Search results

Proposes that halfway through the decade which has been termed that of the brain, our level of understanding is still primitive despite much excellent research. Discusses new findings, such as those presented in a recent lecture, which can still alter profoundly the perception of neural mechanisms, and shows that we may even be wrong in the customary assumption that the well‐known electro‐chemical neural transmission is the only important form of rapid internal communication in the brain.

Continues an earlier discussion of the state of understanding of the brain, and the nature of the breakthrough that would warrant the designation “decade of the brain”. Discusses current theories linking consciousness and quantum mechanics, taking a sceptical standpoint but inviting debate. Acknowledges a strong case for some mechanism additional to the classical neural net, probably comprising microtubules as photonic waveguides.

Since 1985, Advances in Special Education has aspired to advance theories and best practices essential to understanding, treating, and instructing students with disabilities. At times, advancement involves vision and innovation. At other times, new technologies, cutting edge medical procedures, or innovate pedagogical practices capture the attention of special education professionals globally and substantial changes can result in the way students with special needs are instructed. This volume in Special Education International Perspectives invites a call for common ground and global commonalities in all schools. The main theme of this chapter is that teachers matter. The chapter reviews two decade of scientific evidence that supports this theme. The scientific evidence comes from neuroscience and social cognition findings related to the importance of the teacher–student interaction. Environmental influences are not only the physical world but the all-important social world. The chapter begins with an overview of the “social” brain relative to teaching. A practical guide for teacher use of evidence-based educational practices concludes the chapter.

The author reminisces about an experience in the 1950s that revealed a much earlier plan to set up a research centre with aims close to what later came to be called cybernetics. That plan was thwarted by economic considerations but the general approach found expression in the later work of Warren McCulloch and of a group around him, the latter first in Chicago and then in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This paper aims to discuss the attempt to set up this research centre.

The emphasis is on study of the brain and its modelling in mechanistic terms, and the limitations of various experimental techniques are discussed.

Despite much very good work and technical developments, the detailed working of the brain is still mysterious, and quite fundamental aspects are still debatable. The suggestion that the 1990s would be the “Decade of the brain” was premature.

Technical developments including scanning techniques, especially NMR, have aided the analysis of brain functioning and no doubt other developments will emerge. Modelling by methods of artificial intelligence is likely to be helpful, but must be seen as producing bold, and therefore tentative, hypotheses that workers should be ready to modify or abandon.

The trip to Orange, New Jersey has been described and discussed previously but not in such detail.

As one of the most dynamic and consequential areas of biomedical research, neuroscience must be analyzed in a broader political context. Research initiatives, individual use, and aggregate social consequences of unfolding knowledge about the brain and the accompanying applications require particularly close scrutiny because of the centrality of the brain itself to human behavior and thoughts. As one of the last frontiers of medicine, neuroscience has strong support because it promises to benefit many patients suffering from an array of behavioral, neurological, and mental disorders and injuries. Given the inevitability of expanded strategies for exploration and therapy of the brain, it is important that the political issues surrounding their application be clarified and debated before such techniques fall into routine use.

Neuroscience, with its promise to peer into the brain and explain the sources of human behavior and human consciousness, has captured the scientific, clinical, and public imaginations. Among those in the thrall of neuroscience are a group of ethicists who are carving out a new subspecialty within the field of bioethics: neuroethics. Neuroethics has taken as its task the policing of neuroscience. By virtue of its very existence, neuroethics presents a threat to its parent field bioethics. In its struggle to maintain authority as the guardian of neuroscience, neuroethics must respond to criticisms from bioethicists who see no need for the subspecialty. We describe the social history of neuroethics and use that history to consider several issues of concern to social scientists, including the social contexts that generate ethical questions and shape the way those questions are framed and answered; strategies used by neuroethicists to secure a place in an occupational structure that includes life scientists and other ethics experts; and the impact of the field of neuroethics on both the work of neuroscience and public perceptions of the value and danger of the science of the brain.

Political science is often derided for being a “soft” science, one unable to generate hard predictions about political behavior, or without the ability to test its hypotheses, unlike physics, biology, or, among the social sciences, economics. Standards of hypothesis testing, data collection, and testing were unfairly seen to be lacking in comparison with the hard sciences. Accordingly, political scientists often had to struggle to have the knowledge produced about political behavior taken seriously. It would not be too remiss to identify an inferiority complex among political scientists, when they discussed the pantheon of scientific disciplines and their low position in it.

A neuroscientific turn has been diagnosed in several disciplines, but sociology has not yet undertaken this turn. While other social science disciplines are engaging in a lively discussion with the ‘new brain sciences’ and have established extensive collaboration, exchange between neuroscience and sociology is almost absent. Besides a general scepticism towards “reductionist” explanations, this is largely due to sociology focusing on its traditional role as observer and critic of current developments in science. In this chapter, I argue that this ‘sociology of neuroscience’ approach should be complemented by an increased attention to actual neuroscientific findings with respect to key theoretical concepts in sociology and social theory more generally. I discuss how contemporary neuroscience research can assist in sharpening and empirically refining our understanding of a number of micro-sociological concepts that often elude investigation with more traditional social science methods. I highlight the possible benefits and pitfalls of such endeavours by discussing the ‘neurosociology’ paradigm and sketch alternative ways of mutual engagement with the new brain sciences.

Criminology both as a field of study and as a practice draws on a broad range of disciplines from the social, behavioural, human, natural and medical sciences. However, over recent times, the natural and medical sciences have been dismissed, overlooked and even ridiculed, largely since the rise of critical criminology and related contemporary conflict and social harm approaches from the 1960s onwards. This has led to a chasm emerging between the study of criminology and the practice of criminology such as within a policing context. This paper aims to provide a review of an emerging forensic biological method, that of neuroscience, within a criminological context, to illustrate the importance of criminology embracing and reawakening its natural and medical science roots.

The paper draws on a conceptual design to realign criminology with the full range of disciplines used to inform its theory and application.

Through illustrating the role of forensic neuroscience, the paper reawakens the scientific method and inquiry of criminology reflecting the importance of the discipline being, and remaining, multi- and trans-disciplinary in nature. The paper, while reflecting on the limitations of scientific method and inquiry, outlines the strengths this approach to criminology engenders, promoting and delivering a scientific-based research agenda that aims to support industry partners in the prevention, disruption and reduction of crime, disorder and threats to public security.

Firstly, it is important for criminology as a field of study to (re)engage with its scientific method and inquiry. Secondly, criminology, by engaging in robust scientific method and inquiry, has a significant contribution to make to professional practice and the work of industry professionals. Thirdly, while there are limitations to such scientific method and inquiry, it should not lead to this component of criminology being discarded. Fourthly, there is a need for contemporary research in the area of scientific method and inquiry and its application to criminological contexts, including that of police practice. Finally, by engaging in scientific method and inquiry that is evidence based, a chasm between the field of study and the practice associated with criminology can be addressed.

This paper addresses the gap between criminology as a field of study and as a practice by reengaging with scientific method and inquiry, illustrating the need and value of criminology being and remaining multi- and trans-disciplinary, ensuring professions underpinned by criminology are supported in their practice.