This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Serious claims belong in a serious scientific paper

deevybee's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by deevybee

To pedantically pick up on an earlier point, Greenfield is not a hereditary peer. She came from humble beginnings. In 2001 she applied to be made a 'people's peer', which you can Google if interested. It does mean a committee decided she had something to offer to parliament in terms of expertise. However, many scientists were dismayed when she started to use this position to promote her views on impact of the internet. There's a transcript of a debate in the House of Lords in 2010 where there is a robust response by Vaughan Bell.

Regarding research, prior to 2001 she published a fair amount of decent neuroscience, but there has been a lot less in recent years. She has meanwhile set up the Institute of the Future Mind, This had $2 million of funding in 2005 from the Templeton Foundation and is described as doing research on:

How does the environment shape brain development?
What are the brain regions that are most susceptible to environmental changes?
In what way do these key brain regions influence behaviour?
Does teaching schoolchildren about their brain improve learning?
Does teaching teachers about neuroscience improve their pupil’s learning outcomes?

I am not aware of any publications on these topics in peer-reviewed journals that have come from this Institute.

Tue, 25 Oct 2011 06:35:58 UTC | #883866