If ever there was an example of a single technology which antivivisectionists quote as a successful alternative to animal studies, it is functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The Dr Hadwen trust even organised a presentation about this research method from an Oxford University Professor at their recent meeting in Brussels.
As we have pointed out many times, the failure of antivivisectionists to accept the limitations of some of these alternative methods of research is frankly dishonest. Fortunately, there are more credible sources than animal-rights literature.
Nature journal this week carries an extensive review of what we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. RDS certainly acknowledges the view of the author that MRI is the most important imaging advance since the introduction of x-rays. However, as the review points out, ‘fundamental questions concerning the interpretation of fMRI data abound, as the conclusions drawn often ignore the actual limitations of the methodology’.
The concluding sentences of the review are particularly strong, albeit rather technical:
‘Today, a multimodal approach is more necessary than ever for the study of the brain’s function and dysfunction. Such an approach must include further improvements to MRI technology and its combination with other non-invasive techniques that directly assess the brain’s electrical activity, but it also requires a profound understanding of the neural basis of haemodynamic responses and a tight coupling of human and animal experimentation that will allow us to fathom the homologies between humans and other primates that are amenable to invasive electrophysiological and pharmacological testing. Claims that computational methods and non-invasive neuroimaging (that is, excluding animal experimentation) should be sufficient to understand brain function and disorders are, in my opinion, naive and utterly incorrect’.
