The article on neuroscience in public sphere has exposed me to a plethora of concepts and knowledge that I was oblivious of before such as the representation of neuroscientific discoveries by the media. I have acquired a new insight that cultural context plays an instrumental role in determining how scientific information is transplanted into public conscious knowledge. Due to the dense network of worldviews and cultural meanings, aspects of science that resonate with prevailing social issues is selectively absorbed in public conversations ( O'Connor, Rees & Joffe, 2012). Additional information I have acquired is that cultural preconceptions projected on science gives the field new meanings. Previously, I did not give the subject of neuroscience assimilation much attention but I now do so since the area has the potential of negatively impacting public behaviour, beliefs and attitudes. I have learned that mass media plays a critical role in scientific research transmission for example in informing and educating the public on technologies such as TMS, fMRI and PET.
One key insight that I have unravelled is that the mainstream media focus of neuroscience centers more on brain optimization that is, brain function enhancement. An undertaken survey also noted that media articles usually interlink brain optimization to parenting ( O'Connor et al., 2012) . The discussion exhorted parents to master ways which they can bolster their children’s neurocognitive performance for example limiting computer usage and uptake of fish oils. I can personally relate and confirm the postulation since one of the themes I watch most on television and read on print media revolves around brain performance optimization. Coverage of neurobiological differences by the media is presented in stereotype but consistent ways to strengthen and narrow gaps between social groups. One finding that has enlightened me on how the public digests neuroscientific information is that people often equate what is natural with what is right or just in social discourse. In my view however, I think that the representation of neuroscience by the media in the 21 st century has changed. I opine that today, there is an intensified coverage of brain research that touches a broader variety of disciplines unlike before.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second reading by Choudhury, Gold and Kirmayer (2010), has also exposed to new knowledge on political applications of neurotechnology. I have learned that incorrect use of science or misrepresentation for a practical purpose can likely lead to devastating outcomes. The article also elaborates on human brain knowledge which I think has expanded for the last 100 years. However, in my view, the current neuroscientific findings adopted will likely be revised by future research. Neuroscience is a vital subject that holds answers to who humans are and how they ought to live. Through neuroscience, novel technologies such as NoLieMRIS have been created thereby replacing the traditional lie detector method that has been faulted for giving false positives ( Choudhury et al., 2010) . I perceive neuroscience as a field that will immensely contribute to not only the realm of medicine but also in advancement of other disciplines such as defense. In future, neuroscience diagnostics will help in prediction of possible diseases and contribute in application of necessary interventions before development of identifiable condition. Biomarkers for example are already being used in predicting the risk of contracting a particular health condition. In my view, neurotechnology holds solutions to problems that pose seemingly insurmountable challenges in the 21 st century such as a rise in novel pandemics and terrorism.
References
Choudhury, S., Gold, I., & Kirmayer, L. J. (2010). From brain image to the Bush doctrine: critical neuroscience and the political uses of neurotechnology. AJOB Neuroscience , 1 (2), 17-19.
O'Connor, C., Rees, G., & Joffe, H. (2012). Neuroscience in the public sphere. Neuron , 74 (2), 220-226.
