I’ve been meaning to write about Zach Lynch’s new book The Neuro Revolution for some time now. I actually haven’t had a chance to read it yet, because I’m too busy falling behind on Infinite Summer. Lynch came and spoke at MIT last month though, so I feel like I have a reasonably good sense of the argument. I posted some brief thoughts on my Twitter feed in response to this excellent review of the book in Cerebrum magazine (via Zach Lynch himself), but I felt it was necessary to expand them here.
For a bit of brief background, Lynch argues that we’re on the brink of a paradigm shift where basic neuroscience research and the nascent field of neurotechnology will fundamentally alter almost every dimension of the world we live in. It’s an ambitious thesis, for sure, but probably not a startling one if you’re the type that reads this blog. Even if it sounds somewhat premature, Lynch’s point is that the revolution is coming, and, even if we’re not exactly sure what form it is going to take, it’s best to get ready for it.
Obviously I agree with all of this. At the same time, I feel as if the mechanics of the revolution are likely to take a somewhat different course than the one Lynch charts out. It’s hard to miss the sense of empty trendiness about the many neuro-ized words (for lack of a better term) that mark the movements of his argument: neuroeconomics, neurofinance, neuromarketing, neurolaw, neurowarfare, neuroenhancement, etc. There was a moment in the talk when, on introducing the fourth or fifth of these terms–I forget which one–he seemed to lose the audience a little bit.
Which is not to say that I don’t think neuroscience will inform economics, law, or even warfare. Clearly, I do. But, precisely because I believe the revolution is going to be so thorough and fruitful, it’s not going to take the form of a laundry-list of buzzwords. The maturation of the biological study of decision-making, for instance, is not a world where universities house a Neuroeconomics department alongside the traditional Economics faculty, but one where the study of economics naturally draws from neuroscience research. Likewise, the study of neurolaw will not stand outside that of jurisprudence or criminal procedure; instead, legal debate will turn on the insights neuroscientists can offer about guilt, harm and responsibility without causing any sort of fuss.
To offer an analogy, consider how nobody really talks about “dot-coms” or “e-commerce” anymore. What was new and shiny and reeking of hype only a decade ago has now become just the standard way of operating. It’s much more noteworthy now to be a company that doesn’t do business online than to be one that does. I suspect a similar process will occur as the neuro revolution plays out, although this analogy strikes me as limited in several ways so I wouldn’t follow it too far.
This shift will occur because neuroscience will–and already does–challenge our intuitions and alter our fundamental understanding of ourselves. Esoteric philosophical debates about reductionism and elimitivism aside, the still-surprising notion that the brain is the seat of all our thoughts and actions will become commonplace, and we will start to see brain research as a more powerful and accurate, but not actually all that revolutionary, means to answer questions we already are asking.
Or so I hope. Of course, in a country where less than half of the population believes in evolution–and, if you look at what people actually think Darwin’s theory entails, that number drops below 10%–it might be asking too much for neuroscience, which is equally if not more existentially challenging than evolution, to gain the necessary breadth of acceptance for the neuro revolution to really succeed.
Something I’ve debated much and still don’t have an answer for is exactly how widespread that acceptance will have to be. In some cases, such as with neuroeconomics or finance, it might be sufficient for only an engaged elite to reach a full understanding. The situation is more fraught in the domain of neuroenhancement or law, which necessarily draw from the mores of society at large. What’s troubling is that many of the implications of neuroscience are not just novel but often deeply counter-intuitive. But this is probably a question for another post, if not a book.
Again, I want to stress that I haven’t read the book, so I could have gotten the wrong impression from the hour and a half or so that I heard Lynch talk about his ideas. This isn’t really meant as a criticism; if anything, I’m taking what Lynch was arguing and going a step further. But, in line with my support for the project, I think this analysis might actually help the neuro revolution avoid the natural skepticism that greets potential hype. In any case, I’m certainly enthralled to see such vibrant discussions of these topics. Obviously I’m intellectually exercised by them, but I completely agree with Lynch that the neuro revolution is on the horizon, in some form, and it’s best we prepare.
I agree that neuroscience will definitely become ubiquitous soon, most likely within the next 10 years. That is to say that textbooks for every academic subject will necessarily include at least one chapter devoted to the subject’s relationship with its neural basis and/or the corresponding neurotechnology.
Currently, I am applying to Graduate school for Neuroscience. Every single program I have looked at is interdisciplinary, with most neuroscience depts collaborating with, on average, 5-10 depts. That is actually one of the reasons why searching for a neuroscience program is difficult. There are so many subsets and each one is specific to the personal interests of the dept faculty.
However, I feel that the more widespread neuroscience becomes, the more subsets will be covered in each graduate program-and necessarily for collaborating depts.
Your article piqued my interest, and spurred a whole digression on the subject at my blog about the potential for the misuse of neurotechnology. Thank you for your post-I now intend on getting The Neuro Revolution.
[...] Neuroscience drastically transform our society? By dianafrank I just read Michaels post, where he reviewed the book, The Neuro Revoultion, by Zack Lynch. I only read the introduction [...]
[...] could be valuable. An interesting application of this research, on the neurotechnology horizon, would be using real-time fMRI to train people to multitask and let them directly “see” [...]
Excellent perspective and summary. We are facing an interesting challenge in the Law and Neuroscience Project that runs somewhat counter to the position that neuroscience will simply be absorbed, as a perspective or worldview, into other disciplines. Currently, the law adopts the fundamental framework of the human being based on what we might call the “folk psychological” model. Stephen Morse, for example, argues that this model is likely to remain unchallenged by any findings in neuroscience. The model asks only whether a criminal defendant is capable of “practical reason.” It is possible that the American legal system will radically change based on neuroscience, but this would involve a complete toppling of the American legal system. Almost no doctrine in criminal law would survive. Lawyers and judges will oppose any such transition, even well after the public has generally transitioned.
This indicates to me that certain disciplines will simply ignore or continue to operate without a fundamental change based on neuroscience. How do we work to change such conservative disciplines? Should we? What should we replace law with if based on neuroscience?