Based on the number of stories about physicians and biological scientists in bed with pharmaceutical companies you might not think so. But when it comes to some neuroscientists, there's a lot of caution. . . perhaps overdone. In Eric Jensen's recent book, Enriching The Brain, he relates the fascinating research of Henriette van Praag at the Salk Institute. Van Praag designed an interesting brain enrichment experiment for mice.
The control cage contained no toys or littermates. The second cage made a simple maze availabe for the mice, but limited the activity to five minues each day. The third put the mouse in a Morris water pool that required mice to do some stressful swimming to find a transparent hidden platform below the surface. The fourth condition put the mice in a highly enriched cage full time, but with no running wheel (that tiny ferris wheel apparatus in which mice and hamsters can run incessantly). The fifth cage featured running wheel, but no other apparatus or toys.
Intriguingly, the research found that the mice forced to use only the running wheels grew the most neurons (brain cells). In fact, the mice in that limited cage grew 50% more neurons than any other setup, including the enriched cage. However, the mice that kept those neurons over time--the greatest cell survival rate (85%)--was the highly enriched fourth condition. Running produces more brain cells than being a couch potato. But it is the complex, enriched environment that helps the neurons survive.
Once conclusion we might take from the experiment is that running ought to be considered a part of an enrichment environment. And there is plenty of research supporting that. But Jensen asked Dr. van Praag about that. She was characteristically cautious in applying her research to humans. She did, however, take up running as a result of her research. Then Jensen asked her a different question. He pressed her about the kind of education she wanted for her own son. She responded that she would hope the school have plenty of "gross motor activities" (recess and physical education?) available.
But here's the kicker: Jensen goes on to comment that he has found this type of response common among researchers. As he says, it's the model of, "Don't ask me for practical applications on the record, but in my own life, I'm covering my bases just in case." Pretty smart.
In a conversation with a VP from a well-known American organization, my client drew the same conclusions about her staff. A few years ago, her present company bought the company of her former employer. In the integration both she and her employees kept their position, while employees and executives from the acquiring firm failed to make the cut. When asked why, she responded that her old firm was continually yanking people around, making changes, reorganizing, etc. So the merger was nothing new for her people. They knew how to adapt.
The point I make in a research-based summary is that "getting yanked around is good for you." That might not fly well, but all the research supports the constant need for enrichment--to achieve success. How does that notion fit with your presuppositions?
(See my site research: Getting Yanked Around is Good For You)