(Used by permission): 

Dear Admissions Committee,

My primary objective in applying to the Biomedicine, Bioscience, and Society program at the London School of Economics is to prepare for a practice and research career in Clinical Neuropsychology. While working as a researcher in cognitive neuroimaging, I have become increasingly interested in the impact of science technology on social conceptions of identity and health. Because I expect that my doctoral studies will leave little time for interdisciplinary scholarship on science and its role in society, I have come to view masters-level education in science studies and bioethics as necessary supplemental training for my future career as a clinician/researcher. I believe that the BIOS program provides an ideal venue for my scholarship in this area and am excited by the opportunities it presents for a young scientist looking to broaden her understanding of her field.

Since completing my undergraduate education in Psychology, I have spent two years as a Research Assistant in the Developmental Neuroimaging Laboratory at the Yale Child Study Center. My primary duties at Yale are to design, run, and analyze fMRI experiments of social processing in typically developing individuals and children with autism spectrum disorders. Under the supervision of clinical psychologist Dr. Robert Schultz, I have acquired significant expertise in brain imaging during my tenure at Yale and have gained exposure to the most advanced techniques of cognitive neuroscience. My position has afforded me a new appreciation of the power of neuroimaging in the study of the human mind, and has convinced me that as brain science continues to expand our knowledge of the biological correlates of social and emotional behavior, I want my research to contribute to the discussion.

Accompanying my increasing skill in neuroimaging has come a heightened sensitivity to the impact that neuroscience and other biosciences have on changing conceptions of human mind and personhood, an impact that I feel is too often left unexamined by researchers involved in the biosciences. Neuroimaging research results seem particularly prone to dramatic misinterpretation and oversimplification, which is especially unfortunate given the very intimate human experiences under investigation and the high degree of public interest in the field. The scientific community as a whole does little to counter the growing public perception that new brain technologies are discovering very simple biological explanations for the most complex cognitive, social, and emotional human processes; I am perhaps particularly sensitized to the power of fMRI images and data reporting in furthering that misunderstanding. As I enter this discipline, the sciences’ historical influence upon social conceptions of the human mind and body are of great interest to me – as is the view the scientific community takes of its role in shaping and informing current public discourse.

As a social neuroscientist whose primary investigative interests involve clinical populations, I am particularly intrigued by the biosciences’ impact upon normative boundaries between “normal” and “pathological” behavior. Many of the children with autism spectrum disorders I work with, though they may display unusual social behaviors, would not have been considered impaired or in need of treatment even a decade ago. However, science’s attempts to characterize the full spectrum of autism-related phenotypes have resulted in expanded diagnostic criteria, and we now view those same behaviors though the lens of an autism label. I am fascinated by the process by which conceptions of “disorder” develop, and by the influence that clinical labels have on our interpretation of human action and personality. The role that biotechnologies like genetics, neuroimaging, and biology play in investing psychiatric labels with such authority is of particular interest.

Although the United States is currently experiencing a groundswell of interest in bioethics – and, more recently, in the nascent and more academically narrow field of “neuroethics” – broader academic resources for the interdisciplinary study of the history and impact of scientific technology are rare. I believe that the LSE program in Biomedicine, Bioscience, and Society could provide more fulfilling and diverse opportunities for my Masters studies than could any of the American programs available to me. The neuroscience and bioethics-related focus of Dr. Franklin and Dr. Rose’s Core Seminar is especially exciting given my academic background and interests, but I am also enthused about the supplementary course work available – particularly on the philosophy of the social sciences, cultural constructions of the body, and pharmaceutical economics. All of these research opportunities have a great deal to offer a future clinician and neuroscientist, and I know that I could profit enormously from their influence.

Given the accelerated pacing and significant writing requirements of the program, I understand that study with the BIOS program will not be easy. However, I am confident that I can thrive in the interdisciplinary academic environment it offers. Throughout my academic career, my colleagues and supervisors have found me an engaged and adaptive scholar who synthesizes complex material with ease. Although research is always challenging, academic writing is very rewarding for me; I relish the opportunity it offers to deeply engage with material, and consider my analytic skills a particular strength. I have gained experience in a wide variety of research areas in psychology, but I feel the practical experience in neuroimaging presents a particular asset given the relevance of the technology for current social study of the sciences. I look forward to bringing that experience to bear as I investigate the controversies of the biosciences.

The chance the BOIS program offers to ground my examination of biological technology’s impact upon society in a long-ranging historical framework, coupled with the opportunity to inform my research with study of such varied disciplines as anthropology, economics, philosophy, and law, makes it an ideal fit for my academic interests and career goals. I would be honored to continue my education under the aegis of your program.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jane Doe