Mapping Controversies in Neuroscience: The Plastic Brain and “Anecdotal Data”
https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-2-183-207
EDN: TCXJZB
Abstract
The study of controversies is an important methodological tool for understanding key aspects of scientific activity that are invisible from within the science itself. Following Sarah Whatmore, we argue that controversies are a force field within which there is a redistribution of expertise. As an application of the basic principles of ANT, the mapping of controversies lacks the disadvantages of constructivist and epistemological approaches to science. While preserving the validity of scientific facts, it could demonstrate the practice of finding allies and creating new associations in the process of creating science. The analysis of controversies shows that a key feature of neuroscience today is a theoretical "consensus". The most important principle of this "consensus" is the idea of neuroplasticity - the ability of the brain to be changed as a result of new experiences. The use of mapping methods allows us to show that this agreement hides a complex of controversies that touch on the problem of brain plasticity and theoretical models of behaviors. An attempt to explore these controversies reveals various strategies for finding allies within opposing research programs. These competing trends were divided into two groups: proponents of "universal" plasticity, which presupposes general laws for different structural levels of brain organization, and proponents of multiple plasticity. One of the most important strategies for expanding networks used by participants in the study is to reconstruct the history of their own object, as well as to attract non-specialists to obtain the necessary data for research.
About the Author
Kirill A. Petrov
Volgograd State Medical University, Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Candidate of Philosophy, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Bioethics and Law with the course of sociology of medicine, Volgograd State Medical University; Senior Researcher, Department of Ethical, Legal and Sociological Expertise in Medicine, Volgograd Medical Scientific Centre
References
1. Abraham W., Bear M. (1996). Metaplasticity: the plasticity of synaptic plasticity.
2. Trends Neuroscience, 19: 126–130.
3. A Consensus on the Brain Training Industry from the Scientific Community (2014) (http://
4. longevity.stanford.edu/a-consensus-on-the-brain-training-industry-from-thescientific-community-2/)
5. Bolton R., Thomas R. (2014) Biohackers: The Science, Politics, and Economics of
6. Synthetic Biology. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, (9): 213-219.
7. Callon M. (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the
8. scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. J. Law (ed.) Power, action and belief: a new
9. sociology of knowledge? London: Routledge: 196-223.
10. Costandi M. (2016) Neuroplasticity, Cambridge, Massachussetts: The MIT press.
11. Demarin V., Morović S., Béné R. (2014) Neuroplasticity. Periodicum Biologorum, 116 (2):
12. -211.
13. Douyon P. (2019) Neuroplasticity: Your Brain’s Superpower, Salt Lake City: Izzard Ink Publ.,
14. Ellis A., Lambon R. (2000) Age of acquisition effects in adult lexical processing
15. reflect loss of plasticity in maturing systems: insights from connectionist networks.
16. Experimenatal Psychology, 26: 1103–1123.
17. Eriksson P., Perfilieva E., Bjork-Eriksson T., Alborn A., Nordborg C., Peterson D. (1998)
18. Neurogenesis in the adult human hippocampus. Nature Medicine, 4 (11): 1313–1317.
19. Garland E., Howard M. (2009) Neuroplasticity, Psychosocial Genomics, and the
20. Biopsychosocial Paradigm in the 21st Century. Health & Social Work, 34 (3): 191-199.
21. Gieryn T. (1995) Boundaries of Science. S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen, T. Pinch
22. (eds.) Handbook of science and technology studies, London, New Delhi: SAGE: 393-443.
23. Gross Ch. (2002). Genealogy of the «Grandmother Cell”. The Neuroscientist, (8): 512-518.
24. Hampton D. (2015) Beat Depression and Anxiety by Changing Your Brain, Scotts Valley:
25. CreateSpace Independent Publ.
26. Helmstetter Sh (2013) The Power of Neuroplasticity, New York: Park Avenue Press.
27. James W. (2007) Principles of Psychology. Vol. 1-2, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
28. Jasanoff Sh. (2003) Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing
29. Science. Minerva, 41 (3): 223-244.
30. Jwa A. (2015) Early adopters of the magical thinking cap: A study on do-it-yourself
31. (DIY) transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) user community. Journal of Law
32. and the Biosciences, 2 (3): 292-336.
33. Kandel E., Rather D. (2008) Conversations in Science with Dan Rather and Eric Kandel:
34. Neuroplasticity. (https://www.ibiology.org/science-and-society/neuroplasticity/)
35. Kendrick K.M. (1994) Neurobiological correlates of visual and olfactory recognition
36. in sheep. Behavior Proceedings, 33: 89-112.
37. Latour B. (2004) Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters
38. of Concern. Critical Inquiry, (30): 225-248.
39. Lettvin J., Maturana H., McCulloch W., Pitts W. (2012) Two remarks on visual system
40. of the frog. Sensory communication. A. Rosenblith (еd.), Massachussetts: MIT Press:
41. -776.
42. Mazzarello P. (2018). From images to physiology: A strange paradox at the origin of
43. modern neuroscience. Progress in Brain Research, (243): 233-256.
44. Mermillod M., Bugaiska A, Bonin P. (2013) The stability-plasticity dilemma:
45. investigating the continuum from catastrophic forgetting to age-limited learning
46. effects. Frontiers of Psychology, 4: 504.
47. Merzenich M. (2013а) Soft-wired: How the New Science of Brain Plasticity Can Change your
48. Life. San Francisco: Parnassus Publ.
49. Merzenich M (2013b) Chapter references. Chapter 5. (https://www.soft-wired.com/
50. ch05/)
51. Nias D. (1976) Therapeutic effects of low-level direct electrical currents. Psychological
52. Bulletin, 83 (5): 766-773.
53. Redolar D. (2002) Neurociencia: la génesis de un concepto desde un punto de vista
54. multidisciplinary. Revista de Psiquiatria de la Facultad de Medicina de Barcelona, 29 (6):
55. -352.
56. Stahnisch F. Nitsch R. (2002) Santiago Ramón y Cajal’s concept of neuronal plasticity:
57. the ambiguity lives on. Neurosciences, 25 (11): 589-591.
58. Teskey C. (2001) A General Framework for Neuroplasticity. Theories and Models.
59. A. Shaw (еd.) Toward A Theory Of Neuroplasticity by Christopher, Philadelphia: Psychology
60. Press.
61. Wexler A. (2015).The practices of do-it-yourself brain stimulation: implications for
62. ethical considerations and regulatory proposals. Medical Ethics, 42 (4): 211-215.
63. Whatmore S. Mapping knowledge controversies: science, democracy and the
64. redistribution of expertise. Progress in Human Geography, 33 (5): 587-598.
65. Wurzman R., Hamilton R., Pascual-Leone A., Fox M. (2016) An open letter concerning
66. do-it-yourself (DIY) users of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Annals of
67. Neurology, 80 (1): 1-4.
Review
For citations:
Petrov K.A. Mapping Controversies in Neuroscience: The Plastic Brain and “Anecdotal Data”. Sociology of Power. 2020;32(2):183-207. https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-2-183-207. EDN: TCXJZB
Views:
4
Email this article 