Neuroethics

DOI 10.1007/s12152-011-9116-6

ORIGINAL PAPER

Neuroethics, Neuroeducation, and Classroom Teaching:

Received: 24 November 2010 / Accepted: 27 April 2011

Abstract The popularization of neuroscientific ideas teacher preparation that will enable teachers themselves
about learning—sometimes legitimate, sometimes to translate findings from the neuro-and cognitive
merely commercial—poses a real challenge for class- sciences and use legitimate research to inform how they
room teachers who want to understand how children design and deliver effective instruction.
learn. Until teacher preparation programs are recon-
ceived to incorporate relevant research from the neuro- Keyword Educational neuroethics . Neuroeducation .
and cognitive sciences, teachers need translation and Pedagogy . Classroom instruction
guidance to effectively use information about the brain
and cognition. Absent such guidance, teachers, schools,
Researchers from the neuro- and cognitive sciences
and school districts may waste time and money pursuing
so called “brain-based” interventions that lack a firm have made rapid strides in the last two decades,
producing findings that are highly relevant to the
basis in research. Meanwhile, the success of our schools
work of practitioners from various disciplines. In
will continue to be narrowly defined by achievement
standards that ignore knowledge of the neural and response to the ethical issues and challenges posed by
the use of this emerging research, a new area of study
cognitive processes of learning. To achieve the goals of
has arisen—the field of neuroethics. Neuroethics is
neuroeducation, its proponents must address unique
ethical issues that neuroeducation raises for five described as including not only the ethics of conducting
neuroscientific studies, but also “evaluation of the
different groups of individuals: a) practicing teachers,
ethical and social impact that the results of those studies
b) neuroscience researchers whose work could inform
education, c) publishers and the popular media, d) might have, or ought to have, on existing social, ethical,
and legal structures” ([1], p. 21). Racine [2] further
educational policy-makers, and e) university-level
expands the definition of neuroethics to what he calls
teacher educators. We suggest ways in which these
ethical challenges can be met and provide a model for “pragmatic neuroethics,” which promotes an interdis-
ciplinary approach to the discovery and application of
neuroscientific findings that benefit society).
In accordance with these views, Kurt Fischer and
M. Hardiman (*) : L. Rinne : E. Gregory : colleagues have proposed that neuroethics must
J. Yarmolinskaya consider the ethical issues involved in applying
School of Education, Johns Hopkins University,
neuroscience to educational practice [3]. This dimen-
2800 N. Charles St.,
Baltimore, MD 21218, USA sion of neuroethics might be termed educational
e-mail: mmhardiman@jhu.edu neuroethics—a new subdivision, perhaps not yet a
 M. Hardiman et al.

discipline, that involves understanding the issues and applying research from the neuro- and cognitive
inferences that hover between brain science and sciences to classroom practice certainly remains a
education. Overall, we take “ethical” in the context of challenge, interdisciplinary collaboration has yielded
neuroeducation to represent a state of affairs in which: a) considerable educationally-relevant information about
relevant research findings from the neurosciences are learning mechanisms that could not have been acquired
conveyed to the educational community, and b) educa- solely through behavioral methods [8]. Educators now
tors ensure that research findings are interpreted and have relevant information about the neural and
applied in an objective and proper manner. The purpose cognitive underpinnings of emotion, which affects
of this paper will be to describe and address the ethical learning in important ways via its influence on higher
challenges of properly bringing neuroscience findings cognitive functions (e.g., [9]). In addition, much has
to bear in the classroom. The paper first describes the been learned about how the environment influences the
background of the field of neuroeducation and the developing brain (e.g., [10]), as well as how symptoms
current need for “translators” of neuro- and cognitive of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
science research. The discussion then moves to ethical may represent developmental delay rather than damage
challenges facing five distinct groups: practicing teach- in the brain [11].
ers, neuroscience researchers, publishers and the popu- Although such research is clearly educationally-
lar media, educational policy-makers, and teacher relevant, we have learned that teachers want more
educators. Ultimately, we argue that the success of from the field of neuroeducation. When we work with
neuroeducation in the long run cannot be sustained educators in local schools and in our graduate
merely through the use of go-between “translators.” courses, we find that they understand the value of
Accordingly, we provide examples of how teacher the neuro- and cognitive sciences for informing
preparation and professional development programs education, but are frustrated by the lack of research
can help teachers themselves become competent con- intended for educational audiences. We hear com-
sumers of neuro- and cognitive science research that plaints that there are few channels through which
informs their practice. teachers can learn about relevant research, as well as
complaints that research may seem highly relevant
while being hard to apply in practice. These com-
Still a Bridge Too Far? plaints likely arise because teachers do not typically
possess the background knowledge that is necessary
In 1997, Bruer published an article entitled “Education to parse research articles and apply findings in
and the Brain: A Bridge Too Far,” [4] which argued appropriate contexts. This background knowledge is
that while cognitive science research (the study of precisely what we aim to provide through our
mental processes) has much to offer educators, findings graduate certificate program in Mind, Brain, and
from neuroscience (the study of the brain) say little that Teaching here at Johns Hopkins University. By
is directly relevant to teaching practices. Since that bringing scientists and educators together through
time, much has changed, in large part due to recent graduate courses, conferences, and annual summits,
advances in neuroimaging techniques like magnetic we can see that even though the exchange of
encephalography and various types of functional and information and perspective is still at an early stage,
structural magnetic resonance imaging. These imaging teachers are eager to learn more about neuroscience
tools allow for the previously impossible feat of research and its potential applications.
non-invasively observing brain activity during the
performance of various cognitive tasks. In the last
two decades, work in neuroscience has corroborated a Moving Forward: Our Current Predicament
number of findings from behavioral studies that and the Goals of Neuroeducation
previously could not be explained mechanistically
[5, 6]. Research during the past 10 years, for example, Much has been made of the fact that teachers often
has shed light on how regulation of attention affects latch on to oversimplified interpretations of fine-
memory networks, as well as how attention can be grained neuroscientific research—“magic bullets” that
improved through deliberate training [7]. Although purport to explain away all difficulties and offer ways
Neuroethics, Neuroeducation, and Classroom Teaching

to immediately improve higher-level cognitive func- better understanding of how learning takes place in
tions (e.g., the belief that people are left- or right- real-world contexts. This understanding will support
brained, the perceived advantage for girls in learning the development of research-based pedagogical prac-
and memory, or the notion that listening to Mozart tices that are applicable in both formal and informal
will make your baby smarter, [12]). Often referred to learning environments. Rather than remaining stuck
as “neuromyths,” these naïve misinterpretations of in the thinking of “a bridge too far,” we must be
science have spread throughout the folk psychology committed to building a bridge from the middle
of educators in recent years. For the most part, it is outwards; the emerging field of neuroeducation
educators who have been blamed for expecting too represents the middle ground from which to start.
much too soon from the scientific community and for An important goal of neuroeducation is to
extrapolating from incomplete understandings of translate relevant research findings from the
scientific data. On the other hand, however, there is neuro- and cognitive sciences and help educators
a scarcity of rigorous research from the neuroscience interpret and apply these findings in the classroom.
community that is readily translatable [3]. According- Given the rich potential of the science of learning
ly, teachers should generally be forgiven for climbing to inform educational practice and the desire of
on popular bandwagons that oversimplify research educators to know more about how students learn,
findings. educators have the right to ask why few are
Harsh criticism of educators has the potential to currently doing this necessary translational work.
stymie efforts toward building an interdisciplinary The need for translators and for greater collabora-
field of neuroeducation, as it reinforces the belief that tion between educators and neuro- and cognitive
teachers lack the general capacity (rather than just the scientists has been previously described by a
necessary knowledge) to understand and apply re- number of researchers [18–22]. However, as will
search. In addition, researchers may be reticent to be described in detail later, creating a permanent new
investigate questions whose answers could translate “profession” of neuroeducational translators seems
into recommended teaching practices for fear of how unfeasible; instead, we need to better prepare
these findings might be applied. teachers to be thoughtful and informed consumers
The problems facing scientists and teachers are of research from the neuro- and cognitive sciences.
only exacerbated by the popular media, particularly In the long-term, a more ideal state of affairs will be
those who sensationalize the “bold new findings” of one in which teachers themselves are able to
scientists and exaggerate their immediate impact on evaluate relevant findings and translate them to
society [13]. The media have reported on findings inform practices in their own classrooms. In the next
ranging from the physical and mental benefits of section, we describe the series of ethical hurdles that
listening to music [14], to the negative influence of must be overcome in order to achieve this goal.
poverty on brain development [15], to the effects of
exercise on memory and cognitive processing speed
[16]. While the scientific research that is referenced Ethical Challenges of Neuroeducation
may have merit, subtle details and carefully stated
conclusions may be overshadowed or ignored in order Education is not the only discipline in which it has
to generate attention-grabbing headlines. recently become important to make sense of the
Given all of these issues, it is no wonder that teachers latest neuroscience research. New multidisciplinary
(perhaps overzealously) expect neuroscience research to fields of study are proliferating in a variety of
inform what they do as practitioners [17]. Teachers domains. For example, specialists in neuroeconom-
should not be derided for mistakes they may make ics have used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
when they take findings out of their proper context and techniques to investigate the way people make
make sincere attempts to apply them. Rather, the field decisions about their willingness to pay for goods
of neuroeducation must make it possible for teachers to [23]. Specialists in neurolaw study the neural under-
appropriately apply neuroscientific findings. pinnings of decision-making by jurors, who must
An exchange of knowledge between neuro- and assess responsibility and determine appropriate pun-
cognitive scientists and educators will help generate a ishments [24]. And those studying neuroaesthetics
 M. Hardiman et al.

investigate the brain’s response to the perception of sciences to help them better understand the needs of
beauty (e.g. [25]). the learner.
While the number of “neuro-” fields like neuro- We do not believe that teachers are asking
education will likely continue to grow, educators will scientists to help them to create the “ultimate lesson
face ethical hurdles that are arguably more intense plan.” Rather, the teachers coming to our graduate
than those confronting other disciplines [20]. Howard program in Mind, Brain, and Teaching simply seek to
Gardner [26] points out that the field of neuro- understand the developing brain and how it processes
education will be challenged as it seeks to reconcile information—how knowledge is acquired, main-
the public’s notion of effective educational policies tained, retrieved, and applied to solve problems.
(i.e., high stakes testing and accountability) with the Teachers want to know more about typically and
interests of neuroeducators: bench scientists, clini- atypically-developing pathways for learning so that
cians, teachers, and policy-makers who seek to they can serve the needs of students at all points along
understand how children learn best. the achievement spectrum. Teachers want to know
As with other “neuro-disciplines,” practitioners on about topics they see as highly relevant to their work
the ground take new research, adapt it for their own as educators: the neural and cognitive mechanisms
purposes, and establish their own standards for underlying numeracy and literacy; the effects of stress
pragmatic utility. So what are the ethical challenges and emotion on learning; the influence of physical
that make neuroeducation a special case? We believe factors such as sleep, nutrition, and exercise on
that educational neuroethics must address: a) what student performance; the consequences of social
teachers can expect from science and what their issues like poverty, abuse, and neglect. Just as
responsibilities are when interpreting and applying teachers encourage their students to understand con-
neuroscientific findings, b) what researchers who do cepts rather than simply memorizing facts, teachers
educationally relevant research should contribute to themselves want not only to learn facts about the
translational work that is intended to inform brain, but also to be able to understand more complex
teaching and learning, c) how popular media and neural and cognitive processes so that they can
publishers of educational products should portray evaluate relevant research on their own.
scientific findings, d) how educational policy- Teachers don’t want “dumbed-down” information;
makers should realign their priorities to focus on they want to be able to understand research and
the science of learning, and e) how universities can potential implications for practice. They want to be
play the crucial role of facilitating these changes by aware of limitations regarding the applicability of
providing educators with relevant information and research, as sometimes it is not possible to draw
equipping them with the tools needed to apply that inferences about cognitive processes from neuro-
information effectively through teacher preparation imaging data [27], and neuroscience tends to operates
programs and professional development. at a fine-grained level of analysis that is out of sync
with the practical needs of classroom teachers [12].
Therefore, ethical responsibility rests with teachers to
Teachers’ Expectations and the Responsibilities become authentic consumers of research—that is, to
That Come with Them be scientifically literate enough with respect to brain
structure and function that they can evaluate research
While educational policies and practices continue to findings and discriminate relevant information from
focus strongly on the product of learning (mainly neuromyth. There needs to be an institutional obliga-
through standardized testing), our experience with tion for teachers to possess this kind of knowledge;
teachers demonstrates that they tend to be more right now, the process of discovery is driven by
concerned with the process of learning. That is, purely by individual incentive. In later sections, we
public attention is focused on external factors such will suggest how to create this institutional obligation,
as content standards, school governance, age/grade and in addition we will recount the experiences of
configurations, curricula, data-based decision making, teachers who have pursued knowledge of neurosci-
and accountability for student test scores, while ence; they describe important enhancements to the
teachers are looking to the neuro- and cognitive teaching and learning process.
Neuroethics, Neuroeducation, and Classroom Teaching

What Researchers Should Contribute by Harvard University (Connecting the Mind, Brain, and
to Translational Science Education institutes) and the Society for Neuroscience
(National Science Teachers Association Conference
Responsibility for the disconnect between neurosci- workshops). At Johns Hopkins, we hold annual neuro-
ence and education has to be shared. Scientists follow education “summits.” During our 2009 summit on
an agenda that is rarely related to classroom practice Learning, Arts, and the Brain, for example, researchers
or objectives. Findings in the neuro- and cognitive shared findings related to the link between regular study
sciences typically do not (and in many cases simply in the arts and improved cognition and attention [30].
cannot) take into account complex higher-order Through roundtable discussions, educators and scientists
cognitive processes, nor can they account for the identified areas of interest for future research. These
inherently relationship-based, situational practice of discussions helped jumpstart collaborations with local
teaching. Yet, at the same time, educators appeal to school principals to develop and conduct school-based
the authority of objective science to legitimize many studies on the effectiveness of arts integration for
of their decisions [28]. Neuroscientists should make enhancing learning and memory. This event represents
an effort to relate their work to the kind of behavioral an example of how researchers and educators can build
and cognitive research that is sometimes (though not a collaborative process of discovery based on the real
nearly often enough) presented to educators in teacher needs of the classroom.
preparation programs. For example, Shaywitz et al.
[29] link neuroscientific findings on dyslexia to the sort
of behavioral observations (e.g., disfluent reading) that Popular Media and For-Profit Publishers
many teachers may have been trained to look for when
assessing the source of students’ difficulties. Educators are surely just as enamored as the general
Neuro- and cognitive science researchers must public of images in popular magazines of brain scans
make a sufficient attempt to look from the lab to the from functional MRI studies [31]. Weisberg, Keil,
classroom whenever it’s clear their work is relevant to Goodstein, Rawson, and Gray [32] note the “seduc-
education. Significant progress will be made if tive allure” of neuroscience findings in general.
scientific researchers are willing to step out of the Teachers hope that cutting-edge research involving
laboratory and collaborate with educators by working these new technologies will shed light on students’
in school settings with principals and teachers as co- thinking and learning and help them make instructional
investigators. In particular, this partnership requires decisions. However, it is often the case that scientific
identifying research questions that arise from the real findings are misrepresented in the media (e.g. [33]. If
needs of teachers, determining the best ways to test popular science articles are to serve a purpose in
hypotheses, designing studies that allow for rigorous educating teachers as well as the general public,
experimentation, and disseminating findings through however, it is imperative that the media authentically
a variety of print and electronic media in addition to explain scientific findings rather than exploiting them
peer-refereed journals. In this way, the field of for sensational headlines. Illes et al. [34] propose
neuroeducation can bring to education the “bench to several ways in which communication of neuroscience
bedside” research approach that is common in research may be improved.
medicine but rare in educational practice. Moreover, publishers of educational textbooks and
In order to make a meaningful contribution to materials often use the term “brain-based” as a way to
neuroeducation, scientists and educators must have add legitimacy to their product, even if there is little
regular opportunities to exchange points of view, to no scientific basis or rationale for how the proposed
compare professional methodologies, and begin to activities are informed by research from the brain
build mutually beneficial paths toward collaboration. sciences [35]. Commercial products like these—which
While large conferences provide a chance for teachers often encourage teachers to “teach to the right brain”
to learn about research findings, smaller venues that or the “left brain,” or to provide instruction based on
provide for more meaningful dialogue are important auditory or visual “learning styles”—waste teachers’
as well. Recent events that aim to foster precisely this valuable time and fritter away precious resources. Even
sort of interdisciplinary dialogue have been organized worse, they have the potential to dupe teachers and
 M. Hardiman et al.

administrators into believing that they are using practice. Universities should be at the forefront of
evidence-based practices in their schools and class- the movement to organize, support, and manage
rooms. Publishers of educational products who make collaboration between researchers and teachers in
such claims have the ethical obligation to connect any order to advance the field of neuroeducation. It has
instructional strategy labeled as “brain-based” with been proposed that interdisciplinary programs are
supporting research. If educators could become their needed to train “educational engineers,” translators
own translators of scientific research, district-based who can help bridge disciplines [3]. These translators,
textbook adoption committees would be much more trained in multidisciplinary programs tied to schools
likely to hold publishers’ feet to the fire by demanding of education, can return to schools and school districts
that legitimate research support recommended teaching with sufficient background in the neuro- and cogni-
strategies. tive sciences to provide perspective and transmit
knowledge to their colleagues. However, while
specialized neuroeducational engineers are needed in
Educational Policy-Makers the short-term to start bridging the gap between
disciplines, intermediaries alone simply do not repre-
The burden of identifying, disseminating and promot- sent a comprehensive solution when it comes to
ing the use of research-based best practices must also making the goals of neuroeducation a reality. Rather,
be shared by educational policy-makers. Educational as the body of educationally-relevant knowledge in
leaders at all levels should promote legitimate trans- the neuro- and cognitive sciences increases, so does
lations of research, leveraging media outlets—the the need for teachers to have ready access to new
Internet, as well as print and broadcast journalists— research findings that can inform their classroom
to help the public distinguish “gee-whiz” ideas from practices. Thus, in the long-term, teacher prepara-
real, practical applications of sound research. And tion programs must train teachers to be their own
efforts must be made to derive practical ideas not just translators.
from research that focuses on fundamental learning Right now, schools of education need to seek out
processes, but also that investigating important phys- and hire individuals who have training in areas such
iological factors such as sleep, exercise, and nutrition. as neuroscience, psychology, and cognitive science,
Educational leaders should be open to utilizing new as well as interest and experience in educational
research to inform policy, such as recent work on the settings. These multidisciplinary specialists—faculty,
circadian rhythms of adolescents that could inform postdoctoral fellows, and researchers—will a) craft
school start times and schedules [36, 37]. new programs like those at Johns Hopkins and
Those who craft educational policies must be Harvard, whose graduates can serve as translators
vigilant in seeking out and applying valid scientific for practicing educators, and b) work over the long-
research in order to reconfigure school policies and term to overhaul teacher preparation and research
practices [38]. In addition, educational decision- programs to include a focus on the intersection of
makers need to rely on research on cognitive pedagogy and the neuro- and cognitive sciences. This
development to make decisions regarding curricula. dual approach aims to ensure that all teachers and
For example, we now know that some children may educational policy-makers have a basic understanding
not be developmentally ready for reading instruction of neural and cognitive processes and the ability to
in kindergarten and that 12-year-olds may not possess apply that knowledge in practice. In order to achieve
the conceptual or abstract thinking capacities neces- this, the character of instruction in schools of
sary to readily tackle algebraic concepts [39]. education will need to change dramatically. We do
not advocate here that teachers and policy-makers
should become neuroscientists. Rather, like medical
Universities and Teacher Preparation Programs doctors who may not conduct research themselves but
are nonetheless prepared by their training to be able to
Currently, universities—including most schools of interpret and apply research findings, teachers should
education—need to do much more to bring to receive training that allows them to understand and
teachers scientific evidence that can inform their critically evaluate research relevant to education. This
Neuroethics, Neuroeducation, and Classroom Teaching

may mean that schools of education should require all learning.” These teachers in retrospect feel deceived
future educators to complete more core coursework in and dissatisfied at being handed a “bag of tricks”
the sciences. When given such training in the course without any truly scientific evidence to back them up.
of teacher preparation, teachers will be in much less In addition, oftentimes they become frustrated as each
danger of falling prey to the next popular neuromyth, new workshop they take contradicts earlier ones or
and in the long run they will have less of a need for fails to make meaningful connections to practice. This
someone else to interpret new findings for them. is what led many of these educators to look for
Creating degree programs to train translators is university neuroeducation programs through which
not the only way to immediately disseminate they could learn about cognitive science and neuro-
knowledge from the neuro- and cognitive sciences science research and translate findings for use in their
to educators. Schools of education should also own classrooms. More important, these students of
expand their reach by providing ongoing profes- neuroeducation want to learn how to read and
sional development opportunities for the education- understand primary sources of scientific information
al community at large. This is a role that is not without needing an intermediary.
currently played by most schools of education. But The content of our graduate certificate program
in order to counter the influence of highly com- begins with a survey of current neuro- and cognitive
mercial professional development programs, which science research on attention, memory, learning, and
often peddle strategies that lack a basis in sound executive functions, and considers applications to
science, schools of education have an ethical teaching via a translational model, the Brain-Targeted
responsibility to provide these opportunities. Teach- Teaching (BTT) Model [40]. The BTT model is a
ers who participate in this kind of professional pedagogical framework that is designed to help
development can work with schools of education to teachers interpret research and incorporate relevant
disseminate knowledge to their peers through findings into their practice. In subsequent courses,
mentorship and faculty training sessions in their students learn more about cognitive development, as
schools. Furthermore, armed with knowledge from well as learning differences and disabilities. In
the neuro- and cognitive sciences and the capability addition, students are taught about the cognitive and
to apply it, these experienced educators will be an neural bases of literacy and numeracy. In the course
invaluable resource for identifying research ques- of their training, students are not only exposed to
tions that are urgent and immediately applicable to prior and current research, but are also taught how to
the field of education. read primary sources so that they can critically
evaluate what they read and think of ways to translate
findings to the field of education. The courses, taught
Our Experience by an interdisciplinary team of faculty from the
School of Education as well as cognitive psycholo-
It has been several years since we began initiatives gists and neuropsychologists from other divisions of
outlined above at the Johns Hopkins University the university, benefit both the students and the
School of Education. Having seen the first cohort of faculty, as students learn about research first-hand
teachers complete our graduate certificate in Mind, and researchers learn what issues are most pressing to
Brain, and Teaching, and having finished our first practitioners. This makes for a rigorous and challeng-
professional development series in Baltimore City ing, but also extremely satisfying learning experience.
Public Schools, we can see more clearly than ever the Through formal and informal feedback, we have
need for such programs. The popularity of our learned that these educators apply new knowledge in
certificate program and the number of requests we their own classrooms and share it with others in
have received for professional development demon- personal communications and in-service professional
strate the desire of both teachers and administrators to development. They also tell us about the benefits they
understand the neural bases of learning and be able to see in student learning.
apply this understanding in their classrooms. Many of It is often at the recommendations of our current
these educators have been through commercial pro- and former students that school principals ask for
fessional development programs on “brain-based professional development for all of their teachers. In a
 M. Hardiman et al.

series of lectures and hands-on sessions, we provide knowledge that helps children and teachers, they run
educators with information from the neuro- and the risk of falling prey to commercial interests that are
cognitive sciences within the practical framework of strong on marketing and distribution but weak on
the Brain-Targeted Teaching Model. Even from this scientific content.
truncated exposure (about 20 h of training), we Finally, the most important ethical transgression in
receive reports of its positive impact on teaching education in recent memory has gone unaddressed. In
and learning. the last decade we have defined school success and
Of course, excited positive feedback from teachers student learning more and more narrowly. As we have
is not our main goal, and ultimately we want to know chased the shortsighted goals of No Child Left
if possessing knowledge of neural and cognitive bases Behind, our focus has shifted away from children as
of learning actually makes a measurable difference in learners and toward school and teacher accountability
teachers’ instruction and students’ learning. To this based on standardized testing. The neuroeducation
end we are conducting studies in schools to evaluate movement—which is sharply focused on how children
how providing teachers with knowledge from the learn—works against this fixation on test scores [28].
neuro- and cognitive sciences affects their approach to The success of our schools ultimately depends on
the task of imparting lasting knowledge to their having a scientific understanding of the specific issues
students. At the same time, we are measuring how with which teachers and students must contend.
this different kind of teaching impacts students’ Through our academic and professional develop-
learning and retention of material. ment programs, we have demonstrated that neuro-
education has the potential to significantly influence
educational practice. Educational neuroethics pro-
Conclusion vides a platform for bringing to light important social
and ethical issues, and therefore is perfectly posi-
It is the duty of the academic community to provide a tioned to move the larger educational community
high-quality alternative to purely commercial (and often toward the cognitive and neuroscientific conception
specious) applications of “brain-based” research. This is of learning that ought to be the primary focus.
what the public should expect of educators and schools. Though it may not be possible (in the short-term at
It is also incumbent on those with the power to do so to least) to reach a national consensus regarding the
stop misinterpretations before they evolve into goals of our education system, the emerging field of
widespread trends of thinking. In the past, both neuroeducation—with help from neuroethics—can
educators and the public have made some bad and should broaden everyone’s perspective of what
inferences about the brain and how students learn. an effective school and an educated child truly are.
We thought the brain never changed. We knew
plasticity was important but couldn’t see its
relevance to instructional interventions. And we thought References
it was useful to categorize children according to their
individual “learning styles.” 1. Roskies, A. 2002. Neuroethics for the new millenium.
Teachers who are adequately trained in both Neuron 35(1): 21–23.
2. Racine, E. 2010. Pragmatic neuroethics: Improving treatment
pedagogy and the neuro- and cognitive sciences move and understanding of the mind-brain. Cambridge: The MIT.
us beyond “a-bridge-too-far” thinking by steering a 3. Fischer, K.W., U. Goswami, J. Geake, and Task Force on
clearer course between what people believe, what is the Future of Educational Neuroscience. 2010. The Future
actually known, and what is likely to be useful in the of Educational Neuroscience. Mind, Brain, and Education
4: 68–80.
classroom. Without the help of translators in the 4. Bruer, J. 1997. Education and the brain: A bridge too far.
short-term and more rigorous teacher preparation in Educational Researcher 26: 4–16.
the long-term, neuroscientists and cognitive scientists 5. Diamond, A., and D. Amso. 2008. Contributions of
will continue to work in a vacuum, and teachers and neuroscience to our understanding of cognitive develop-
ment. Current Directions in Psychological Science 17
the public may make false inferences about what (2):136–141.
research actually means. And if schools and school 6. Raizada, R.D.S., and M.M. Kishiyama. 2010. Effects of
districts cannot identify and readily obtain legitimate socioeconomic status on brain development, and how
Neuroethics, Neuroeducation, and Classroom Teaching

cognitive neuroscience may contribute to leveling the plinary collaboration. Mind, Brain, and Education 4: 95–
playing field. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 4. 101.
7. Posner, M.I., and M.K. Rothbart. 2007. Educating the 23. Plassmann, H., J. O’Doherty, and A. Rangel. 2007.
human brain. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Orbitofrontal cortex encodes willingness to pay in every-
Association. day economic transactions. The Journal of Neuroscience 27
8. Szücs, D., and U. Goswami. 2007. Educational neuro- (37): 9984–9988.
science: Defining a new discipline for the study of 24. Buckholtz, J.W., C.L. Asplund, P.E. Dux, D.H. Zald, J.C.
mental representations. Mind, Brain, and Education 1: Gore, O.D. Jones, and R. Marois. 2008. The neural
114–127. correlates of third-party punishment. Neuron 60: 930–940.
9. Immordino-Yang, M.H., and A. Damasio. 2007. We feel, 25. Jacobsen, T., R. Schubotz, L. Höfel, and D.Y. v. Cramon.
therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social 2006. Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty.
neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education 1: NeuroImage 29: 276–285.
3–10. 26. Gardner, H. 2008. Quandaries for neuroeducators. Mind,
10. Rao, H., L. Betancourt, J.M. Giannetta, N.L. Brodsky, M. Brain, and Education 2: 165–169.
Korczykowski, B.B. Avants, and M.J. Farah. 2010. Early 27. Poldrack, R.A. 2006. Can cognitive processes be inferred
parental care is important for hippocampal maturation: from neuroimaging data? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10:
Evidence from brain morphology in humans. NeuroImage 59–63.
49(1): 1144–1150. 28. Lang, C. 2010. Science, education, and the ideology of
11. Shaw, P., K. Eckstrand, W. Sharp, J. Blumenthal, J.P. “how”. Mind, Brain, and Education 4: 49–52.
Lerch, D. Greenstein, L. Clasen, A. Evans, J. Giedd, and J. 29. Shaywitz, S., R. Morris, and B. Shaywitz. 2008. The
L. Rapoport. 2007. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder education of dyslexic children from childhood to young
is characterized by a delay in cortical maturation. Proceed- adulthood. Annual review of psychology 59(1): 451–475.
ings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 19649– 30. Hardiman, M., S. Magsamen, G. McKhann, and J. Eilber.
19654. 2009. Neuroeducation: Learning, arts, and the brain. New
12. Willingham, D.T. 2006. “Brain-based” learning: More York/Washington, DC: Dana.
fiction than fact. American Educator, Fall 30–37. 31. McCabe, D.P., and A.D. Castel. 2008. Seeing is believing:
13. De Vries, R. 2007. Who will guard the guardians of The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific
neuroscience? EMBO reports 8: S65–S69. reasoning. Cognition 107: 343–352.
14. Chung, J. 2008, December 14. Scientists are discovering 32. Weisberg, D.S., F.C. Keil, J. Goodstein, E. Rawson, and J.
new physical and mental benefits to listening to music. The R. Gray. 2008. The seductive allure of neuroscience
Wall Street Journal A5. explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20: 470–
15. Toppo, G. 2008, December 7. Poverty dramatically affects 477.
children’s brains. USA Today. Retrieved from www.usatoday. 33. Racine, E., S. Waldman, J. Rosenberg, and J. Illes. 2010.
com/news/health/2008-12-07-childrens-brains_N.htm Contemporary neuroscience in media. Social Science &
16. Reynolds, G. 2007, August 19. Lobes of steel. The New Medicine 71: 725–733.
York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/ 34. Illes, J., M.A. Moser, J.B. McCormick, E. Racine, S.
sports/playmagazine/0819play-brain.html Blakeslee, A. Caplan, and S. Weiss. 2010. Neurotalk:
17. Pickering, S.J., and P. Howard-Jones. 2007. Educators’ Improving the communication of neuroscience research.
views on the role of neuroscience in education: Findings Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11: 61–69.
from a study of UK and international perspectives. Mind, 35. Dubinsky, J.M. 2010. Neuroscience education for
Brain, and Education 1(3): 109–113. prekindergarten-12 teachers. The Journal of Neuroscience
18. Ansari, D., and D. Coch. 2006. Bridges over troubled 30(4): 8057–8060.
waters: Education and cognitive neuroscience. Trends in 36. Duhl, R. 2004. Adolescent brain development: A period of
Cognitive Sciences 10: 146–151. vulnerabilities and opportunities. Annals New York Academy
19. Fischer, K.W., D.B. Daniel, M.H. Immordino-Yang, E. of Sciences 1021: 1–22.
Stern, A. Battro, and H. Koizumi. 2007. Why mind, brain, 37. Steinberg, L. 2008. A social neuroscience perspective on
and education? Why now? Mind, Brain, & Education 1: 1– adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review 28: 76–106.
2. 38. Stein, Z. 2010. On the difference between designing children
20. Hinton, C., and K.W. Fischer. 2008. Research schools: and raising them: Ethics and the use of educationally oriented
Grounding research in educational practice. Mind, Brain, biotechnology. Mind, Brain, and Education 4: 53–67.
and Education 2: 157–160. 39. Hardiman, M., and M. Denckla. 2010. The science of
21. Kuriloff, P., M. Reichert, B. Stoudt, and S. Ravitch. 2009. education: Informing teaching and learning through the
Building research collaborations among schools and uni- brain sciences. In Cerebrum, ed. D. Gordon, 3–11. New
versities: Lessons from the field. Mind, Brain, and York: Dana.
Education 3: 34–44. 40. Hardiman, M. 2003. Connecting brain research with
22. Ronstadt, K., and P. Yellin. 2010. Linking mind, brain, and effective teaching: The Brain-Targeted Teaching Model.
education to clinical practice: A proposal for transdisci- Landham: Scarecrow.