Should neurologists or neuropsychologists be aware of "cross-cultural" neuroscience? For example, understanding the differences between human neuroanatomy/psychology that may develop or be underdeveloped across cultures?
Research supports that the neuroanatomy/psych make up does differ across cultures to some degree. Low and high level cognitive processes are influenced by socio-cultural status. It seems that the neuroscience researcher should be aware of this to some degree. The level of influence I suppose would be dependent upon what type of study one is performing. So should researchers be aware? Yes, but to what level "cross-cultural" neuroscience has on a study, probably varies considerably.
I do think that these factors should be kept in mind. However, before seriously considering their use, I feel that a couple of things should be established by the researcher(s). For example, how is culture operationalized? When we say culture, what exactly are we referring to (e.g., objective versus subjective components)? When we look at cross-cultural differences, do we mean cultural or ethnic differences? Which ones are really important in answering the research question? Are the methods and rules used to assign an individual to one group or another reliable and valid? It seems that this question leads to many more questions. Here is a good reference that broaches the subject: Yee, A. H., Fairchild, H. H., Weizmann, F., & Wyatt, G. E. (1993). Addressing psychology's problem with race. American Psychologist, 48(11), 1132-1140.
You should definitely be aware of cultural differences, esp. in the design of your studies. A great deal of what is assumed to be universal, at least in psychology, was determined purely by studying predominately white 20-something college students.
With a large enough sample size and the careful use of ANOVA, you may be able to carry out one study and assess possible impacts before embarking on a wider cross-cultural investigation.