Unburdened by false humility, postmodern trauma activists claim to have understood for the first time what drives all of human suffering
Trauma DispatchTrauma news you can't get anywhere else. |
|
|
CATEGORY: CONTROL OF LANGUAGE AND IDEAS  Robert Allan Shapiro, M.D. Source: Cincinnati City Council Read time: 3.2 minutes plus a four-minute video This Happened A coalition of scientists and community activists made a lengthy presentation to a committee of the Cincinnati City Council on April 2, 2024. Their aim was to formally present the underlying science and scope of their proposed model for government action to commence large-scale systemic change by trying to address stress and trauma as underlying causes of inequity in child outcomes. Who Did This? The scientist in the coalition tasked with presenting the brain science data was pediatrician Robert Shapiro, M.D. of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. Shapiro completed his pediatric medicine training in 1984. He has been the secondary author on twelve peer-reviewed studies that covered mostly child abuse, adverse childhood experiences, and parent coaching. He has not been the first author on a paper, been the principal investigator on a research grant, or studied brain imaging. The Presentation The 1.6 hour presentation employed the usual logic of the adverse childhood experiences (ACE) narrative that stress and trauma cause permanent brain and body damage that leads to a wide variety of mental problems, physical diseases, and social dysfunctions.
Shapiro’s first slide was a side-by-side comparison of two MRI brain scans labeled No Maltreatment and Maltreated (see above). The number of purple circles and connecting lines is obviously fewer in the Maltreated brain. In the four minute video clip below, Shapiro initially gave a vague explanation of the figure, then the chairwoman redirected him to give a clearer explanation, which was still vague, and then another council member, still confused, asked him bluntly, “Doctor, what do the purple spots represent?” Analysis Shapiro understood almost nothing accurately about the brain scans. A reference was not given for the original study that produced the brain scans. We were, however, able to locate it within a few seconds with Google Image. The original study was Teicher et al. (2014) in Biological Psychiatry.[1] The original figure is shown below for comparison.  The figure represents centrality of one brain area in relation to over one hundred other possible brain areas. Centrality was based on cortical thickness of an area, meaning, very roughly, if two areas have relatively greater thickness they are considered to be connected to a greater degree. The connecting lines and the size of the circles were based on a complex permutation of four different centrality measures. In sum, each figure is presumed to show how a network of connectivity emanates from one brain area (the green circle). Shapiro never mentioned centrality or connectivity. Teicher et al. found significant differences in networks emanating from nine different brain areas. They made figures for only three of them, and Shapiro presented only one of the figures. Greater centrality was shown in the Not Maltreated group compared to the Maltreated group for the left anterior cingulate, which is the only figure Shapiro showed. Greater centrality was shown, however, in the Maltreated group compared to the Not Maltreated group for the right anterior insula and the right precuneus, which are the two figures Shapiro omitted, and those are reproduced below.
Obviously, if Shapiro had shown these two figures, the status of brains of the Maltreated group vis-a-vis the Not Maltreated group would have appeared much more complex. Other misinformation from Dr. Shapiro:
When showing brains scans in this manner to legislators, it raises many concerns. For example, the legislators were not told that this represented one of several ways to measure connectivity. They did not know that this method of measuring so-called connectivity was based on cortical thickness of structures. It was not based on functional MRI that showed brains in action; it was not based on blood flow to areas or on neuronal activity. They were not told that this research is based on a shaky assumption that increased connectivity between two brain regions somehow stimulates cortical thickness growth during brain development. The mechanism of how that stimulation might happen is mysterious. They were not told that this study has never been replicated. They were not told that other methods for measuring connectivity do not fully replicate these results. They were not told that the data were limited by being cross-sectional, meaning that the connectivity patterns probably pre-existed any life events and more likely represent vulnerability or resilience factors, and are not the outcomes of life events. They were not told that connectivity maps do not yet reliably equate with functional importance like behaviors, symptoms, or morals. Any connection between connectivity maps and real-life function is assumed. The presentation obviously worked. It is clear the three council members were enthusiastic about the program. In trying to solve complex social problems, legislators must rely on scientists for truth. When scientists become persuaders for a cause, this often corrupts the process. As Paul Cairney, a professor of politics and public policy, wrote, the danger, or perhaps the intended outcome, of effective persuasion, is that “scientists may exaggerate scientific consensus on ‘the evidence’ when they become advocates.” [2] Like Trauma Dispatch? You can subscribe to our email notices of new posts on this page. References [1] Martin H. Teicher, Carl M. Anderson, Kyoko Ohashi, Ann Polcari (2014). Childhood Maltreatment: Altered Network Centrality of Cingulate, Precuneus, Temporal Pole and Insula. Biological Psychiatry 76(4): 297-305, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.09.016. [2] Paul Cairney, The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016). Comments are closed.
|
