“Can It Read My Mind?” – What Do the Public and Experts Think of the Current (Mis)Uses of Neuroimaging?

Abstract

Emerging applications of neuroimaging outside medicine and science have received intense public exposure through the media. Media misrepresentations can create a gulf between public and scientific understanding of the capabilities of neuroimaging and raise false expectations. To determine the extent of this effect and determine public opinions on acceptable uses and the need for regulation, we designed an electronic survey to obtain anonymous opinions from as wide a range of members of the public and neuroimaging experts as possible. The surveys ran from 1st June to 30 September 2010, asked 10 and 21 questions, respectively, about uses of neuroimaging outside traditional medical diagnosis, data storage, science communication and potential methods of regulation. We analysed the responses using descriptive statistics; 660 individuals responded to the public and 303 individuals responded to the expert survey. We found evidence of public skepticism about the use of neuroimaging for applications such as lie detection or to determine consumer preferences and considerable disquiet about use by employers or government and about how their data would be stored and used. While also somewhat skeptical about new applications of neuroimaging, experts grossly underestimated how often neuroimaging had been used as evidence in court. Although both the public and the experts rated highly the importance of a better informed public in limiting the inappropriate uses to which neuroimaging might be put, opinions differed on the need for, and mechanism of, actual regulation. Neuroscientists recognized the risks of inaccurate reporting of neuroimaging capabilities in the media but showed little motivation to engage with the public. The present study also emphasizes the need for better frameworks for scientific engagement with media and public education.

Media Reporting of Neuroscience Depends on Timing, Topic and Newspaper Type

“…These observations are in line with the result of a survey among the UK general public [19] and shows that a general public skepticism on the use of neuroscience in these fields may also be present in the Netherlands. These same topics also expressed the lowest accuracy, especially topics related of law and safety contained only very few research details.…”

Taking an educational psychology course improves neuroscience literacy but does not reduce belief in neuromyths

“…This is because the control group data were collected three years after the experimental group data, and the difference may reflect a general decline in belief in some neuromyths (see Table 2 ). That other neuromyths are persistent indicates that the job is far from done [ 61 , 62 ].…”

Canadian Perspectives on the Clinical Actionability of Neuroimaging in Disorders of Consciousness

“…Given the lack of quality information in the media on brain death, the vegetative and minimally conscious states, and coma, [61][62][63][64] it is unsurprising that public understanding is often discordant with the views of the medical and scientific communities. 18,65 Although participants did identify standard scientific channels (e.g. peer-reviewed journals, scientific conferences) as the chosen method of research dissemination, science communication, unlike the other issues, did not seem to fall directly under the conventional understanding of ethics challenges.…”