Look, science journalists. Getting shit right is not hard. It usually doesn’t take that much longer than whatever you’re doing now. Honest! For instance, I read this Reuters report on fMRI and vegetative states, then spent like five minutes reading abstracts on PubMed to learn that the research has been misrepresented.
The fact is, the researcher quoted in the article doesn’t think he’s communicating with people in vegetative states. I’m pretty sure this is the specific article being referenced, although since journalists can’t be bothered with things like “article titles” or “names of journals”, I can’t be sure. Quoth the abstract:
One of the major challenges in the clinical evaluation of brain injury survivors is to comprehensively assess the level of preserved cognitive function in order to inform diagnostic decisions and suggest appropriate rehabilitation strategies. However, the limited (if any) capacity for producing behavior in some of these patients often limits the extent to which cognitive functions can be explored via standard bedside methods.
I.e., the point of the study was to evaluate whether “standard bedside methods” (behavioural asessment) are truly effective in determining the level of cognitive function the patient possesses. Quoth another article by the same researcher quoted by Reuters:
A diagnosis of vegetative or minimally conscious state is made on the basis of the patient’s clinical history and detailed behavioral examinations, which rely upon the patient being able to move or speak in order to demonstrate residual cognitive function. … However, it remains possible that a subgroup of these patients may retain some level of awareness, but lack the ability to produce any motor output and are therefore mistakenly diagnosed as vegetative.
I.e., the hypothesis is misdiagnosis. The new fMRI technique is aimed at uncovering these individuals who aren’t actually vegetative but appear so due to severely impaired motor function — and, yes, allowing them to communicate.
This took five minutes on PubMed and basic critical reading skills to figure out. I didn’t need any special foreknowledge of the medical literature. Hell, for all I know, the author of the Reuters story interviewed Dr. Adrian Owen and learned this from him, but either didn’t understand it or thought that “VEGETATIVE PATIENTS CAN COMMUNICATE ZOMG TERRI SCHIAVO” made a sexier story. Which is especially crass, since the technique was only demonstrated to work on patients with traumatic brain injury, not oxygen starvation like Terri Schiavo. So, yeah: fuck you for that pointless, ghoulish re-dredging up of that poor woman’s suffering, you ghoulish hack.
P.s.: Steven Novella has also written about this.