By Gary Stix | April 10, 2013 | Scientific American
“The study—led by researchers at the University of Bristol—looked at 48 neuroscience meta-analyses (studies of studies) from 2011 and found that their statistical power reaches only 21 percent, meaning that there is only about a one in five chance that any effect being investigated by the researchers—whether a compound acts as an anti-depressant in rat brains, for instance—will be discovered. Anything that does turn up, moreover, is more likely to be false. The low power stems from the small size of the studies and minuscule effects.”
“AskNeuro: Please, recommend some Best fMRI studies?” Reddit
“While beliefs can influence emotions, neuroscience says that the bulk of the influence is in the other direction. Psychodynamics has said this all along.” (self.AcademicPsychology
“Ethics, Cognitive Neuroscience, and National-Security Research”
From “Emerging Cognitive Neuroscience and Related Technologies”
“The field of bioethics has spawned several related fields—clinical ethics, research ethics, and public-health ethics—and more recently has given rise to neuroethics.10 Intensive interest in the ethical issues raised by the rapid advances in neuroscience led first to several academic conferences in the early 2000s, then to a spate of literature, and now to the creation of a professional organization and at least two academic journals. Among the topics addressed in neuroethics are the nature of personal identity, human dignity, and autonomy in light of various novel surgical and pharmacological interventions; the relationship between mind and body in light of new information about brain processes; the implications of neural imaging for privacy; neurogenetics and behavior control; and the management of suspicious results of neuroimaging research.
Discussions of neuroethics and human experiments for national-security purposes generate concerns that go beyond the already controversial topics of human experiments and national security.11 Because the modern world views the brain as the organ most closely associated with personal identity and modern
democratic theory values the individual as a rights-bearer and moral agent, there is sure to be enormous societal interest in any prospective manipulation of neural processes. American society experienced a telling episode along those lines during the 1950s, when “brain-washing” became part of popular culture—and IC experiments—after the treasonous statements of American prisoners of war in captivity in North Korea. Although anxieties about clandestine U.S. government activities are easy to deride, later Army and CIA experiments involving hallucinogens were associated with at least two deaths in 1953 and with multiple exposures of ordinary citizens.
Serious contemporary ethical discussion of neuroscience and national-security policy carries an unusual historical burden. The current underlying science and resulting technology are far more sophisticated and, to many, threatening to personal autonomy and human dignity. Proponents of the science may well argue that neuroscience promises to enhance rather than undermine dignity and autonomous choice, but that point of view is not always the prevalent one, especially when national-security goals are viewed with suspicion. Examples of neuroscience experiments that may have implications for national security are numerous. Virtually all involve what has been called “dual use” research applicable to military, intelligence, or policing, as well as health-care, purposes.”
The “dual use” of the technology is probably the other influence we don’t normally associate with mental health groups/organisations/institutions besides the pharma companies. To keep a balence you need alignment with the above institutions and not lose sight of the intended purpose of your own institution.
Posted on Wednesday 17 April 2013
Probably this is a legacy of the structural changes during and just after WW2.