The Brain in the Machine

In July 1989, the Congress of the United States passed a resolution designating the 1990s as the “Decade of the Brain.” While such a resolution has largely ceremonial significance, it also testifies to a heightened awareness by politicians of the serious nature of mental disorders and disabilities, and to the promise and expectation that these disorders can be overcome through advances in science and technology made by federally funded researchers.

And well it should. A recent report by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which included APS Executive Director Alan Kraut on its advisory panel, indicates that the cost of mental disorders in the United States exceeds $130 billion per year, almost half of which is attributable to lost productivity. Based on this estimate, OTA conclude that “during the 1980s the relative investment in research on mental disorders was considerably less than that for other diseases” such as cancer and heart disease. And that’s the good news. Funding for psychological research into mental disorders exceeds that of most other areas of social science. For example, while the National Institutes of Health received over $110 million in federal support for psychology in 1992, the National Science Foundation (NSF) budget for all behavioral and cognitive sciences was merely $22 million. This represents about 1% of NSF’s total research budget. Less than $13 million was available for research on language, cognition, and social behavior. Another $4 million was devoted to decision, risk and management science.

Although the establishment of a Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences at NSF [see November 1991 Observer] should help focus attention on the importance of psychological research, this development comes at a time when advocates of most other scientific disciplines also are actively seeking increased government support. At the same time, significant growth in the federal discretionary budget is unlikely in the near future and no research discipline will soon receive major funding increases unless it is judged to be a particular national priority, tightly linked to short­ and medium-term national goals. Behavioral science in particular suffers under these conditions, because its federal funding base eroded by about 25% during the l 970s and 1980s, while funding for other disciplines increased an average of 30% over this same period.

Why hasn’t growth in funding for behavioral and social sciences been commensurate with other disciplines? Inadequate investment reflects a number of factors. For research into mental health, perhaps most significant has been the propensity of our society to stigmatize those who suffer from mental disorders, and to exclude such disorders from our broader portfolio of national health research priorities. But low investment in behavioral and social sciences overall appears to reflect a cultural bias against the so­called “soft” sciences, which strive to reveal the allegedly intangible and non-quantifiable essences of human nature, rather than to provide knowledge and tools to control the world that surrounds us. (The origins of this bias no doubt have been explored by social scientists.) It is illuminating to recall that Vannevar Bush, who articulated the science policy principles which led to the creation of NSF, was “an opponent of the social sciences.” Ironically, it was the demand for social scientists to evaluate NF programs in the 1950s that ultimately justified the need for, and utility of, social science research.

The allocation of research funds during the “Decade of the Brain” — about 90% of which are devoted to the biology of brain processes — reflects a similar bias about the relative value of “hard” versus “soft” research. It appears that our ultimate ambition, as expressed in many articles and editorials in our leading science journals (as well as in the popular press) is to find the neurological and genetic sources not just of mental disabilities, but of “more vague and ill-defined responses such as aggressiveness, nationalism, bigotry, and sadism.” Apparently, there is much comfort to be derived from viewing the brain as “just another organ,” subject to technological manipulation that ultimately may be able to rid the world of much suffering and unwanted behavior.

Yet such an approach is troubling. A philosophy of research on the brain that focuses primarily on neurological mitigation offers to liberate us from any obligation to address social, cultural or other environmental influences. Why worry about the causes of “anti­social” behavior, if we can develop a cure for them? If we discover a neurological cure for aggressiveness, must we address the societal problems, such as inner city poverty, that are associated with increased levels of violent behavior?

Such questions are not gratuitous. The history of technology development teaches us that humankind often uses innovation to mitigate the consequence of its own behavior.

Perhaps the cultural biases which have led to low levels of funding for the social sciences are rooted in the same traits that cause humanity to look toward technological, rather than behavioral, solutions to human suffering. In the past 50 years we have created an astonishing array of science-based technologies that could, in principle, solve most of the major problems facing humankind (e.g., hunger, overpopulation, degradation of the earth’s atmosphere, infant mortality, childhood diseases). Yet these problems persist, and in many areas of the world they grow worse. Apparently, technological solutions that fit seamlessly into our lives in the United States may be entirely inappropriate for adoption by other cultures.

Scientific knowledge and technological innovation are often developed in isolation from their societal context. The unwillingness of a culture or subculture to adopt a given innovation is too often viewed as a problem of human behavior or political institutions, not of the technology itself. In my view, however, the historical failure of our research system to adequately address broad issues such as women’s health and sustainable agriculture is a statement about our choice of research priorities and our faith in technology, not about the behavior of women and farmers.

I have long advocated the exploration of new mechanisms to link research and development to the achievement of social goals. The relative neglect of social sciences in our overall research portfolio may have compromised our ability to make these linkage stronger. We have not yet adequately connected behavioral research to the much broader, and profoundly significant question of how human cultures develop and assimilate technology. Similarly, social sciences have yet to play a major role in the design and coordination of multidisciplinary research programs aimed at national or global needs.

Can research in behavioral and cognitive sciences be used to inform and direct the national science and technology agenda, by helping us distinguish between solutions that are impractical, or even destructive, and those that are compatible with existing political and cultural institutions? In attempting to answer such questions, we must strive to break down the artificial and often false distinctions between “soft” and “hard” sciences. APS has gone to great lengths in developing the Human Capital Initiative which represents an excellent example of this kind of effort. In this process, the social sciences may well succeed in attracting more federal funds for research. The ultimate beneficiary could be humanity.