Prof. Nancy Eisenberg, President of the Association for Psychological Science, warns about the way that enthusiasm about new research methods and technologies in the biological sciences run the risk of pushing psychology toward greater reductionism in this editorial column. As she writes: In the past 20 or so years, there have been major advances in our understanding of the role of genetics, neural processes, and physiological processes (e.g., hormones, respiratory sinus arrhythmia) in human functioning. These domains of research have contributed immensely to our understanding of an array of issues in psychology and will no doubt continue to do so. However, as a consequence of the visibility and excitement about biologically oriented work, I have noticed a tendency toward reductionism by some individuals in the field and by some funding agencies. There seems to be an increasing tendency to assume that studying genetic/neural/physiological processes is more important than research on behavior and psychological processes per se because biological findings will eventually explain most of human psychological functioning. This belief is especially evidenced in the funding priorities at some of the National Institutes of Health. It can also be seen in the hiring patterns of many psychology departments that place a priority on hiring people who study biological processes or aspects of cognition that can be tied to neuroscience.
Posted on: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 03:26:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015