There’s a robust body of neuroimaging research investigating the neural mechanisms of speech-motor control, particularly the role of sensorimotor rhythms. Many studies have identified differences in oscillatory dynamics—especially in beta and mu rhythms—between adults who stutter and controls. However, findings vary due to differences in task design, methodological approaches, and the challenges of studying something as dynamic and context-dependent as speech. You're right that the lab environment limits how well we can capture the full scope of naturalistic speech. But that doesn't mean researchers aren't trying. There are active research programs investigating how non-invasive brain stimulation (like tDCS and TMS) may modulate the neural systems underlying speech timing and coordination. Pierpaolo Busan's lab is one example; their work is aimed at enhancing the neurophysiological systems involved in speech planning, production, and adaptation. So while the idea of building therapies that “strengthen” speech systems has intuitive appeal, the reality is that the brain’s speech networks are already highly complex, distributed, and plastic. It's not just a matter of "power" or "instinct"—it's about integration across sensory, motor, and cognitive domains, many of which are still not fully understood in fluent speakers, let alone in stuttering. You also raise a good point about current clinical discourse. Much of the field is, rightly, emphasizing acceptance, openness, and identity—especially in response to decades of harmful fluency-centric treatments. But I agree we can (and should) make space for both: identity-affirming approaches *and* rigorous, innovative investigations into the neurobiology of stuttering.