It's pretty funny that Kandel would ever receive this critique. If you've read any of his work he is relentless at proving causation. His Nobel was earned through painstaking elimination of alternate possible methods for the formation of memory.

His genius is in seeing that A. Predictive power is scientific understanding and B. You can never be to thorough in understanding the chain of events between an event and its predicted outcome.

I highly recommend "In Search of Memory" as a wonderful autobiography, an inspirational demonstration of how science should be done, and a deep but accessible education in basic neuroscience. One of the best and most important books I've ever read.

I don't think the article mentions causation in any way, and if so the journalist is probably overemphasizing the point.

The fMRI studies do not imply causation, but they are evaluated as a tool to predict successful therapies which is very valuable. No need for a cause and effect dualism yet.

Genetics are more fundamental than behavior or cognition. The prediction of a biological outcome using genetics tends to be more damning than if the predictor were something else. Genetics carry a lot of weight, you cannot teach them away, nor think them away and still in 2013 you cannot replace them. You are damned by them.

Plus, you cannot genuinely critique a revelation based on an article aimed at the general audience. That is a cheap shot with the potential to mislead self.

Take a look at a Hacker News comment

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6078734

from a month or so ago with lots of links to full text articles about human behavior genetics from leading researchers on the subject. Genetics is a more complicated topic than most people suppose.

> Genetics carry a lot of weight, you cannot teach them away, nor think them away and still in 2013 you cannot replace them. You are damned by them.

http://www.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/an-easier-way-to-control-...