9usct1:45p; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (2006: http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0595379907 ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (blogging avidly since 2006: http://www2.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778 ).
For those interested, here is our invited reply http://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/LiebermanBerkmanWager(invitedreply).pdf