Neurotypical Neuroscience

There is a new book out called, "Welcome to Your Brain," by the two neuroscientists Sandra Aarnodt and Sam Wang. The book was reviewed on the Today Show, http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/28644401/?gt1=43001. Sadly, if the review is at all accurate, while the book may be useful for many people, it falls into the same sad trap that a lot of people make. "I think this way, so everyone must think this way." Among their claims, one can not tickle oneself. This is patently absurd. I can tickle myself. I feel the texture of the clothes I wear. I feel the chair I sit on. I know a lot of people that do as well. Course, many of them are considered autistic to some extent. Still, that changes nothing. Just because most people do or do not do something does not give one carte blanche to say that no one does or that something is impossible. I have not read the book and the authors can be forgiven if the reporter terribly misrepresented them. After all, few reporters know anything about science and most are much less concerned with complete accuracy than they are a good story (although even scientists that know better can fall into this category, just see the Smithsonian dinosaur anatomy webpage for a scientist that doesn't let inaccuracy get in the way of the story, see if you can spot the error he made). However, if the review accurately reflects the beliefs put forth in the book, it is a definite flaw. When trying to make a complex issue understandable to the lay public, it is very easy to go too far and reduce things to incorrectness, a pattern I believe we should be ever diligent to prevent. We can not allow ourselves as scientists to spread falsehoods in service to a broader purpose. Some people will say, it's easy to say and be all idealistic, but when the rubber meets the road, he will do the same thing. Actually, that's not true. This is an issue that I have struggled with many times. It is always more ethical to be as accurate as possible. It is harder and many times one must qualify one's statements as making explicit the comments are in general and not always true, but as scientists, particularly those of us that reach out to the public, we have a duty to be accurate. Otherwise, we damage the credibility of all scientists. So many people have a poor opinion of scientists and science in general, in part, because of this very thing. It is worth the extra effort to be as accurate as we can and not allow ourselves to say things we know to be false just to simplify a point (and if at any point, you see me making the same mistake here, please let me know so it can be corrected, it is easy to overlook this sort of thing in one's own writing, which is what good editors are for).