Reminder: we shouldn’t need neuroscience studies to show that poverty and under-resourced environments effect the brain to motivate policy changes & political action. A thread:

One interesting side effect of a growing evidence based society is that evidence seems to be guiding morality. This is concerning because science is not designed to be a moral compass (and can be abused if we treat it as such), it is a tool we use to guide our decisions. /1

I’ve heard from people who work in government or lobbying groups that there is little buzz about changing social conditions until someone points to a photo of brain differences and suddenly those communities are “worth investing in”. /2

This is a sign that our emphasis in science and “objective evidence” is so out of touch with the humanities. Communities are worth investing in because humans are worth investing in. /3

Importantly, I still think neuroscience research into early life adversity (such as poverty) is important because it allows us to know the EXTENT to which these situations affect the brain but that shouldn’t be the only time we realize that there’s a problem. /4

I also think this phenomenon is indicative of the fact that brain mechanisms are not properly communicated to the public. The brain is always affected by the environment so it’s typical that we find brain differences when we compare different environments. /5

This thread is inspired by a wonderful conversation I had yesterday with a fellow researcher I “met” at SOBP @AlexWeigard