Ethics

L.A. Times Highlights Neuroethics & Law Blog

By Adam Kolber

Last week, the L.A. Times ran a story entitled, "Peeking Inside Voters' Minds."  The piece highlights Martha Farah's guest post on this blog that was skeptical of the interpretation of fMRI results presented in a November NYT op-ed:

Several prominent researchers last year criticized the scientific validity of a study by Washington-based neuromarketers FKF Applied Research Inc. that used brain images from an MRI scanner to measure the emotional responses of undecided voters.

Pictures of Clinton activated the anterior cingulate cortex, an area that deals with emotional conflict. UCLA psychiatrist Joshua Freedman, who cofounded FKF, and William Knapp, both Democratic strategists, said the scan revealed an ambivalence about Clinton that could explain why voters snubbed her when she was ahead in Iowa but then rallied behind her in New Hampshire.

But University of Pennsylvania neuroscientist Martha J. Farah says the brain is complex and scans interpreted to indicate anxiety, for example, could have signaled happiness because particular brain areas process many emotions. "The scattered spots of activation in a brain image can be like tea leaves in the bottom of a cup -- ambiguous and accommodating of a large number of possible interpretations," Farah wrote on the Neuroethics and Law Blog, a key website for neuroscientists.

Kudos to Martha Farah (and apparently to this blog--"a key website for neuroscientists").

Full post as published by Neuroethics and Law on February 19, 2008 (boomark / email).