-- continued from page two
appears unwilling to commit the resources needed to allow scientists to investigate many important issues.) Moreover, all ultimately solid and finally accepted results of science depend upon many studies that converge on the same conclusion. No single or small group of studies should he expected to provide a definitive answer. Consider the example of smoking and cancer. Any single study by itself failed to provide a definitive answer. Indeed, there was a great deal of controversy, particularly in the early days of research, Newspaper headlines trumpeted the latest “yes” and “no” findings. Is there now any rational doubt that smoking increases the likelihood of developing cancer?

          But is suspension of judgment satisfactory? Not really. We want answers now! But the ability to take in in- formation and withhold reaction should also promote the desire for more information and that in turn could translate into more research to pin down the truth, as it can he known. Understanding the relationships between music and human mental processes and behavior requires a commitment of resources, time and the dedication of skilled investigators. The secrets of Nature don’t reveal themselves easily. We have to have longer attention spans, avoid the assumption that headlines or sound bites convey enough good information and realize that we are in for the long haul. Music re- search needs to be done as well and as carefully as any other field of research, or it won’t provide good answers to the questions.

Don’t Try to Jump Too Far ... The Grand Canyon is Too Big

          When studies ask similar Questions, use similar Methods and find the same Results (particularly if the studies are done by different groups), one gains a lot of confidence that the findings are dependable. But what happens if we take results and apply them to other questions? For ex- ample, the letter writer I quoted at the outset of this essay assumed that simply listening to classical music would cure mental retardation. She was probably influenced by studies which have shown that brief (e.g., 10 minute) passive listening results in increases in scores of spatial-temporal reasoning..4 The writer jumped too far, the mental equivalent of trying to leap the Grand Canyon. To begin with, mental retardation, a chronic condition whatever its causes, could not be reversed by a treatment that has a brief effect. Also, the findings were specific to spatial-temporal reasoning, not to all, most or even any other aspects of intelligence. Rea- son and caution should be used when trying to generalize findings from one situation to another. That is what researchers do. It’s great to think about the potential implications and generality of any finding, but the abandonment of reason and logic won’t make the Grand Canyon smaller ... it will make it infinitely large instead.

Music Research, Circa 1999

         
          We’re now ready to look at the field of music re- search at the turn of the millennium, or at least some parts of it. In so doing, we will be focusing on the other characteristic of science, Feature #2, “Building on the past.” As innumerable volumes have been written about music and behavior over the centuries, no attempt will be made to summarize such a vast store of knowledge, opinion and insight.5 Instead, I’ll try to provide a guide to some of the major issues which seem to he of great current interest, particularly with findings during the last 10 - 20 years. Specifically. I’ll address the following questions.

          Note that these questions are highly diverse, because music research is a very broad field. In fact, these questions do not even cover the field. The first question concerns our biological heritage and involves findings from studies of in- facts. The second involves the organ (neural not instrumental) of all of our experiences, thoughts, plans. emotions and behavior, the human brain. The third is about how music influences the many processes involved in thought and reason. particularly as they relate to child development. The fourth concerns music therapy and wellness.

          An important, and unfortunate, aspect of music re- search is that the areas of inquiry represented by the four questions have been had little interaction. For example, knowledge of how the brain processes music hasn’t had much influence on music therapy. Findings from music therapy haven’t impacted thinking about the issue of the biological heritage of music. Cognitive benefits of active music involvement in child development also have stood more or less alone. One hopes this will change in the future so that the field becomes more integrated, from basic science to the application of findings in normal and clinical settings.

          Let’s turn now to some answers to the four questions. These will include referring to previous MRN articles that have focused on specific topics. The reader interested in more de- tails can read these articles at our website http://www.musica.uci.edu

Is music a basic aspect of human nature?

This question seems to have been largely ignored. That is a great shame because in many respects it is the most important question. Attitudes about music education and the role of music in cognitive development depend greatly on whether music is viewed as a “frill,” as take-it-or-leave-it entertainment, or something deeper. Another aspect of this issue concerns

 -- continued on page four