Add new comment

  • Dr. Morgan,

    I enjoyed your blog. Your enthusiasm and optimism appear unbridled. For what it is worth, I would like to argue that the neurobio personalized medicine including psychological intervention is a pipe dream. An example of what I refer to as "neuromania". Now, this does not mean that neuroscientists should not continue to conduct their elegant work. The more we come to know about brain mechanisms and behavior, the closer we come to apply such knowledge. So which is it? Proponent of neuromania or neuroscience?
    There is not space here to submit philosophical, methodological, and public health propositions for us to debate. Maybe in another venue? My bottom line is that psychology and its clinical specialties primary scientific foci are behavior. Let neuroscientists study neuroscience; hence, my opinion that psychologists are not neuroscientists, that's why we call ourselves psychologists. Fundamentally there are critical "levels of analysis" conceptual and methods disjunctions between the two approaches. They are incommensurable, I submit (as do many others). The second fundamental issue is the clinical and most broadly the public health implications of the two approaches. NIH is tripping with manic excitement over neural networks and RDoCs, literally, and this is a huge psychology ethics correlate of the approaches, at the literal expense (as in funding) of psychological (social-cognitive, emotional-motivational, and behavioral-interpersonal).
    I have been one those, early in my training, captivated with the technology and the "objectiveness" and "medicalization" of it all. As a clinical psychologist, over several decades now, I have seen how the allure of the bio-medical/neuromania approach has consumed, over the last decade for example, the overwhelming majority of funding to support both clinical research work and careers, and the opportunity cost of "un-funding" behavioral psychology research that has made the clearest and vastly more substantial knowledge and application gains in the advancement of public mental health.
    I admire your clear knowledge and sincerity in your work and research program and career. Keep it up and like the scientists we aspire to be, fight hard to keep your mind open to alternative positions. Working to keep our cognitive biases in check as we review the empirical evidence will keep us honest to our professional identities, the quality of our research, and the prevention /reduction in the burden of illness we march on to ameliorate.
    All the best.

  • You must have Javascript enabled to use this form.
    You must have Javascript enabled to use this form.