You don't have to read every word of this xkcd comic to be reminded that new technologies tend to be perceived as dangerous threats to familiar ways of life:

You don't have to read every word of this xkcd comic to be reminded that new technologies tend to be perceived as dangerous threats to familiar ways of life:

Posted by Adam Kolber on 06/19/2013 at 03:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Recently posted to SSRN (and forthcoming in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies):
"The Impact of Neuroimages in the Sentencing Phase of Capital Trials"
Michael J. Saks
, Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law; N. J. Schweitzer, Arizona State University; Eyal Aharoni, University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Psychology; and Kent Kiehl, University of New Mexico
Although
recent research has found that neurological expert testimony is more
persuasive than other kinds of expert and non-expert evidence, no impact
has been found for neuroimages beyond that of neurological evidence
sans images. Those findings hold true in the context of a mens rea
defense and various forms of insanity defenses. The present studies test
whether neuroimages afford heightened impact in the penalty phase of
capital murder trials.
Two mock jury experiments (n=825 and
n=882) were conducted online using nationally representative samples of
persons who were jury-eligible and death-qualified. Participants were
randomly assigned to experimental conditions varying the defendant’s
diagnosis (psychopathy, schizophrenia, normal), type of expert evidence
supporting the diagnosis (clinical, genetic, neurological sans images,
neurological with images), evidence of future dangerousness (high, low),
and whether the proponent of the expert evidence was the prosecution
(arguing aggravation) or the defense (arguing mitigation).
For
defendants diagnosed as psychopathic, neuroimages reduced judgments of
responsibility and sentences of death. For defendants diagnosed as
schizophrenic, neuroimages increased judgments of responsibility;
non-image neurological evidence decreased death sentences and judgments
of responsibility and dangerousness. All else equal, psychopaths were
more likely to be sentenced to death than schizophrenics. When experts
opined that defendant was dangerous, sentences of death increased. A
backfire effect was found such that the offering party produced the
opposite result than that being argued for when the expert evidence was
clinical, genetic, or non-image neurological. But when the expert
evidence included neuroimages, jurors moved in the direction argued by
counsel.
Posted by NELB Staff on 06/18/2013 at 01:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted by Adam Kolber on 06/17/2013 at 09:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted by Adam Kolber on 06/17/2013 at 06:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
|
|
![]() |
Posted by NELB Staff on 06/13/2013 at 07:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
|
|
![]() |
|
Last Edition's Most Popular Article:
In The Popular Press
From the Academic Literature:
|
||
|
Posted by NELB Staff on 06/10/2013 at 10:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted by Adam Kolber on 06/10/2013 at 05:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
A reminder from the International Neuroethics Society:
The International Neuroethics Society announces its 5th Annual Meeting (a satellite of the Society for Neuroscience Meeting) November 7 & 8 San Diego.
More information at: http://www.neuroethicssociety.org/2013-annual-meeting.
Listen to INS Member Molly Crockett cordially invite you https://ns.memberclicks.net/assets/molly%20crocket%20recording.wav.
Bring your friends and family to the open-to-the-public program November 7 on Neurogaming: What’s Neuroscience and Ethics Got to Do with It?
Register for the meeting on November 8 at http://www.neuroethicssociety.org/2013-annual-meeting-registration The speaker lineup includes Barbara Sahakian & John Pickard, University of Cambridge, Julian Savulescu, University of Oxford, Patricia Churchland, University of California-San Diego, Molly Crockett, University of Zurich, Jens Clausen, University of Tubingen, Lisa Claydon, Bristol Law School, University of the West England, Joe Fins & Niko Schiff, Weill Cornell Medical College, Holly Moore, Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, Mauricio Delgado, Rutgers University, Catherine Sebastian, Royal Holloway, University of London, J. David Jentsch, University of California – Los Angeles, and Honorable Robert Trentacosta, Presiding Judge of San Diego Superior Court.
See you in San Diego!
Posted by Adam Kolber on 06/10/2013 at 09:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Neuroethics in Spain: Neurological Determinism or Moral Freedom? by Enrique Bonete has been published in the most recent issue of Neuroethics:
Abstract
Spanish culture has recently shown interest about Neuroethics, a new line of research and reflection. It can be said that two general, and somewhat opposing, perspectives are currently being developed in Spain about neuroethics-related topics. One originates from the neuroscientific field and the other from the philosophical field. We will see, throughout this article, that the Spanish authors, who I am going to select here, deal with very diverse neuroethical topics and that they analyse them from different intellectual assumptions. However, I consider that there is one constant concern, which emerges extensively or briefly in each one of the books that I am going to present. I am referring to the problem of freedom. Spanish neuroscientists, in general, stress and accept the new determinism that emanates from recent research about the brain, whilst those who engage in the study of philosophy usually point in their texts to the limitations of empirical research that purport to "demonstrate" the new neurological determinism. I will dedicate the last section, which is more extensive in length, to the work that I consider the most valuable, at least until the present day, and whose title is Neuroética y Neuropolítica (Tecnos, Madrid, 2011). Professor Adela Cortina (chair of Moral Philosophy at Valencia University and member of the Spanish Royal Academy of Moral and Political Science) is its author. But, firstly, I am going to refer to the works written by neuroscientists, and then to those written by philosophers. This will enable us to obtain a global view of the neuroethics models that are being constructed in Spain.
Posted by NELB Staff on 05/31/2013 at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
|
|
![]() |
|
Last Edition's Most Popular Article:
In The Popular Press
From the Academic Literature:
|
||
|
Posted by NELB Staff on 05/30/2013 at 05:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Review of Daniel Kelly: Yuck! The Nature and Moral Significance of Disgust by Marta Gil has been published in the most recent issue of Nueroethics:
Abstract
Perhaps the most remarkable feature about this book is the effort made by its author in order to shed light on the most intriguing question that surrounds disgust: how is it possible for disgust to be so flexible with its objects? This book is highly recommended for those readers interested in the latest and most exciting aspects of current scholarship on the study of the emotions. Readers too who are interested on evolutionary psychology, moral psychology or neuroethics will find this book stimulating. However, it should be noted that perhaps it may not be liked for readers allergic to evolutionary approaches and the vocabulary of cognitive science.
Posted by NELB Staff on 05/29/2013 at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Embodied Tools, Cognitive Tools and Brain-Computer Interfaces by Richard Heersmink has been published in the most recent issue of Nueroethics:
Abstract
In this paper I explore systematically the relationship between Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) and their human users from a phenomenological and cognitive perspective. First, I functionally decompose BCI systems and develop a typology in which I categorize BCI applications with similar functional properties into three categories, those with (1) motor, (2) virtual, and (3) linguistic applications. Second, developing and building on the notions of an embodied tool and cognitive tool, I analyze whether these distinct BCI applications can be seen as bodily or cognitive extensions. Contrary to some recent philosophical claims, I will argue that, although BCI technology may have the potential to become bodily and cognitive extensions for skilled users, at this stage they are not. And while the electrodes may to a variable degree be transparent and incorporated in the body schema, the BCI system as a whole is not. Moreover, BCIs do not have a functional role characteristic for cognition and are therefore not cognitive extensions. Third, based on concepts from the distributed cognition framework, I give a number of suggestions to improve the interface design of linguistic applications, i.e. BCIs that allow its user to spell words by selecting letters on a screen. These suggestions may result in cognitive extension and would enhance the autonomy and quality of life of its users. In sum, in this paper I develop a typology, analysis and critique on the current philosophical debate on BCIs, thereby providing a richer conceptual understanding of BCI systems which allows me to offer some suggestions for improving the interface design of linguistic applications.
Posted by NELB Staff on 05/27/2013 at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted by Adam Kolber on 05/24/2013 at 02:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
|
|
![]() |
|
Last Edition's Most Popular Article:
In The Popular Press
From the Academic Literature:
|
||
|
Posted by NELB Staff on 05/24/2013 at 11:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Australian University Students’ Attitudes Towards the Acceptability and Regulation of Pharmaceuticals to Improve Academic Performance by Stephanie Bell, Brad Partridge, Jayne Lucke and Wayne Hall has been published in the most recent issue of Neuroethics:
Abstract
There is currently little empirical information about attitudes towards cognitive enhancement - the use of pharmaceutical drugs to enhance normal brain functioning. It is claimed this behaviour most commonly occurs in students to aid studying. We undertook a qualitative assessment of attitudes towards cognitive enhancement by conducting 19 semi-structured interviews with Australian university students. Most students considered cognitive enhancement to be unacceptable, in part because they believed it to be unethical but there was a lack of consensus on whether it was similar or different to steroid use in sport. There was support for awareness campaigns and monitoring of cognitive enhancement use of pharmaceutical drugs. An understanding of student attitudes towards cognitive enhancement is important in formulating future policy.
Posted by NELB Staff on 05/24/2013 at 09:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
