Of course, you won't learn any of this from his op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. The paper allows him to identify himself as "a neuropsychiatrist and brain-imaging expert," as if his oddball theories reflected a degree of scientific consensus, rather than a sales pitch for his private clinics. Perhaps the paper's editors assumed Amen was credible because of all his appearances in other publications. In that case, they've only exacerbated the problem, further padding his résumé as an "expert" on the brain.
In the last month, two of the most prestigious opinion pages in journalism have succumbed to the delusion that MRI machines and SPECT imaging have anything meaningful to say about the upcoming elections. Clearly ill-equipped to distinguish between good and bad science, they've handed over column space to fringe researchers with glaring commercial interests. When is this brain-based punditry going to stop?