The article was so clearly a piece of political propaganda that I didn't even notice that, but yes. Good catch. Seems like a good time to mention this:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gen...science_by_Sally_Satel_and_Scott_O_Lilienfeld...
...In this case, the misuse of neuroscience is not only mindless, but egregiously unethical.
Thanks for the reference to the Satel & Lilienfeld book. I liked the reviewer's sound-bite quip about "Brain Scans" becoming "Brain Scams"...! guess that the Politico editors just picked any handy brain MRI to attach to their IQ article, totally oblivious as to what it actually showed.
Modern brain imaging (CT/PET/SPECT/MRI/fMRI) is quite useful, but as with any other technology we need to understand it's limits.
I gave a Grand Rounds case presentation about a decade ago about a 42 yo patient who was admitted the neurology service for refractory epilepsy. He'd had seizures since adolescence. These had been more or less well-controlled, first on phenobarbital, and later on phenytoin. He had a BSEE, and was working as a computer software engineer in Silicon Valley. Oddly enough, he had never had a brain CT or MRI.
We managed to get better seizure control by using more modern medications. that was easy enough. But we also went ahead and got a brain MRI to rule out some progressive brain lesion. Not that there was anything in his neuro exam to suggest this (other than loss of previously good seizure control).
I began the presentation by describing a patient who was admitted for refractory epilepsy. saying nothing about his educational/high cognitive functioning background. Then I showed his MRI scan, which elicited a lot of oohs and ahs from the audience. The reason for the oohs and ahs was that this guy had massive lateral ventriculomegaly. There was very little cerebral cortex to be seen...basically only about 1/2"or so of cortex that seemed to be plastered up against the cranium all around. This was clearly a case of arrested congenital/perinatal hydrocephalus.
We then moved on to opinions from the audience. These were all physicians, and their consensus was that this had to be a case of severe congenital encephalopathic epilepsy, and it was assumed that the patient suffered from profound cognitive impairment. I allowed the audience to discuss their opinions about what sort of neurological deficits they expected the patient have.
After we discussed this for a while, I then brought the patient out to be seen by the audience. They were quite surprised by the fact that he not only spoke fluent English, but that he was apparently quite intelligent.
🙂
Oh. In retrospect I realized that his neuro exam was not quite "normal." He did have a slightly larger-than-normal hat size.