Sunday, October 16, 2016

Too much neuroscience

NIMH has a new director, Dr Joshua Gordon. An article in The New York Times criticises the previous director, Thomas Insel, for shifting the focus of the NIMH research budget too much away from clinical research to neuroscience. Although the article could have been more sceptical of the possibilities of neuroscientific research, there is an important question about whether biomedical research funding is good value for money. Powerful vested interests don't necessarily produce the most neutral scientific progress.

I would like to see more investment in social psychiatry (see previous post) and critical neuroscience (see another previous post).


(With thanks to Facebook post by Christian Perring)
Posted by at

3 comments:

sandgroperdada said...

Hi Duncan
Are you going to San Diego in May 2017?

Do you have much information how the conference is shaping up?

regards

Amit Banerjee

17 October 2016 at 15:37
Mark p.s.2 said...

From the linked article "Many patients continue to suffer, struggle and lead unhappy lives. Some will kill themselves, despite the best available medications, psychotherapies and skilled therapists. "

Yes many people judged "ill" from a professional, will kill themselves FROM THE JUDGEMENT.

Like Jesus reportedly healed the sick in ancient times, in todays world the opposite, false doctors induce lifetime sickness on people. You need medication for your illness, an illness only I can see and define.

18 October 2016 at 16:59
Alisen said...

Each kind of source on the bibliography has a proper format in the Modern Language Association's classification list. Books are not formatted like articles, and articles are not formatted like websites and blog posts. See more psychology case study format

24 December 2016 at 15:43

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)