Navigating Neuromyths: Improving Neuroscientific Communication

Fact or fiction? We only use 10 percent of our brains. Individuals are either “left-brained” or “right-brained”. Regular consumption of caffeinated beverages reduces alertness. Here is a fact: None of these statements can be supported by scientific evidence [1]. Not only are these statements untrue, but they are referred to as neuromyths. Neuroscientific communication requires scientists to discuss the findings and the social and ethical implications of their research in a way that is reliable, comprehensive, yet understandable [2, 3]. However, due to the sensational yet complex nature of neuroscience, the discipline, like several others, is prone to misinformation and inaccurate reporting [2]. This prompts us to question the effectiveness of neuroscientific communication and the accessibility of scientific information to the public. 

The Status of Neuroscience in the Public Sphere

There often is discussion of the “seductive allure” of neuroscience [4]. While images of the brain or neuromyths can be very appealing, the communication of neuroscience to the public is not always representative of the research that goes into producing alluring findings [2]. A study showing the representation of neuroscientific discoveries in the media found three emerging themes pertaining to the brain. First, the brain is portrayed as capital that can be optimized without limit; second, the brain is used to differentiate between groups of people and imply that there are certain brain types; and last, the brain is used as biological proof of particular biases or beliefs [5]. Common among these themes is the idea that the neurological processes occurring in the physical brain can justify research surrounding abstract phenomena and hence, provide substantial rhetorical power [5]. Images of the brain often accompany these explanations of neuroscience, specifically those images obtained using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology, a technique that measures changes in blood flow due to neuronal activity [6, 7]. As such, brain areas where activity is detected appear on fMRI scans as brightly colored and lit areas against a black-and-white background, making them visually appealing. In a study where lay readers were presented with fictitious scientific articles, the utilization of brain images, although satisfying, made questionable information more believable, which raises concern over the information circulated in media today [6, 4].

The Curious Case of Phineas Gage

Although the articles in this study were fictitious, the retelling of Phineas Gage’s story represents a real event that although alluring, is not always communicated accurately. On September 13, 1848, Gage was involved in a railroad accident, where an iron rod made its way through his skull and frontal lobe [3]. Phineas Gage’s story is one of the most famous tales of neurological patients, and his story is still being told over a hundred years later in psychology textbooks and scientific journals because he survived the incident. But how accurate are the descriptions of his recovery and the supposed personality changes he experienced? A study on the dissemination of information on Gage’s case found that his story is often grossly exaggerated and contains many inaccuracies [3]. Accounts of his story suggest Gage experienced personality changes following the incident, with descriptions labeling him as a “psychopath” [3]. However, these accounts do not address other explanations for his personality changes, such as post-traumatic stress, which can lead to negative mood and aggressive behavior, or social exclusion due to his injuries [3]. Many of these accounts are based on an original paper by Harlow, Gage’s physician and a phrenologist, and do not mention other sources. Nineteenth-century phrenologists believed that scalp morphology was indicative of underlying brain function; their claims have never been supported by evidence, and today, phrenology is known as a pseudoscience [8]. Neither do these accounts address the fact that Harlow compiled his account twenty years after the incident occurred [3]. Other doctors who interacted with Gage described him as having a full recovery, with no mentions of aggressiveness or manipulative behavior, bringing such accounts as Harlow’s into question [3]. 

Gage’s case is an example of when scientific communication fails. While a similar study found that most of the psychology textbooks that were analyzed accurately described Gage’s case, many sources continue to perpetuate misinformation about the case [3]. When a famous neurological case like Gage’s is inaccurately reported, we must re-evaluate our approach to neuroscientific communication and its limitations.

What Can Be Done to Improve Neuroscientific Communication? 

Improving neuroscientific literacy and communication involves ensuring that the public is engaged and informed in a socially accountable manner [2]. With that being said, this task can be challenging for neuroscientists to accomplish while pursuing their own research goals. Studies on future neuroscience and science initiatives propose a few solutions to improve neuroscientific communication aside from enabling research in the field. These solutions include promoting a cultural shift that revolves around trust and reciprocity, encouraging public dialogue, and training communication specialists [2, 9]. Neuroscientists themselves can better communicate their research findings to the public, however, using the power of narrative science storytelling. Through this method, scientists create a narrative containing their findings, that engages both the audience’s intellect and emotions, allowing them to form a connection with the information. Indeed, scientific communication does not mean oversimplification or inaccuracy; rather, scientific narratives draw power from the truths underlying the story and represent an alternative to the standard lecture [10].

Concluding Thoughts

Neuroscience should be accessible to every layperson. Neuroscientific articles should be engaging and informative without containing neuromyths. This can be achieved through communication initiatives committed to relaying accurate information and the limitations of neuroscientific research. When scientists and audiences alike can come to understand neuroscientific research, we will have achieved much in the realm of scientific communication.

References

1. Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012, October 1). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429/full 

2. Illes, J., Moser, M. A., McCormick, J. B., Racine, E., Blakeslee, S., Caplan, A., Hayden, E. C., Ingram, J., Lohwater, T., McKnight, P., Nicholson, C., Phillips, A., Sauvé, K. D., Snell, E., & Weiss, S. (2009, December 2). Neurotalk: Improving the communication of neuroscience research. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn2773 

3. Schleim, S. (2022, March 30). Neuroscience education begins with good science: Communication about Phineas Gage (1823–1860), one of neurology’s most-famous patients, in scientific articles. Frontiers. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2022.734174/full 

4. Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008, March). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2778755/ 

5. O’Connor, C., Rees, G., & Joffe, H. (2012, April 25). Neuroscience in the public sphere. Neuron. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627312003303#:~:text=Neuroscience%20is%20now%20firmly%20rooted,%2C%20substance%20abuse%2C%20and%20education 

6. Ramani, D. (2023, March 15). The brain seduction: The public perception of Neuroscience. JCOM. https://jcom.sissa.it/article/pubid/Jcom0804(2009)L01/ 

7. Jolles, J., & Jolles, D. D. (2021, November 2). On neuroeducation: Why and how to improve neuroscientific literacy in educational professionals. Frontiers. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.752151/full 

8. Parker Jones, O., Alfaro-Almagro, F., & Jbabdi, S. (2018). An empirical, 21st century evaluation of phrenology. Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior, 106, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.04.011

9. Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009, October 1). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. BSA publications. https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.3732/ajb.0900041 

10. Martinez-Conde, S., Alexander, R. G., Blum, D., Britton, N., Lipska, B. K., Quirk, G. J., Swiss, J. I., Willems, R. M., & Macknik, S. L. (2019, October 16). The Storytelling Brain: How Neuroscience Stories Help Bridge the gap between research and Society. Journal of Neuroscience. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/39/42/8285.abstract