After studying neuroscience for the last four years, it’s been evident that there are major disparities in research. There is a lack of diversity in subject pools, the research findings can only help a select percentage of the world, and the treatment of all subjects still fail to be equal. While I’m confident there are a plethora of other issues within neuroscience, I find these to be most recurring when discussing the ethical issues within scientific research. The discussion of these issues is usually followed by ways which neuroscientists can address when conducting research. However, when discussing a resolution, I have personally found a trend of the problem being viewed as outside of neuroscience’s control. For example, the idea of why we may not be getting a diverse enough pool of subjects may come down to work schedules. Given the wage inequality in the US, it could be theorized that less subjects are BIPOC since they must work multiple jobs or more hours, limiting time for them to participate in research. The problem here would be the structural racism in employment and wages.
However, there has been little mentioned on how neuroscience itself prevents equality. Recently, Dr. Kwasa from the neuroscience institute at Carnegie Melon was the first to mention how neurotechnology is preventing this diverse subject pool. Electroencephalography (EEG) electrodes do not work for individuals with course, curly hair, such as tip 4c unless styled a certain way to expose the scalp. It is amazing that Dr. Kwasa has been and continues to develop a new EEG electrode to be more inclusive. That made me curious about other ways in which the neuroscience field fails to be as inclusive as it wants to be.
An article I found by Dr.Justin Yerbury and Dr.Rachel Yerbury, discusses what it is like being disabled working in academia. Firstly, the legal definition of a disability is a “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity” (What is the definition of disability under the Ada? 2022). This branches away from the usual ethical dilemmas of subject pools, but the researchers themselves. While there are institutions that are extremely supportive of disabled scientists, there is still a stigma revolved around announcing these diagnoses. Additionally, due to the competitive nature of research, announcing that one has a diagnosis with this stigma, implies that they are incapable of meeting these high standards to conduct research. This often results in a few scientists disclosing their diagnoses and preventing them from getting the resources needed to succeed. In fact, it is the idea of accommodation that should be reframed. This term sets the precedent that those with disabilities need much more help ever reach success; instead, it should be replaced with the question of what resources are needed for these individuals to do their best work. In fact, this question can be asked of all researchers. Also, another mindset that should be adopted is that disabled academics bring about their own perspective. Everyone comes from different walks of life that shapes how we think of the world and those living with a disability have their perspective to offer in terms of research, which fuels the idea of innovation, and ultimately the foundation of research.
What is the definition of disability under the Ada? ADA National Network. (2022, March 10). Retrieved March 4, 2022, from.
Yerbury, J., & Yerbury, R. (2021). Disabled in academia: to be or not to be, that is the question. Trends in Neuroscience, 44(7).
No comments:
Post a Comment