Almost every crackpot notion can be linked to a brain scan, or a survey of college students, or a general behavior linked to results from twins, and declared biology. And if biologists object, those psychologists, economists and sociologists will say it doesn't have to be a genetic link, it can be epigenetic. It's the go-to safety net for runaway speculation and end-oriented belief that seeks science legitimacy.
A neuroeconomist writing in the New York Times discusses an 'experiment', hooking a dog up to an "MRI stimulator" and the conclusion that followed:
Although we are just beginning to answer basic questions about the canine brain, we cannot ignore the striking similarity between dogs and humans in both the structure and function of a key brain region: the caudate nucleus.Thus the clever dogs are people too. Brain imaging is cool these days. It used to mysterious and conservative, now it can make you into Einstein and help you read minds. And that is just from last week.
What will biologists say? Hard to tell, they have been trained to believe the New York Times is a good paper. And if last week's article legitimizing qi, feng shui and turtle blood didn't didn't change their minds, I doubt unpublished experimentation on some guy's dog will cause a drop in readership among the academic community.
Their science coverage is still more evidence-based than Paul Krugman's economics.
Dogs Are People, Too by Gregory Berns, New York Times.