fMRI in the public eye

Abstract

The wide dissemination and expanding applications of functional MRI have not escaped the attention of the media or discussion in the wider public arena. From the bench to the bedside, this technology has introduced substantial ethical challenges. Are the boundaries of what it can and cannot achieve being communicated to the public? Are its limitations understood? And given the complexities that are inherent to neuroscience, are current avenues for communication adequate?

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Composition of the sample of articles returned to a search of print media coverage (general and specialized sources combined) of fMRI from January 1991 to June 2004.
Figure 2: Unidirectional communication in neuroscience.
Figure 3: Multidirectional communication in neuroscience.

References

  1. 1

    Illes, J., Kirschen, M. P. & Gabrieli, J. D. From neuroimaging to neuroethics. Nature Neurosci. 6, 205 (2003).

  2. 2

    Editorial. Brain scam? Nature Neurosci. 7, 683 (2004).

  3. 3

    Jaffe, S. Fake method for research impartiality (fMRI). Scientist 18, 64 (2004).

  4. 4

    Butler, D. Advances in neuroscience 'may threaten human rights'. Nature 391, 316 (1998).

  5. 5

    Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. 328 (President's Council on Bioethics/Harper Collins, Washington DC, 2003).

  6. 6

    Editorial. Does neuroscience threaten human values? Nature Neurosci. 1, 535–536 (1998).

  7. 7

    Nelkin, D. Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1995).

  8. 8

    Neuendorf, K. A. The Content Analysis Guidebook (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, 2002).

  9. 9

    Anonymous. Fear of pain may be worse than pain itself. The New York Times (New York) 14 (22 Jun 1999).

  10. 10

    Anonymous. The cutting edge. The Washington Post (Washington) Z05 (17 Dec 1999).

  11. 11

    Anonymous. Acupuncture: brain images demonstrate pain relief. Pain Cent. Nerv. Syst. Week 13 (17 Dec 1999).

  12. 12

    Biskup, A. Fat really does bring pleasure. The Boston Globe (Boston) C3 (13 Apr 2004).

  13. 13

    Cookson, C. Brain can banish unwanted memorie. Financial Times (Lond.) 11 (9 Jan 2004).

  14. 14

    Blakeslee, S. How brain stores languages. Plain Dealer (Cleveland) 2J (27 Jul 1997).

  15. 15

    Anonymous. Brain stores perceptions into small meaningful chunks. The Hindu (India) (27 Jul 2001).

  16. 16

    Sample, I. & Adam, D. The brain can't lie: brain scans reveal how you think and feel and even how you might behave. The Guardian (Lond.) 4 (20 Nov 2003).

  17. 17

    Anonymous. Odds are that gambling addict's brain is built differently. Times–Picayune (New Orleans) 3 (18 Sep 2003).

  18. 18

    Begley, S. How it all starts inside your brain. Newsweek (New York) 137, 40–42 (12 Feb 2001).

  19. 19

    Bacon, J. Group to prove pornography is addictive. The Daily Universe (Brigham Young University) (12 May 2004).

  20. 20

    Hall, S. S. The scientific method: test–tube moms. The New York Times (New York) 22 (5 Apr 1998).

  21. 21

    Editorial. Silence of the neuroengineers. Nature 423, 787 (2003).

  22. 22

    Hoag, H. Neuroengineering: remote control. Nature 423, 796–798 (2003).

  23. 23

    Rudolph, A. Military: brain-machine could benefit millions. Nature 424, 369 (2003).

  24. 24

    Rizzuto, D. S., Breznen, B. & Greger, B. Military-funded research is not unethical. Nature 424, 369 (2003).

  25. 25

    Abella, H. A. fMRI knows your secrets. Diagn. Imaging 9 (1 Mar 2004).

  26. 26

    Conrad, P. Genetic optimism: framing genes and mental illness in the news. Cult. Med. Psychiatry 25, 225–247 (2001).

  27. 27

    Geller, G., Bernhardt, B. A. & Holtzman, N. A. The media and the public reaction to genetic research. JAMA 287, 773 (2002).

  28. 28

    Condit, C. M., Ferguson, A., Thadhani, C. & Parrott, R. An exploratory study on the impact of news headlines on genetic determinism. Sci. Commun. 22, 379–395 (2001).

  29. 29

    Herculano-Houzel, S. Do you know your brain? A survey on public neuroscience literacy at the closing of the decade of the brain. Neuroscientist 8, 98–110 (2002).

  30. 30

    Diefenbach, G. J., Diefenbach, D., Baumeister, A. & West, M. Portrayal of lobotomy in the popular press: 1935–1960. J. Hist. Neurosci. 8, 60–69 (1999).

  31. 31

    Farah, M. J. & Wolpe, P. R. Monitoring and manipulating brain function: new neuroscience technologies and their ethical implications. Hastings Cent. Rep. 34, 35–45 (2004).

  32. 32

    Illes, J. & Kirschen, M. New prospects and ethical challenges for neuroimaging within and outside the health care system. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 24, 1932–1934 (2003).

  33. 33

    Thompson, R. A. & Nelson, C. A. Developmental science and the media. Am. Psychol. 56, 5–15 (2001).

  34. 34

    Schmitz, M. F., Filippone, P. & Edelman, E. M. Social representations of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder 1988–1997. Cult. Psychol. 9, 383–406 (2003).

  35. 35

    Goldman, L. S., Genel, M., Bezman, R. & Slanetz, P. J. Diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. JAMA 279, 1100–1107 (1998).

  36. 36

    Diller, L. H. The run on Ritalin: attention deficit disorder and stimulant treatment in the 1990s. Hastings Cent. Rep. 26, 12–18 (1996).

  37. 37

    Rose, S. P. 'Smart drugs': do they work? Are they ethical? Will they be legal? Nature Rev. Neurosci. 3, 975–979 (2002).

  38. 38

    Farah, M. J. et al. Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? Nature Rev. Neurosci. 5, 421–425 (2004).

  39. 39

    Racine, E., Gareau, I. & Doucet, H. The press and public debate: a study of genomics in francophone press (1992–2001). GE3LS Symposium,Vancouver, Canada, 5 Feb 2004.

  40. 40

    Moreno, C., Lujan, J. & Moreno, L. La ingeníera genética humana en la prensa: Analisis de contenido de ABC, El Pais, y La Vanguardia (1988–1993). (Instituto de Estudios Avanzados (CSIC), Madrid, 1996).

  41. 41

    Mulkay, M. Embryos in the news. Public Underst. Sci. 3, 33–51 (1994).

  42. 42

    Kohring, M. & Matthes, J. The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: how the German press framed modern biotechnology. Public Underst. Sci. 11, 143–154 (2002).

  43. 43

    Priest, S. H. & Talbert, J. Mass media and the ultimate technological fix: newspaper coverage of biotechnology. SWMCJ 10, 76–85 (1994).

  44. 44

    Craig, D. A. Ethical language and themes in news coverage of genetic testing. J&MCQ 77, 160–174 (2000).

  45. 45

    Petersen, A. Biofantasies: genetics and medicine in the print news media. Soc. Sci. Med. 52, 1255–1268 (2001).

  46. 46

    Monasterky, R. Land mines in the world of mental maps. The Chronicle of Higher Education (USA) 20 (2 Nov 2001).

  47. 47

    Tambor, E. S., Bernhardt, B. A., Rodgers, J., Holtzman, N. A. & Geller, G. Mapping the human genome: an assessment of media coverage and public reaction. Genet. Med. 4, 31–36 (2002).

  48. 48

    Gostin, L. O. Ethical considerations of psychosurgery: the unhappy legacy of the prefrontal lobotomy. J. Med. Ethics 6, 149–156 (1980).

  49. 49

    Kulynych, J. Legal and ethical issues in neuroimaging research: human subjects protection, medical privacy, and the public communication of research results. Brain Cogn. 50, 345–357 (2002).

  50. 50

    Illes, J. & Racine, E. Imaging or Imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics. Am. J. Bioeth. (in the press).

  51. 51

    Editorial. A scared new world? Lancet Neurol. 1, 137 (2002).

  52. 52

    Editorial. Open your mind. The Economist (25 May 2002).

  53. 53

    Fins, J. J. The ethical limits of neuroscience. Lancet Neurol. 1, 213 (2002).

  54. 54

    Dalgleish, T. The emotional brain. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 5, 582–589 (2004).

  55. 55

    Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Sheridan, J. F. & McClintock, M. K. Multi-level integrative analyses of human behavior: social neuroscience and the complementing nature of social and biological approaches. Psychol. Bull. 126, 829–843 (2000).

  56. 56

    Rose, S. P. R. How to (or not to) communicate science. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 31, 307–312 (2003).

  57. 57

    van Dijck, J. After the 'two cultures': toward a '(multi)cultural' practice of science communication. Sci. Commun. 25, 177–190 (2003).

  58. 58

    The International HapMap Consortium. Integrating ethics and science in the International HapMap Project. Nature Rev. Genet. 5, 467–475 (2004).

  59. 59

    Racine, E. Discourse ethics as an ethics of responsibility: comparison and evaluation of citizen involvement in population genomics. J. Law Med. Ethics 31, 390–397 (2003).

  60. 60

    Condit, C. M., Parrott, R. L. & O'Grady, B. in Genetics and Public Health in the 21st Century: Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease (eds Koury, M., Burke, W. & Thomson, E. J.) 549–568 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford/New York, 2000).

  61. 61

    Garland, M. J. Experts and the public: a needed partnership for genetic policy. Public Underst. Sci. 8, 2241–2254 (1999).

  62. 62

    Sclove, R. E. Better approaches to science policy. Science 279, 1283 (1998).

  63. 63

    Abelson, J. et al. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc. Sci. Med. 57, 239–251 (2003).

  64. 64

    Cameron, W. & Chudler, E. A role for neuroscientist in engaging young minds. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 4, 1–6 (2003).

  65. 65

    Gardner, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Damon, W. Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet (Basic Books, New York, 2001).

  66. 66

    Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S. & Baczek, L. Media coverage of scientific meetings: too much, too soon? JAMA 287, 2859–2863 (2002).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Supported by The Greenwall Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (J.I.) and an FQRSC postdoctoral fellowship to E.R. The authors extend their thanks to C. Jennings for inspiring this project and to S. W. Atlas, T. A. Raffin, P. Schraedley Desmond and M. Gallo.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judy Illes.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Related links

Related links

FURTHER INFORMATION

Society for Neuroscience Guide to Public Advocacy

International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (Article 6)

Quebec Network of Applied Genetic Medicine

Danish Board of Technology

Dana Centre

President's Council on Bioethics

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Racine, E., Bar-Ilan, O. & Illes, J. fMRI in the public eye. Nat Rev Neurosci 6, 159–164 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1609

Download citation

Further reading