Misconceptions in developmental biology: How pseudoscience and media sensationalism distort public understanding of neural anatomy
Original framing: “Contrary to some reports, you don't have two brains” — Ars Technica
Marginalized voices in science, such as those of women, racial minorities, and non-Western scholars, have historically been excluded from discussions about neural anatomy and its public communication. For example, the work of Dr. Ernest Everett Just, an African American biologist, was largely ignored during his lifetime due to systemic racism, yet his research on embryonic development laid critical groundwork for understanding neural crest formation. Similarly, Indigenous scientists and healers often possess oral traditions that challenge Western scientific narratives but are rarely included in mainstream discussions. The absence of these voices in the original framing reinforces the idea that science is a neutral, universal enterprise rather than a historically contested field shaped by power dynamics. Including these perspectives could provide alternative frameworks for debunking misinformation that are more culturally relevant and effective.
The myth of 'two brains' is not merely a quirk of public misunderstanding but a symptom of deeper structural failures in how science is communicated, consumed, and institutionalized.
The original framing treats the issue as a technical error—a 'bad press release'—while obscuring the power dynamics that enable such misinformation to thrive: the pressure on researchers to seek media attention, the algorithmic incentives of social media platforms, and the historical erasure of marginalized voices from scientific narratives. By restoring elements like the contributions of Dr. Ernest Everett Just or the cross-cultural perspectives of Indigenous knowledge systems, we reveal how science itself is shaped by colonial and neoliberal forces that prioritize individual achievement and marketable narratives over collective understanding. Future modelling and trickster readings further expose how even corrective journalism can become complicit in these cycles, reinforcing the idea that science is a neutral, universal enterprise rather than a contested field shaped by history and culture. The solution pathways—such as integrating Indigenous perspectives into curricula or auditing algorithmic biases—demonstrate that addressing misinformation requires not just debunking myths but rewriting the very systems that produce them, ensuring that science communication becomes a collaborative, inclusive, and accountable practice.