Neuroethics & Law Blog

Supreme Court on Insanity Defense

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Clark v. Arizona on the constitutional status of state insanity law is now available.  I'm looking through it now, but you can find some commentary on it here, here, and in an earlier post here.

UPDATE: More commentary here and here.

Brain Scannning FOIA Request

The ACLU has filed a request with federal security agencies under the Freedom of Information Act to determine if the government is using brain-scanning technologies for lie detection.  From the ACLU press release:

"There are certain things that have such powerful implications for our society -- and for humanity at large -- that we have a right to know how they are being used so that we can grapple with them as a democratic society," said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Project.  "These brain-scanning technologies are far from ready for forensic uses and if deployed will inevitably be misused and misunderstood." 

The most likely technology to be used for anti-terrorism purposes is Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), which can produce live, real-time images of people's brains as they answer questions, view images, listen to sounds, and respond to other stimuli. Two private companies have announced that they will begin to offer "lie detection" services using fMRI as early as this summer.  These companies are marketing their services to federal government agencies, including the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, the National Security Agency and the CIA, and to state and local police departments.

Here's the link to the FOIA request.

(HT: Slashdot via MindHacks.)

Introducing the Neuroethics Society

I am pleased to spread news of the formation of the "Neuroethics Society," an interdisciplinary professional organization dedicated to all things neuroethics.  At its website, you will find information about its mission, its brief recent history, and its governance.

The organization seeks to attract a wide range of people interested in legal and ethical issues related to the neurosciences.  Neuroethicist Martha Farah, at the University of Pennsylvania, tells me that:

We are really open to a diversity of perspectives and want our society to serve the field as a whole.  Of course we want "the usual suspects," many of whom helped found the society and have already made contributions to the field of neuroethics.  But we also want the smart, inquiring neuroscientists, lawyers, clinicians, humanists, engineers, and students . . . people who are interested in the issues of neuroethics and can help move it forward by bringing their new ideas and perspectives into the field.

The society has partnered with the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience and with the American Journal of Bioethics (AJOB) to bring you more of the latest in neuroethics.  In 2007, AJOB will expand from 6 to 12 issues annually; 3 of these new issues, collectively titled AJOB-Neuroscience, will be devoted to neuroethics.

I am told that the first two meetings of the Neuroethics Society will be held as satellite meetings of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society in mid-April 2008 in San Francisco and mid-April 2009 in NYC.  In addition, the organization has plans to host some events at other meetings in 2006-2007.

According to Martha, "There are so many of us working on problems related to neuroethics, in such a range of different disciplines, that we need a forum where we can talk together, exchange ideas, and learn from each other.  I am hoping that people will sign up and participate fully."  Speaking of which, you can find out more about membership here.  The website is expected to support PayPal registration in a few weeks.

Pardo on Neuroscience Evidence

Michael S. Pardo (Law, University of Alabama) has posted Neuroscience Evidence, Legal Culture, and Criminal Procedure on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Proposed lie-detection technology based on neuroscience poses significant challenges for the law. The law must respond to the science with an adequate understanding of such evidence, its significance, and its limitations. This paper makes three contributions toward those ends. First, it provides an account of the preliminary neuroscience research underlying this proposed evidence. Second, it discusses the nature and significance of such evidence, how such evidence would fit with legal practices and concepts, and its potential admissibility. Finally, it analyzes the constitutional protections that may limit the compelled production of such evidence.

(Hat Tip: Legal Theory Blog).

Neuroimaging/Neuroethics Article in Nature Neuroscience

Nature Reviews Neuroscience has just published an article on neuroimaging, entitled "Decoding Mental States from Brain Activity in Humans" (download the pdf for free!).  Here's the abstract:

Recent advances in human neuroimaging have shown that it is possible to accurately decode a person's conscious experience based only on non-invasive measurements of their brain activity. Such 'brain reading' has mostly been studied in the domain of visual perception, where it helps reveal the way in which individual experiences are encoded in the human brain. The same approach can also be extended to other types of mental state, such as covert attitudes and lie detection. Such applications raise important ethical issues concerning the privacy of personal thought.

(Thanks to Larry Hinman for pointing me to the article.)

Risk Evaluation in Medical Decisionmaking

Earlier this week, the NYT reported on interesting research related to the ways in which we evaluate medical risk.  Here's the catchy opening:

The situation is imaginary, but the dilemma it illustrates is quite real. A deadly influenza moves across the world from Asia, finally arriving on our shores.

There is no cure, and your doctor tells you that you have a 10 percent chance of dying from it. An effective vaccine is widely available, made from a weakened form of the virus. But it has an unfortunate side effect: there is a 5 percent chance that a patient will die from the less serious form of the flu it can cause. . . .

Judging by the numbers alone, there is a clear answer to this hypothetical problem: a person is much better off taking the vaccine. But people do not always arrive at health decisions by applying mathematical models, and in some cases the numbers may be less important than other considerations.

In a new study published in the June issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine, researchers found that the answer depended on which role the person was asked to assume. Only 48 percent of the participants said they would take the vaccine themselves. But 57 percent said they would give it to their children; 63 percent said that if they were doctors they would give it to patients; and 73 percent said that if they were the medical director of a hospital they would recommend the vaccine for all patients.

Controversial Research on the Evolution of Brain Size

Today's WSJ has an article (subscription only) on controversial research by Bruce Lahn at the University of Chicago.  The research concerns the evolution of certain genes in humans that may be linked to brain size and intelligence.  The article describes just how sensitive this area of research is; based on Lahn's recent comments, it appears that he wants to move away from the field because of the controversy it engenders. 

Here's a link to a post on this blog from last September about Lahn's work when it was published in Science.

NYT on Genetics and Behavior

Today's NYT has an article summarizing findings about the myriad features of our personalities that are influenced by our genetic endowments.  The article raises many of the issues related to personal responsibility that show up in neuroethics debates.  The juiciest part of the article comes at the end:

Others fear that when certain behaviors once ascribed to personal choice are seen as genetic, the next step will be not tolerance for difference, but support for intervention. On a "fat-acceptance" e-mail list, several members suggested recent research will lead only to new ways for them to lose weight through genetic alteration, rather than be accepted as they are. And when scientists caused fruit flies to pursue flies of the same sex by altering a gene last year, some gay-rights advocates worried it would lend credence to the notion that homosexuality could be "cured."

People could also find their genes being held against them. Already, some scientists suspect a specific gene plays a role in violent behavior, for instance, and a discussion has already begun over how people bearing such genes should be treated.

"If we find a murder mutation, are we going to be more accepting of murderers, or are we going to lock them up even more tightly?" asked Jeffrey M. Friedman, director of the Starr Center for Human Genetics at Rockefeller University. "The more we find genes that play a role in determining all sorts of attributes, the more we're going to face these kinds of ethical issues."

Of course, for traits that are socially desirable, people may not be as eager to accept genetic explanations that seem to trivialize their skills or accomplishments. When scientists this year found two gene variations that appear at higher rates in professional dancers than in the general population, many dancers bristled at the news. In online message boards for the ballet magazine Pointe, several writers said success in dance was the result of hard work, passion and good mentors. "Being a dancer requires so much more than what's there in your body, an emotional strength," said Virginia Johnson, editor of Pointe and a former principal dancer with the Dance Theater of Harlem.

She paused.

"That genes can't really — well, I guess that's genetic, too, isn't it?"

Creating Artificial Cells

The Reed College magazine has this piece on efforts by Reed faculty/students/alums to create "artificial cells".  Here's an excerpt:

Thirty years later, Bedau and Packard are on a quest for answers. Surrounded by powerful computers and sophisticated equipment in a high-tech industrial park on the outskirts of Venice, Italy—and bankrolled with millions of euros—they are trying to produce actual cells. The two Reedies are part of a long-shot entry in the race to create artificial life.

Bedau, a philosophy professor at Reed, and Packard, a physicist known for his entrepreneurial success at applying computer models to predict financial markets, are the founders of ProtoLife, an eight-employee biotech startup. ProtoLife is in turn part of a multi-national research consortium funded by a four-year, $10 million grant from the European Commission. A steady stream of Reedies have been involved in the work of Bedau and Packard over the years, contributing to every aspect from computer simulation to bioethics research (see Reedies on the Artificial Life Trail).

Bedau, who is on leave from Reed this spring, believes that the surest way to resolve life’s basic questions is by building a basic life form from scratch. It may sound futuristic and even quixotic, but his is only one of several well-funded research groups vying to create an artificial cell capable of living off its surroundings, multiplying, and evolving.

Hat tip to AJOB Editors Blog, where the article is described as follows:

Reed Magazine has a great interview with the guys at ProtoLife in Venice who are building what they see as artificial cells. A philosopher and a financial analyst, lead a group that were it not so interesting and productive would seem like a snake oil team.

The Human Behavior Experiments

The Sundance Channel has been repeatedly running an hour-long documentary entitled, "The Human Behavior Experiments."  Despite its extremely broad title, it focuses on some famous experiments and events that emphasize the surprisingly powerful effects of situational pressures on our behavior.  The program covers such studies as the Milgram obedience experiments and the Stanford prison experiment (with great documentary footage) along with discussions of the Kitty Genovese incident, a recent fraternity hazing incident, events at the Abu Ghraib prison, and more. 

Overall, I think it's a good program.  It no doubt glosses over a lot of detail, however.  See, for example, this recent MindHacks post that suggests that the conventional wisdom about the Kitty Genovese incident greatly oversimplifies what happened.