Je leest veel over het brein in de media. Ik merk zelf dat als ik berichten over onze grijze (en witte) cellen plaats, dat deze vaak bij de meest gelezen posts terecht komen. Een nieuwe studie net gepubliceerd in  Neuron bekijkt kritisch hoe de media omgaan met neurowetenschappelijke resultaten (volledig artikel gratis te lezen). Rachel Zimmerman vat de 3 belangrijkste inzichten samen:

1. First, popular reports of neuroscience suggest that the presence of some phenomenon in the brain somehow proves that it is real. The authors call this “the brain as biological proof.” If the results of neuroimaging show us that looking at the faces of people we love reliably lights up certain brain regions, or if traumatic experiences write themselves onto the brain, then those feelings must be real. This trend implies that the many nuanced parts of our daily lives not yet recorded in the brain have not been scientifically validated and may therefore be subjective and false.
2. Second, media coverage of brain science indicates that brain variation reveals important essential differences between groups of individuals. Coverage of “the autistic brain” or “the gay brain” reinforces inaccurate notions that groups of people share some homogenous trait that makes them fundamentally different from the rest of us.
3. Third, portrayals of the brain in the press tend to suggest that it is an organ that itself must be optimized in the service of living to our maximum potential. We should give the “Sodoku Workout” a try to keep out brains young and parents should directly cultivate “strong brains” in their children. This trend misplaces emphasis on cultivating a strong brain as the key outcome, rather than as a means to the desired end.