Viewpoint pubs.acs.org/chemneuro
Why I’m Not a Cognitive Psychologist... or a Behaviorist... or a Biologist Erik J. Garcia* Center for Addiction Research, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, Texas 77555, United States ABSTRACT: “Science” is under increasing amounts of scrutiny. Concerns about reproducibility, reduced institutional support, and intensified competition has been highlighted in recent years, but segregated science endangers scientific discovery above all. Segregated science can be interdisciplinary (biology vs psychology) or intradisciplinary (behaviorism vs cognitive psychology). The advancement of science and public knowledge depends on the unification of all disciplines to better understand the phenomena scientists study. We suggest that engendering collaborations across scientific disciplines produces better-designed research and appropriate interpretations, and increases career-long success. I am not a cognitive psychologist, behaviorist, or biologist because I am a neuroscientist. KEYWORDS: Science, interdisciplinary, intradisciplinary, collaboration
W
may be a strong contributor to the reproducibility crisis. For example, a scientist studying the cellular processes of amyloid plaque formation may not necessarily be interested in the effects of those plaques on behavior or cognitive function, but without acknowledging the behavior, the cellular process seems less important. Similarly, a gerontologist studying dementia should also know the cellular processes that contribute to different forms of dementia to better help and understand the population with whom they work. Let me be clear, I am not arguing for a “Jack (or Jill) of all trades, master of none” scientist. In fact, the level of specificity and complexity of today’s science calls for an expert in a highly focused research domain. What is a scientist to do? Success in today’s scientific climate requires more than one expert and should include a team of collaborators; one that represents each level of research interest. When science is conducted in a team environment, it reduces concerns about reproducibility and makes the science better. With this approach, more experts evaluate the work, but more importantly, experiments are better designed to fit into a programmatic theme aimed at understanding all levels of a disorder or ailment. So why am I not a cognitive psychologist, behaviorist, or biologist? The answer is quite simple. Understanding human health concerns are not specific to one research domain. Human behaviors/disorders/diseases affect emotions, hormones, synaptic transmission, organs, and social behaviors. Never is one hormone, neurotransmitter, receptor, behavior, etc., capable of explaining the entirety of the phenomenon of interest. Now, one could argue that these all can be reduced to biological mechanisms, but at what point does Humpty Dumpty get put back together? How do all these research fragments piece back together to explain the overarching research question? If scientists continue to remain segregated
hen I was in my last year of graduate study, a prospective faculty candidate interviewed for a position. He was talented both in behavioral assays and as a molecular biologist. As the most senior student, I was tasked with walking him to the veterinary medicine building to show him the confocal microscope and other molecular biology equipment. On our walk, we discussed many topics, but one comment he made profoundly affected me, “I’ve had to convince biology departments that the behavior is important, and here (a psychological sciences department), I’ll have to convince them that the biology is important.” It was not so much that I disagreed with him, but rather, his comment reminded me of the unfortunate path “science” and some scientists can travel. This ideology of “segregated” science is rooted in disciplines of science that are interdisciplinary (biology vs psychology) and intradisciplinary (behaviorism vs cognitive psychology). Nonetheless, the advancement of science and public knowledge depends on the unification of all disciplines to better understand the phenomena we study. Why don’t I label myself as a cognitive psychologist, behaviorist, or biologist? Scientists that insist on defining labels create siloed thinking and can engender the dismissal of dissimilar areas of research. For those who do not recognize the title, “Why I’m Not a Cognitive Psychologist... or a Behaviorist... or a Biologist”, B. F. Skinner authored a manuscript in 1977 titled, “Why I am not a cognitive psychologist”.1 While the purpose of this commentary and Skinner’s 1977 manuscript are very different, the magnitude of concern is equal. Skinner’s concern was primarily the rise of cognitive psychology and how Skinner believed that cognitive science studied “invented internal surrogates”. And, as a result, the cognitive revolution would revert behaviorism’s advancements back to introspection. My concerns are segregations across biomedical disciplines. Whether scientists admit it, none of the phenomena scientists study are as clean as the experiments that are designed to model them. More likely, a scientist studies a small aspect of an entire model system, they gather their data, and then they generalize the results in their interpretations. Overgeneralizing © XXXX American Chemical Society
Received: August 15, 2017 Accepted: August 21, 2017
A
DOI: 10.1021/acschemneuro.7b00316 ACS Chem. Neurosci. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Viewpoint
ACS Chemical Neuroscience
Figure 1. Number of multiple primary investigator research grants by fiscal year, indicating collaborations are more prevalent in NIH funded research grants. Data available from NIH’s Research portfolio online reporting tools (RePORT).
across research disciplines, the answer becomes ever more difficult to answer. As a young scientist, segregated science is deeply frustrating, because, as a result, there is a failure to communicate effectively to the public. Ironically, the lack of scientific literacy we see today is largely due to the fact that scientists have remained in the metaphorical ivory tower... in segregated work spaces. When experts communicate their research to a more professionally diverse research team, their science will inevitably become clearer to a wider audience. For example, cellular biologists speaking to cellular biologists speak in “cellular biology” language. Imagine a cellular biologist communicating to a behavioral geneticist or neuroscientist. It may be clumsy at first, but they would learn to communicate effectively. More importantly, they learn to communicate effectively to a wider audience, essentially breaking the research into comprehensible bytes. Figure 1 shows multiple primary investigator (PI) research grants funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH) by year. There is clear evidence that collaborations are increasing every year (Figure 1), while allocated inflation adjusted research dollars have declined,2 suggesting a larger percentage of funded research grants have multiple PIs. Therefore, collaborations may need to be developed to maintain a successful research career. Fostering working collaborations is time intensive and is the result of a long networking process. Do not believe collaboration is immediate. Build relationships and networks early and maintain them throughout your training career and beyond. Engage scientists at conferences, attend small poster sessions, and seek out techniques that could help answer a research question. Importantly, maintain these relationships by following up and revisiting them at future conferences. To incorporate new scientists into your research and open collaborations, welcome your graduate students to invite new faculty to their committees. The new faculty member serves as a valuable mentor to the graduate student, and the lab’s research is explored by another expert that is outside of the PI’s area of expertise. Be mindful, however, that the graduate student’s choice in external mentor fit with the student’s professional goals. Finally, volunteer to review for a National Institute of Health study section, and network with the other reviewers in attendance. You will find you have more in common than you believe.
In my conversation with the prospective candidate, it was not that he was wrong. He identified his audience, tailored his presentation, but “to convince them the biology (or behavior) was important” described a major problem in narrowly designed research studies and academic departments. Scientists have a mighty challenge; funding sources continue to be increasingly competitive, and research is becoming more expensive. By establishing collaborations that truly involve experts in a variety of research areas, I believe scientists will continue to advance and discover. Conducting research with experts from many domains could help reduce the reproducibility crisis while making science stronger. In addition, highly collaborative research teams would learn how to communicate their research to a broader audience to help the public comprehend the important details. While I may be a trained behavioral neuroscientist, my future research will encompass many research areas to have a comprehensive understanding and multidisciplinary approach to research. I am not a cognitive psychologist, behaviorist, or biologist, because I am a neuroscientist.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Phone: 409-747-7064. ORCID
Erik J. Garcia: 0000-0003-4760-7048 Notes
The author declares no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS E.J.G. would like to thank Kathryn A. Cunningham Ph.D. for her support in writing, editing, and sharing of her expertise. E.J.G. would like to thank David L. Arndt Ph.D. for his review and comments.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Skinner, B. F. (1977) Why I am not a cognitive psychologist. Behaviorism 5, 1−10. (2) NIH Research funding trends. Federation for American Societies for Experimental Biology, www.FASEB.org/Science-Policy-andAdvocacy/Federal-Funding-Data/NIH-Research-Funding-Trends. aspx.
B
DOI: 10.1021/acschemneuro.7b00316 ACS Chem. Neurosci. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
