Abstract
This chapter is an account of the dynamics of interaction across the social sciences and neurosciences. Against an arid rhetoric of ‘interdisciplinarity’, we call for a more expansive imaginary of what experiment—as practice and ethos—might offer. We oppose existing conceptualizations of dynamics between the social sciences and neurosciences, grouping them under three rubrics: ‘critique’, ‘ebullience’ and ‘interaction’. Despite their differences, each insists on a distinction between sociocultural and neurobiological knowledge. We link this insistence to the ‘regime of the inter-’, an ethic of interdisciplinarity that guides interaction between disciplines on the understanding of their separateness. We argue: (1) that this separation is no longer sustainable and (2) that the cognitive neuroscience experiment offers opportunities for exploring this realization.
This chapter originally appeared as an article published in Theory, Culture & Society 32(1): 3–32, online 30 June 2014. It is available open access under a CC BY license at http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276414537319.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Note that ‘webs of human social and cultural life’ have been figured quantitatively and ‘scientifically’ in several social science disciplines for some time—not least in the archaeological and geographical sciences. Here, however, we address ourselves to those parts of the social sciences and humanities whose intellectual roots are in the emergence of the ‘social’ and/or ‘cultural’ as a distinct object of knowledge, and within which tentative, empirically focused turns towards biology have not been met with alacrity. See Donzelot (1988), Rose (1991), and Latour (2005).
- 2.
Historians of science, sociologists and researchers in science and technology studies (STS) have taken ‘experimental labour’ as an object of study; we want here to explore how cognitive neuroscientific experimentation might be a methodological and epistemological resource for social scientists and humanists. We are indebted to (and expand upon) some recent exceptions to the general disregard for this question, such as Nikoleyczik’s ‘multidimensional’ and ‘integrative’ approach (2012; see also Bluhm et al. 2012) and Roepstorff and Frith’s (2012) ethic of conceptual ‘front-loading.’
- 3.
This chapter draws on our many years of separate and conjoined engagement with interdisciplinary neurobiological-sociocultural experimentation. What we here name as ‘experimental entanglement’ theorizes our long-standing frustration with the ‘interdisciplinary’ approaches that dominated these engagements. Here, we articulate the conceptual ground that lies beneath this frustration; more detailed case analyses of some of the ‘entanglements’ that we have helped to initiate are provided in Callard and Fitzgerald (2015).
- 4.
In this chapter, we move between ‘the neurosciences’ and ‘cognitive neuroscience’. The neurosciences incorporate a huge range of methods and foci that encompass molecular, cellular, developmental, structural, functional, evolutionary and computational studies of the brain in its ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ states (see Rees and Rose 2004, or Abi-Rached 2008). It is most commonly cognitive neuroscience that is the focus of much attention in the social sciences and humanities.
- 5.
Some social scientific (and humanist) research, in approaching the neurosciences as an object of historical and/or sociological study, does not neatly fall into any of the three modes we delineate below. In this chapter, we are interested in social scientific scholarship that does not simply take the neurosciences as an object of study, but rather addresses how the growth in the neurosciences poses questions vis-à-vis how the social sciences might or should respond to this.
- 6.
The concept of critique of course has great semantic density as well as a complex genealogy, as de Boer and Sonderegger (2012) demonstrate.
- 7.
Some deflationary accounts leave open space for what they think might be more productive ‘interdisciplinary ventures between the humanities and the sciences’ (Kramnick 2011), but they tend, overall, not to be interested in the mechanics of such ventures.
- 8.
Slaby and Choudhury argue, specifically, that:
While critical neuroscience does not directly follow a Frankfurt School program … it does share with it a spirit of historico-political mission; that is, the persuasion that scientific inquiry into human reality tends to mobilize specific values and often works in the service of interests that can easily shape construals of nature or naturalness. These notions of nature or of what counts as natural … require unpacking. Without critical reflection, they appear as inevitable givens, universal and below history, and are often seen as a form of “normative facticity,” making specific claims upon us in everyday life. (2012, 29)
- 9.
Of course, the interactive mode, too, has a history—not least a history of transdisciplinary scholars, or those working in formative moments for their disciplines, who thought the experimental relationship between social life, psychological life and the brain. Particularly noteworthy here are the works of, for example, Kurt Lewin (1947) and Kurt Goldstein (2000 [1939]).
- 10.
For example, see the concluding comments of Ashton, a literary theorist, in her critique of neuroaesthetics:
This essay argues for why we should not just be delighted with the [neuroaesthetic] results, or rather, why we can’t be delighted with the results and still maintain a coherent account of what we’re doing when we’re doing the interpretive work of literary or art history and criticism.….Neuroaesthetics is answering a set of questions about causes, while the interpretation of a work of art depends on having answers about its meaning.
- 11.
See, for example, documents on the European Commission’s unfolding ‘Horizon 2020’ research and innovation programme, which argues that:
Radical breakthroughs with a transformative impact increasingly rely on intense collaboration across disciplines in science and technology (for instance, information and communication, biology, chemistry, earth system sciences, material sciences, neuro- and cognitive sciences, social sciences or economics) and with the arts and humanities. This requires not only excellence in science and technology but also new attitudes and novel interactions between a broad range of players in research. (European Commission 2011, 35)
Bibliography
Abi-Rached, Joelle M. 2008. The New Brain Sciences: Field or Fields? Brain Self & Society Working Papers, Consulted September 2012. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27941/1/BSSWP-2-2008-FINAL.pdf
Adolphs, Ralph. 2003. Cognitive Neuroscience of Human Social Behaviour. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4 (3): 165–178.
Ashton, Jennifer. 2011 Two Problems with a Neuroaesthetic Theory of Interpretation. Nonsite (2), Consulted August 2013. http://nonsite.org/issues/issue-2/two-problems-with-a-neuroaesthetic-theory-of-interpretation
Bandettini, Peter A. 2012. Functional MRI: A Confluence of Fortunate Circumstances. NeuroImage 61 (2): A3–A11.
Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
———. 2011. Erasers and Erasures: Pinch’s Unfortunate “Uncertainty Principle”. Social Studies of Science 41 (3): 443–454.
Barnett, Clive. 2008. Political Affects in Public Space: Normative Blind-spots in Non-representational Ontologies. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33 (2): 186–200.
Beaulieu, Anne. 2000. The space inside the skull: digital representations, brain mapping, and cognitive neuroscience in the decade of the brain. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Le Bihan, Denis, et al. 2001. Diffusion Tensor Imaging: Concepts and Applications. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 13 (4): 534–546.
Bird, Adrian. 2007. Perceptions of Epigenetics. Nature 447 (7143): 396–398.
Blackman, Lisa. 2008. Affect, Relationality and the “Problem of Personality”. Theory, Culture & Society 25 (1): 23–47.
Bluhm, Robyn, Heidi L. Maibom, and Anne Jaap Jacobson. 2012. Neurofeminism: Issues at the Intersection of Feminist Theory and Cognitive Science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
De Boer, Karin, and Ruth Sonderegger, eds. 2012. Conceptions of Critique in Modern and Contemporary Philosophy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Braidotti, Rosi. 2006. Posthuman, All Too Human: Towards a New Process Ontology. Theory, Culture & Society 23 (7-8): 197–208.
Callard, Felicity, and Daniel Margulies. 2011. The Subject at Rest: Novel Conceptualizations of Self and Brain from Cognitive Neuroscience’s Study of the “Resting State”. Subjectivity 4 (3): 227–257.
———. 2014. What we Talk about When we Talk about the Default Mode Network. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 169. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00619.
Callard, Felicity, and Des Fitzgerald. 2015. Rethinking Interdisciplinarity across the Social Sciences and Neurosciences. London: Palgrave.
Callard, Felicity, Jonathan Smallwood, Johannes Golchert, and Daniel S. Margulies. 2013. The Era of the Wandering Mind? Twenty-First Century Research on Self-Generated Mental Activity. Frontiers in Psychology 4 (891). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00891.
Camerer, Colin, George Lowenstein, and Drazen Prelec. 2005. Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience Can Inform Economics. Journal of Economic Literature 43 (1): 9–64.
Chiao, Joan Y. 2009. Cultural Neuroscience: a Once and Future Discipline. Progress in Brain Research 178: 287–303.
Choudhury, Suparna, and Laurence J. Kirmayer. 2009. Cultural Neuroscience and Psychopathology: Prospects for Cultural Psychiatry. Progress in Brain Research 178: 263–283.
Choudhury, Suparna, Saskia K. Nagel, and Jan Slaby. 2009. Critical Neuroscience: Linking Neuroscience and Society through Critical Practice. BioSocieties 4 (1): 61–77.
Choudhury, Suparna, and Jan Slaby, eds. 2012. Critical Neuroscience: A Handbook of the Social and Cultural Contexts of Neuroscience. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Clifford, James, and George E. Marcus. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Clough, Patricia T. 2000. Comments on Setting Criteria for Experimental Writing. Qualitative Inquiry 6 (2): 278–291.
Cohn, Simon. 2008. Making Objective Facts from Intimate Relations: The Case of Neuroscience and Its Entanglements with Volunteers. History of the Human Sciences 21 (4): 86–103.
Connolly, William E. 2002. Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Cooter, Roger. 2014. Neural Veils and the Will to Historical Critique: Why Historians of Science need to take the Neuro-Turn Seriously. Isis 105 (1): 145–154.
Cromby, John. 2007. Integrating Social Science with Neuroscience: Potentials and Problems. BioSocieties 2 (2): 149–169.
Cromby, John, Tim Newton, and Simon J. Williams. 2011. Neuroscience and Subjectivity. Subjectivity 4 (3): 215–226.
Damasio, Antonio. 2000. The Feeling Of What Happens: Body, Emotion and the Making of Consciousness. London: Vintage.
———. 2004. Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow and the Feeling Brain. London: Vintage.
———. 2006. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. London: Vintage.
Davies, Gail. 2010. Where Do Experiments End? Geoforum 41 (5): 667–670.
Donzelot, Jacques. 1988. The Promotion of the Social. Economy and Society 17 (3): 395.
Dumit, Joseph. 2004. Picturing Personhood: Brain Scans and Biomedical Identity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
European Commission 2011. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of The Council Establishing Horizon 2020—The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014–2020), Consulted August 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/proposal_for_a_regulation_of_the_european_parliament_and_of_the_council_establishing_horizon_2020_-_the_framework_programme_for_research_and_innovation_(2014-2020).pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none
Filevich, Elisa, et al. 2013. Brain Correlates of Subjective Freedom of Choice. Consciousness and Cognition 22 (4): 1274–1281.
Fitzgerald, Des. 2013. The Affective Labour of Autism Neuroscience: Entangling Emotions, Thoughts and Feelings in a Scientific Research Practice. Subjectivity 6: 131–152.
Fitzgerald, Des, Melissa M. Littlefield, Kasper J. Knudsen, James Tonks, and Martin J. Dietz. 2014. Ambivalence, Equivocation and the Politics of Experimental Knowledge: A Transdisciplinary Neuroscience Encounter. Social Studies of Science 44 (5): 701–721.
Frackowiak, Richard S.J., et al. 2004. Human Brain Function. 2nd ed. London: Academic Press.
Franks, David D. 2010. Neurosociology: The Nexus Between Neuroscience and Social Psychology. New York: Springer.
Galison, Peter. 1987. How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldstein, Kurt. 2000 [1939]. The Organism. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Gooding, David, Trevor Pinch, and Simon Schaffer. 1989. The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodman, Alan H. 2013. Bringing Culture into Human Biology and Biology Back into Anthropology. American Anthropologist 115 (3): 359–373.
Grosz, Elizabeth A. 1994. Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Bloomington. IN: Indiana University Press.
Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haraway, Donna J. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse: Feminism and Technoscience. London: Routledge.
———. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Free Association Books.
Hyman, S.E. 2009. How Adversity Gets Under the Skin. Nature Neuroscience 12 (3): 241–243.
Johnston, Adrian, and Cathrine Malabou. 2013. Self and Emotional Life Philosophy, Psychoanalysis, and Neuroscience. New York: Columbia University Press.
Joyce, Kelly A. 2008. Magnetic Appeal MRI and the Myth of Transparency. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kirmayer, Laurence J., and Ian Gold. 2012. Re-Socializing Psychiatry: Critical Neuroscience and the Limits of Reductionism. In Critical Neuroscience: A Handbook of the Social and Cultural Contexts of Neuroscience, ed. S. Choudhury and J. Slaby, 315–347. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kramnick, Jonathan. 2011. Against literary Darwinism. Critical Inquiry 37 (2): 315–347.
Laplanche, Jean. 1989. New Foundations for Psychoanalysis. Trans. David Macey. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Latour, Bruno. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Boston: Harvard University Press.
———. 2004. Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry 30 (2): 225–248.
———. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lende, Daniel H., and Greg Downey. 2012. The Encultured Brain: An Introduction to Neuroanthropology. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Lewin, Kurt. 1947. Frontiers in Group Dynamics. Human Relations 1 (5): 5–41.
Leys, Ruth. 2011. The Turn to Affect: A Critique. Critical Inquiry 37 (3): 434–472.
Littlefield, Melissa M., Martin J. Dietz, Des Fitzgerald, Kasper J. Knudsen, and James Tonks. 2014. Contextualizing Neuro-Collaborations: Reflections on a Trans-Disciplinary fMRI Lie Detection Experiment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 149. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00149.
———. 2015. Being Asked to Tell an Unpleasant Truth About Another Person Activates Anterior Insula and Prefrontal Cortex. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9: 553.
Malabou, Catherine. 2008. What Should We Do with Our Brain? Trans. S. Rand. New York: Fordham University Press.
———. 2012. The New Wounded: From Neurosis to Brain Damage. Trans. S. Miller. New York: Fordham University Press.
Marres, Noortje. 2012. On Some Uses and Abuses of Topology in the Social Analysis of Technology (Or the Problem with Smart Meters). Theory, Culture & Society 29 (4-5): 288–310.
Martin, Emily. 2000. AES Presidential Address—Mind-Body Problems. American Ethnologist 27 (3): 569–590.
———. 2004. Talking Back to Neuro-reductionism. In Cultural Bodies: Ethnography and Theory, ed. H. Thomas and J. Ahmed, 190–211. Oxford: Blackwell.
———. 2010. Self-making and the Brain. Subjectivity 3 (4): 366–381.
———. 2013. The Potentiality of Ethnography and the Limits of Affect Theory. Current Anthropology 54 (7): s149–s158.
Massumi, Brian. 1996. The Autonomy of Affect. Cultural Critique 31: 83–110.
Matusall, Svenja. 2012. Looking for the Social in the Brain: The Emergence of Social Neuroscience. Zürich: ETH Zürich.
Meloni, Maurizio. 2014. How Biology became Social and What it Means for Social Theory. The Sociological Review 52 (3): 593–614.
Morawski, Jill G. 1988. The Rise of Experimentation in American Psychology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Myers, Natasha. 2012. Dance Your PhD: Embodied Animations, Body Experiments, and the Affective Entanglements of Life Science Research. Body & Society 18 (1): 151–189.
Nature (Editorial). 2012. Life Stresses. Nature 490: 143.
The Neurocritic. 2012. How Much of the Neuroimaging Literature Should We Discard?, The Neurocritic: Deconstructing the Most Sensationalistic Recent Findings in Human Brain Imaging, Cognitive Neuroscience, and Psychopharmacology, Consulted May 2012. http://neurocritic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/how-much-of-neuroimaging-literature.html
Niewöhner, Jörg. 2011. Epigenetics: Embedded Bodies and the Molecularisation of Biography and Milieu. BioSocieties 6 (3): 279–298.
Nikoleyczik, Katrin. 2012. Towards Diffractive Transdisciplinarity: Integrating Gender Knowledge into the Practice of Neuroscientific Research. Neuroethics 5 (3): 231–245.
Nowotny, Helga. 2005. The Increase of Complexity and Its Reduction Emergent Interfaces Between the Natural Sciences, Humanities and Social Sciences. Theory, Culture & Society 22 (5): 15–31.
Ortega, Francisco, and Fernando Vidal. 2007. Mapping the Cerebral Subject in Contemporary Culture. RECIIS: Electronic Journal of Communication Information and Innovation in Health 1 (2): 255–259.
Osborne, Tom, and Nikolas Rose. 2008. Populating Sociology: Carr-Saunders and the Problem of Population. The Sociological Review 56 (4): 552–578.
Papoulias, Constantina, and Felicity Callard. 2010. Biology’s Gift: Interrogating the Turn to Affect. Body & Society 16 (1): 29–56.
Pickering, Andrew. 1992. Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
———. 1995. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pickersgill, Martin. 2013. The Social Life of the Brain: Neuroscience in Society. Current Sociology 61 (3): 322–340.
Pinker, Steven. 2013. Science is Not Your Enemy: An Impassioned Plea to Neglected Novelists, Embattled Professors, and Tenure-less Historians, The New Republic, Consulted August 2013. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities
Poldrack, Russell A. 2010. Subtraction and Beyond: The Logic of Experimental Designs for Neuroimaging. In Foundational Issues in Human Brain Mapping, ed. S.J. Hanson and M. Bunzl, 147–160. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Rees, Dai, and Steven Rose, eds. 2004. The New Brain Sciences: Perils and Prospects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Renwick, Chris. 2012. British Sociology’s Lost Biological Roots: A History of Futures Past. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 1994. Experimental Systems: Historiality, Narration, and Deconstruction. Science in Context 7 (1): 65–81.
———. 2010. An Epistemology of the Concrete: Twentieth-Century Histories of Life. Durham, ND: Duke University Press.
———. 2011. Consistency from the Perspective of an Experimental Systems Approach to the Sciences and Their Epistemic Objects. Manuscrito 34 (1): 307–321.
Roepstorff, Andreas. 2001. Brains in Scanners: An Umwelt of Cognitive Neuroscience. Semiotica 134 (1): 747–765.
Roepstorff, Andreas, and Chris D. Frith. 2012. Neuroanthropology or Simply Anthropology? Going Experimental as Method, as Object of Study, and as Research Aesthetic. Anthropological Theory 12 (1): 101–111.
Roepstorff, Andreas, Jörg Niewöhner, and Stefan Beck. 2010. Enculturing Brains through Patterned Practices. Neural Networks 23 (8–9): 1051–1059.
Rose, Nikolas. 1991. Power and Subjectivity: Critical History and Psychology. Academy for the Study of the Psychoanalytic Arts, Consulted September 2012. http://www.academyanalyticarts.org/rose1.htm.
———. 2010. “Screen and Intervene”: Governing Risky Brains. History of the Human Sciences 23 (1): 79–105.
———. 2013. The Human Sciences in a Biological Age. Theory, Culture & Society 30 (1): 3–34.
Rose, Nikolas, and Joelle M. Abi-Rached. 2013. Neuro: The New Brain Sciences and the Management of the Mind. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sambo, Chiara F., et al. 2010. Knowing You Care: Effects of Perceived Empathy and Attachment Style on Pain Perception. Pain 151 (3): 687–693.
Von Scheve, Christian. 2012. Sociology of Neuroscience or Neurosociology? In Sociological Reflections on the Neurosciences, ed. M. Pickersgill and I. van Keulen, 255–278. (Advances in Medical Sociology: 13). London: Emerald.
Schilbach, Leonard, et al. 2013. Toward a Second-person Neuroscience. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (4): 393–414.
Sedgwick, Eve K. 2003. Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Shearmur, Jeremy. 2013. Beveridge and the Brief Life of “Social Biology” at the LSE. Agenda: A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform 20 (1), Consulted August 2013. http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Volume+20%2C+Number+1%2C+2013/10641/shearmur.xhtml#toc_marker-12
Singh, Ilina. 2012. Human Development, Nature and Nurture: Working Beyond the Divide. BioSocieties 7 (3): 308–321.
Slaby, Jan, and Suparna S. Choudhury. 2012. Critical Neuroscience—Between Lifeworld and Laboratory. In Critical Neuroscience: A Handbook of the Social and Cultural Contexts of Neuroscience, ed. S. Choudhury and J. Slaby, 27–51. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Smith, Barry. 2012. Neuroscience and Philosophy Must Work Together. The Guardian, Consulted August 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/04/consciousness-neuroscience-self-philosophy.
Stafford, Barbara M. 2008. Echo Objects: The Cognitive Work of Images. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Tallis, Raymond. 2011. Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity. London: Acumen.
Thompson Klein, Julie. 2010. A Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity. In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, ed. R. Frodeman, J. Thompson Klein, and C. Mitcham, 15–30. Oxford: OUP.
Turnbull, Neil. 2007. Attention and Automaticity Interview with Barbara Stafford. Theory, Culture & Society 24 (7–8): 342–348.
Vidal, Fernando. 2009. Brainhood, Anthropological Figure of Modernity. History of the Human Sciences 22 (1): 5–36.
Vrecko, Scott. 2010. Birth of a Brain Disease: Science, the State and Addiction Neuropolitics. History of the Human Sciences 23 (4): 52–67.
Whitehead, Alfred N. 1964. The Concept of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, Elizabeth A. 1998. Neural Geographies: Feminism and the Microstructure of Cognition. London: Routledge.
———. 2004a. Psychosomatic: Feminism and the Neurological Body. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
———. 2004b. Gut Feminism. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 15 (3): 66–94.
———. 2010. Affect and Artificial Intelligence. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
———. 2011. Neurological Entanglements: The Case of Paediatric Depressions, SSRIs and Suicidal Ideation. Subjectivity 4 (3): 277–297.
Young, Allan. 2012. The Social Brain and the Myth of Empathy. Science in Context 25 (03): 401–424.
Funding
The original version of this chapter was completed while DF was funded by an Interacting Minds Centre project on Neuroscientific Evidence, at Aarhus University (Denmark), and by an ESRC (UK) Transformative grant on ‘A New Sociology for a New Century’ (ES/L003074/1). FC’s research when she wrote this chapter was supported by two Wellcome Trust Strategic Awards to Durham University (WT086049 and WT098455MA). Both DF and FC also gratefully acknowledge an award from the Volkswagen Foundation’s Second European Platform for Life Sciences, Mind Sciences and Humanities, which funded a workshop on ‘Experimental Entanglements in Cognitive Neuroscience’. We remain grateful to the Wellcome Trust for enabling us to make this chapter Open Access (and thus permitting its free reprinting here).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fitzgerald, D., Callard, F. (2018). Experimental Entanglements: Social Science and Neuroscience Beyond Interdisciplinarity. In: Meloni, M., Cromby, J., Fitzgerald, D., Lloyd, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Biology and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52879-7_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52879-7_19
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-52878-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-52879-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)