Neuroethics & Law Blog

PEBS News Roundup from JHU Guest Blogger

Last Edition's Most Popular Article The evolution of the god gene  The New York Times November 14 2009 In the Academic Literature: Neuroethics and public engagement training needed for neuroscientists  Trends in Cognitive Sciences November 16 2009  Epigenetics: Stressed for life  Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2009:10:836 Attention improves performance primarily by reducing interneuronal correlations  Nature Neuroscience 2009:12';1594-1600 Microcircuitry coordination of cortical motor information in self-initiation of voluntary movements  Nature Neuroscience 2009:12:1586-1593 The pathways of interoceptive awareness  Nature Neuroscience 2009:12:1494-1496 Strengthening Individual Memories by Reactivating Them During Sleep  Science 2009:326(5956):1079 Cerebral and spinal modulation of pain by emotions  PNAS November 19 2009 Phase-dependent neuronal coding of objects in short-term memory  PNAS November 19 2009 Freedom of movement and the stability of its unfolding in free exploration of mice  PNAS November 23 2009 Political partisanship influences perception of biracial candidates' skin tone  PNAS November 23 2009 In the Popular Press: fMRI evidence used in murder sentencing  Science Insider November 23 2009 Sounds during sleep aid memory, study finds  The New York Times November 19 2009 The biology behind the milk of human kindness  The New York Times November 23 2009 Adults fooled by visual illusion, but not kids  Wired Science November 23 2009 What's my brain's motivation?  BBC Tuesday 24 2009 Neurologists to NFL: We're here to help  Science Insider November 23 2009 Can you be blamed for sleepwalking crimes?  New Scientist November 24 2009 The court will now call its expert witness: the brain  Stanford University News November 19 2009  The Program in Ethics and Brain Sciences (PEBS) is a collaborative effort of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and the  Johns Hopkins Brain Sciences Institute . The goal of PEBS is to ensure that research in brain science proceeds with an informed understanding of ethical issues, and that philosophical and empirical analyses of the advances in brain research proceed with an informed understanding of the science.

Not So Fast. On Some Bold Neuroscientific Claims Concerning Human Agency

Andrea Lavazza and Mario De Caro have published, "Not so Fast. On Some Bold Neuroscientific Claims Concerning Human Agency," in our partner journal Neuroethics (it's published in the "Online First" area).

Here is the abstract:

According to a widespread view, a complete explanatory reduction of all aspects of the human mind to the electro-chemical functioning of the brain is at hand and will certainly produce vast and positive cultural, political and social consequences. However, notwithstanding the astonishing advances generated by the neurosciences in recent years for our understanding of the mechanisms and functions of the brain, the application of these findings to the specific but crucial issue of human agency can be considered a “pre-paradigmatic science” (in Thomas Kuhn’s sense). This implies that the situation is, at the same time, intellectually stimulating and methodologically confused. More specifically—because of the lack of a solid, unitary and coherent methodological framework as to how to connect neurophysiology and agency—it frequently happens that tentative approaches, bold but very preliminary claims and even clearly flawed interpretations of experimental data are taken for granted. In this article some examples of such conceptual confusions and intellectual hubris will be presented, which derive from the most recent literature at the intersection between neurosciences, on the one hand, and philosophy, politics and social sciences, on the other hand. It will also be argued that, in some of these cases, hasty and over-ambitious conclusions may produce negative social and political consequences. The general upshot will be that very much has still to be clarified as to what and how neurosciences can tell us about human agency and that, in the meantime, intellectual and methodological caution is to be recommended.

fMRI as Death Penalty Mitigation Evidence

Greg Miller reports here on the introduction of fMRI mitigation evidence in the sentencing phase of a recent death penalty case.

Locked-In Belgian Alert But Mute for 23 years

Story here.

Neuroethics Podcasts

Podcasts of the plenary sessions from the Brain Matters conference held earlier this year are now available for your viewing pleasure.

PEBS News Roundup from JHU Guest Blogger

Last Edition's Most Popular Article Origins: on the origin of religion  Science 2009:326(5954):784-787  In the Academic Literature: Dopamine receptor D4 polymorphism predicts the effect of L-DOPA on gambling behavior  Biological Psychiatry November 14 2009 Hypomania with hypersexuality following bilateral anterior limb stimulation in obsessive-compulsive disorder  Journal of Neurosurgery November 13 2009 Nucleus accumbens deep brain stimulation decreases ratings of depression and anxiety in treatment-resistant depression  Biological Psychiatry November 14 2009 Long-term results of thalamic deep brain stimulation for essential tremor  Journal of Neurosurgery November 13 2009 Hippocampus-dependent and -independent theta-networks of active maintenance  PNAS 2009:106(46) Enhanced dendritic activity in awake rats  PNAS 2009:106(46) Evidence from intrinsic activity that asymmetry of the human brain is controlled by multiple factors  PNAS 2009:106(46) Reversible acute cognitive dysfunction induced by bilateral STN stimulation  Journal of Neurology 2009:256(8) Greater improvement in quality of life following unilateral deep brain stimulation surgery in the globus pallidus as compared to the subthalamic nucleus  Journal of Neurology 2009:256(8 Differential activation of the striatum for decision making and outcomes in a monetary task with gain and loss  Cortex 2009:45(10) Anti-depressant and anxiolytic like behaviors in PKCI/HINT1 knockout mice associated with elevated plasma corticosterone level  BMC Neuroscience 2009:10(132) Follistatin gene delivery enhances muscle growth and strength in nonhuman primates  Science Translational Medicine 2009:1(6) Dopamine enhances expectation of pleasure in humans  Current Biology November 12 2009 Representation of shape in individuals from a culture with minimal exposure to regular, simple artifacts: sensitivity to nonaccidental versus metric properties  Psychological Science October 30 2009 Deep brain stimulation as a new therapeutic approach in therapy-resistant mental disorders: ethical aspects of investigational treatment  European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 2009:259(2)  In the Popular Press: The evolution of the god gene  The New York Times November 14 2009 Cat brain-based computer: scientists perform cat-scale cortical simulations and map the human brain  Science Daily November 18 2009 Size and strength not a mate-choice factor for everyone  Wired Science November 16 2009 Why pain sometimes lingers  Nature News November 15 2009  New brain cells may knock out old memories  Wired Science November 12 2009 Toddlers insensitive to fear go on to commit crimes  New Scientist November 17 2009 Secret math of fly eyes could overhaul robot vision  Wired Science November 12 2009 Top 10 cyborg videos  Wired Science November 15 2009 Signature of consciousness captured in brain scans  New Scientist November 12 2009  The Program in Ethics and Brain Sciences (PEBS) is a collaborative effort of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and the  Johns Hopkins Brain Sciences Institute . The goal of PEBS is to ensure that research in brain science proceeds with an informed understanding of ethical issues, and that philosophical and empirical analyses of the advances in brain research proceed with an informed understanding of the science.

CFP: Ethical Implications of DBS

Our partner journal, Neuroethics, has issued the following call for papers.  Please direct inquiries to the issue's guest editor:

 

Call for Papers

ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION

SPECIAL ISSUE OF SPRINGER’S JOURNAL NEUROETHICS

Guest Editor: Jens Clausen

 

Deep brain stimulation is a powerful treatment for motor symptoms in patients suffering from

end-stage Parkinson’s disease. On the one hand, many patients who had no medical option

left benefit enormously from this technological approach. On the other hand, the great power

of brain stimulation also causes side effects, which are sometimes severe. Weighing benefits

against risk is common in every medical intervention. What are the specific risks of DBS?

How should they be weighed against the benefits? Is there anything new in the ethics of this

technological intervention? What can be learned for the ethics of DBS from more familiar

brain interventions like pharmacological treatments?

 

For DBS electrodes are implanted into deep structures of the brain and stimulation has to be

functionally integrated into neuronal processes. How is the self-concept of the human being as

an embodied being influenced by the incorporation of technological devices into brain

processes? Does chronic stimulation of the brain affect autonomous decision-making? What

would be the consequences of acting under brain stimulation for holding someone responsible

for his/her action?

 

Although the exact mechanisms of how DBS works are not known, the great successes in

treating motor impairments encourage expanding DBS application to other diseases. Research

on DBS in psychiatric disorders including major depression and obsessive compulsive

disorder are well under way. Even Alzheimer’s, obesity, minimal conscious state and

alcoholism are under discussion as a target for DBS application. Further research directions

are expected. How should one address ethical requirements for the clinical research trials?

Further ideas concerning the ethical implications DBS could have (not mentioned here) are

very welcome. Submit your research online to this forthcoming special issue of Neuroethics!

• Length of the manuscript: approximately 6000 words

• Deadline for submission: 1 May 2010

• Notification of reviewing process: 15 July 2010

• Final Version: 15 August 2010

• Scheduled Publication: Early 2011

 

For further details and to meet the formal criteria for submission to Springer’s Neuroethics

Journal, it is strongly recommended to visit:

http://www.springer.com/philosophy/ethics/journal/12152

New Brain-Related SSRN Abstracting Journals

SSRN recently distributed the following information about new brain-related abstracting journals:

LAW, BRAIN & BEHAVIOR JOURNALS
Law is concerned with organizing and constraining human behavior. As a result, some model of human behavior, implicit or explicit, underlies legal principles and analysis. Papers in LAW, BRAIN & BEHAVIOR employ conceptual and empirical findings from various disciplines, including neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and experimental psychology, to shed light on how we can best understand law and and use it to guide human behavior in desirable directions.

LAW & EVOLUTION
View Papers: http://www.ssrn.com/link/Law-Evolution.html
Subscribe: http://hq.ssrn.com/jourInvite.cfm?link=Law-Evolution

Editor: Jeffrey Evans Stake, Robert A. Lucas Chair of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

Description: This journal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts with a focus on the intersection of law and evolution in a number of domains. First and foremost, evolutionary psychology and biology provide a model of human behavior that can be helpful in understanding legal rules, critiquing them, and suggesting reforms. Second, understanding the evolution of the biological world is important for constructing legal regimes to address a wide variety of issues, from the environment to medicine. Third, ideas can and often do replicate, becoming "memes," and their evolution has implications for the law, both because many areas of the law deal with ideas and because laws and legal institutions are themselves evolving replicators. This journal accepts working papers, essays, published articles, experimental and research reports, and other scholarly treatments of topics within the intersection of LAW AND EVOLUTION.

LAW & NEUROSCIENCE
View Papers: http://www.ssrn.com/link/Law-Neuroscience.html
Subscribe: http://hq.ssrn.com/jourInvite.cfm?link=Law-Neuroscience

Editor: Oliver Goodenough, Professor, Vermont Law School, Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society

Description: This journal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts with a focus on law and the emerging science of the brain sharing a basic preoccupation: understanding the nature of human thought and action. Law has been had an implicit science of mind; cognitive neuroscience is an explicit version. A sustained academic dialog between these disciplines will lead to advances on each side of the conversation. In particular we desire to increase access to, as well as understanding of, human action. By access we mean an actionable pathway to improving human action. Law will be enriched with better models of thought and behavior and with a tool-kit of applications and interventions for such difficult problems as addiction, mental health, and legal procedure itself. Cognitive science will benefit from the challenge of tackling problems whose solutions could have significant consequences for justice and social welfare. The abstracting journal LAW AND NEUROSCIENCE provides a forum for conducting this exchange. It will accept working papers, essays, published articles, experimental and research reports, and other scholarly treatments of topics at the intersection of law, neuroscience and related disciplines, such as cognitive psychology, economics, and behavioral biology.

LAW & PROSOCIALITY
View Papers: http://www.ssrn.com/link/Law-Prosociality.html
Subscribe: http://hq.ssrn.com/jourInvite.cfm?link=Law-Prosociality

Editor: Lynn Stout, Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles - School of Law

Description: This journal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts covering various aspects of the many interactions between law and prosocial behavior. Extensive empirical evidence demonstrates that rather than always maximizing their own material self-interest, people often behave prosocially by sacrificing their own material welfare in order to help, and sometimes in order to harm, other people. For example, people often follow legal rules, obey social norms, and show both trust and trustworthiness, even when external sanctions are weak or absent. Papers in LAW AND PROSOCIALITY use data and evidence gathered from neuroscience, experimental and behavioral economics and psychology, and other life and social sciences to shed light on the empirical phenomenon of prosocial behavior and to examine how prosocial behavior depends on, reinforces, and interacts with law and public policy. Legal scholars, behavioral economists, psychologists, policy experts, and other researchers and scholars are encouraged to submit papers that investigate the empirical phenomenon of prosocial behaviors, including behaviors like trust, altruism, cooperation, and altruistic punishment, and their relation to law and social order.

LAW, COGNITION, & DECISIONMAKING
View Papers: http://www.ssrn.com/link/Law-Cognition-Decisionmaking.html
Subscribe: http://hq.ssrn.com/jourInvite.cfm?link=Law-Cognition-Decisionmaking

Editor: Russell Korobkin, Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles - School of Law

Description: This journal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts at the intersection of research on behavioral decisionmaking and law. Evaluations of existing or potential legal policy require an understanding of how law affects behavior, and an understanding of behavior in turn requires insight into how individuals process information and make decisions. Papers in LAW, COGNITION, and DECISIONMAKING use knowledge of how humans process information to render judgments, form preferences, and make choices for the purpose of informing descriptive and normative analysis of law.

PEBS News Roundup from JHU Guest Blogger

Last Edition's Most Popular Article Clever fools: Why a high IQ doesn't mean you're smart  New Scientist November 2 2009  In the Academic Literature: Human-specific transcriptional regulation of CNS development genes by FOXP2 Nature 2009:462:213-217 Visually evoked activity in cortical cells imaged in freely moving animals PNAS November 4 2009 Newborns' cry melody is shaped by their native language  Current Biology November 5 2009 Hematopoietic stem cell gene therapy with a lentiviral vector in x-linked adrenoleukodystrophy  Science 2009:326(5954):818-823 Origins: on the origin of religion  Science 2009:326(5954):784-787  The privileged brain representation of first olfactory associations  Current Biology November 5 2009 In the Popular Press: Human-chimp gene comparison hints at roots of language Wired November 11 2009 A dream interpretation: tuneups for the brain  New York Times November 9 2009 How your brain sees virtual you  New Scientist November 6 2009 The artificial hand that can 'feel'  CNN November 6 2009 The short life of a diagnosis   New York Times November 9 2009 Brain disease treated by gene therapy   Nature News November 5 2009  Do chimps understand what Jon Stewart (or another chimp) believes? Cogntive Daily November 10 2009 The peeriodic table of illusions New Scientist, November 12, 2009 The Program in Ethics and Brain Sciences (PEBS) is a collaborative effort of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and the  Johns Hopkins Brain Sciences Institute . The goal of PEBS is to ensure that research in brain science proceeds with an informed understanding of ethical issues, and that philosophical and empirical analyses of the advances in brain research proceed with an informed understanding of the science.

Suchy-Dicey on "It Takes Two: Ethical Dualism in the Vegetative State"

Check out "It Takes Two: Ethical Dualism in the Vegetative State" by Carolyn Suchy-Dicey in the most recent issue of Neuroethics.  I'm pleased to report that Carolyn will be guest blogging here in January: 

Abstract:  To aid neuroscientists in determining the ethical limits of their work and its applications, neuroethical problems need to be identified, catalogued, and analyzed from the standpoint of an ethical framework. Many hospitals have already established either autonomy or welfare-centered theories as their adopted ethical framework. Unfortunately, the choice of an ethical framework resists resolution: each of these two moral theories claims priority at the exclusion of the other, but for patients with neurological pathologies, concerns about the patient’s welfare are treated as meaningless without consideration of the patient’s expressed wishes, and vice versa. Ethicists have long fought over whether suffering or autonomy should be our primary concern, but in neuroethics a resolution of this question is essential to determine the treatment of patients in medical and legal limbo. I propose a solution to this problem in the form of ethical dualism. This is a conservative measure in that it retains both sides of the debate: both happiness and autonomy have intrinsic value. However, this move is often met with resistance because of its more complex nature—it is more difficult to make a decision when there are two parallel sets of values that must be considered than when there is just one such set. The monist theories, though, do not provide enough explanatory power: namely, I will present two recently publicized cases where it is clear that neither ethical value on its own (neither welfare nor autonomy) can fully account for how a vegetative patient should be treated. From the neuroethical cases of Terri Schiavo and Lauren Richardson, I will argue that a dualist framework is superior to its monist predecessors, and I will describe the main features of such an account.

Shriver on "Knocking Out Pain in Livestock"

Adam Shriver will be guest blogging here in December.  In the meantime, check out his article (which has been discussed in popular media all over the place) in the newest issue of Neuroethics:

Knocking Out Pain in Livestock: Can Technology Succeed Where Morality has Stalled?

Abstract:  Though the vegetarian movement sparked by Peter Singer’s book Animal Liberation has achieved some success, there is more animal suffering caused today due to factory farming than there was when the book was originally written. In this paper, I argue that there may be a technological solution to the problem of animal suffering in intensive factory farming operations. In particular, I suggest that recent research indicates that we may be very close to, if not already at, the point where we can genetically engineer factory-farmed livestock with a reduced or completely eliminated capacity to suffer. In as much as animal suffering is the principal concern that motivates the animal welfare movement, this development should be of central interest to its adherents. Moreover, I will argue that all people concerned with animal welfare should agree that we ought to replace the animals currently used in factory farming with animals whose ability to suffer is diminished if we are able to do so.

PEBS News Roundup from Johns Hopkins

Last Edition's Most Popular Article Prescribing Cognitive Enhancers: A Primer Bioethics Forum October 28 2009 In the Academic Literature: The pathways of interoceptive awareness  Nature Neuroscience November 1 2009 Auditory plasticity and speech motor learning  PNAS November 2 2009 The neurogenetics of remembering emotions past PNAS November 4 2009 Issues Related to Deep Brain Stimulation for Treatment-Refractory Tourette's Syndrome  European Neurology 2009:62(5) Remission of major depression under deep brain stimulation of the lateral habenula in a therapy refractory patient Biological Psychiatry online October 28 2009 Neurotherapy: Progress in Restorative Neuroscience and Neurology   Progress in Brain Research 2009:175:379-391 Cortical representation of verbs with optional complements: The theoretical contribution of fMRI  Human Brain Mapping November 3 2009 In the Popular Press: Brave Thinkers   The Atlantic November 4 2009 Good Dog, Smart Dog  The New York Times October 31 2009 Murderer with 'aggression genes' gets sentence cut  New Scientist November 3 2009 Clever fools: Why a high IQ doesn't mean you're smart  New Scientist November 2 2009  NFL and dementia: research ethics joins the fray Bioethics Forum November 5 2009 The Program in Ethics and Brain Sciences (PEBS) is a collaborative effort of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and the  Johns Hopkins Brain Sciences Institute . The goal of PEBS is to ensure that research in brain science proceeds with an informed understanding of ethical issues, and that philosophical and empirical analyses of the advances in brain research proceed with an informed understanding of the science.

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup from Johns Hopkins

Last Edition's Most Popular Article Just what does make me 'me'?  BBC News October 28 2009 In the Academic Literature: Using Neural Measures of Economic Value to Solve the Public Goods Free-Rider Problem Science 2009:326(5952) :596-599 Induction of panic attack by stimulation of the ventromedial hypothalamus Journal of Neurosurgery October 23 2009 Neural activity predicts attitude change in cognitive dissonance Nature Neuroscience 2009:12:1469-1474 Behavioral improvement after transplantation of neural precursors derived from embryonic stem cells into the globally ischemic brain of adolescent rats Brain and Development October 23 2009 Thalamic deep brain stimulation for treatment-refractory Tourette syndrome Neurology 2009:73:1375-1380 Neural representation of time in cortico-basal ganglia circuits PNAS October 22 2009 Interdependence of movement and anatomy persists when amputees learn a physiologically impossible movement of their phantom limb PNAS October 26 2009 Training induces changes in white-matter architecture Nature Neuroscience 2009:12:1370-1371 In the Popular Press: Neuroscience: Shooting pain (Sean Mackey inflicts pain on people in the hope of learning how to relieve it.) Nature News October 28 2009 Sudden moves spark brain battle Nature News October 23 2009 Neuroethics Smackdown! Findings (Science Magazine Blog) October 22 2009 Clean Smells Promote Moral Behavior, Study Suggests Science Daily October 26 2009 Prescribing Cognitive Enhancers: A Primer Bioethics Forum October 28 2009 High testosterone linked to miserly behaviour New Scientist October 26 2009 Brain scanners can tell what you're thinking about New Scientist October 28 2009 Amputees defy anatomy, learn to move phantom limbs Reuters October 26 2009 The Program in Ethics and Brain Sciences (PEBS) is a collaborative effort of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and the  Johns Hopkins Brain Sciences Institute . The goal of PEBS is to ensure that research in brain science proceeds with an informed understanding of ethical issues, and that philosophical and empirical analyses of the advances in brain research proceed with an informed understanding of the science.

Behavioral Genetics and Mitigated Sentence in Italy

From Nature News:

An Italian court has cut the sentence given to a convicted murderer by a year because he has genes linked to violent behaviour — the first time that behavioural genetics has affected a sentence passed by a European court. But researchers contacted by Nature have questioned whether the decision was based on sound science.

And some more:

During the trial, Bayout's lawyer, Tania Cattarossi, asked the court to take into account that her client may have been mentally ill at the time of the murder. After considering three psychiatric reports, the judge, Paolo Alessio Vernì, partially agreed that Bayout's psychiatric illness was a mitigating factor and sentenced him to 9 years and 2 months in prison — around three years less than Bayout would have received had he been deemed to be of sound mind.

But at an appeal hearing in May this year, Pier Valerio Reinotti, a judge of the Court of Appeal in Trieste, asked forensic scientists for a new independent psychiatric report to decide whether he should commute the sentence further.

For the new report, Pietro Pietrini, a molecular neuroscientist at Italy's University of Pisa, and Giuseppe Sartori, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Padova, conducted a series of tests and found abnormalities in brain-imaging scans and in five genes that have been linked to violent behaviour — including the gene encoding the neurotransmitter-metabolizing enzyme monoamine oxidase A (MAOA).

Law professor Nita Farahany is quoted here:

"The point is that behavioural genetics is not there yet, we cannot explain individual behaviour, only large population statistics," says Nita Farahany of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, who specializes in the legal and ethical issues arising from behavioural genetics and neuroscience.

And some of her work mentioned here:

According to Farahany, who updates a personal database on sentences passed in the United States, in the past five years there have been at least 200 cases where lawyers have attempted to use genetic evidence to support the idea their clients' were predisposed to violent behaviour, depression or drug or alcohol abuse. In Britain, there have been at least 20 such cases in the past five years.

Experts, Consent, and Antipsychotic Medications in Neuroimaging Cases

Recently posted to SSRN:

"'And I Can See Through Your Brain': Access to Experts, Competency to Consent, and the Impact of Antipsychotic Medications in Neuroimaging Cases in the Criminal Trial Process" 

Stanford Technology Law Review, Forthcoming
NYLS Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08/09 #20

MICHAEL L. PERLIN, New York Law School
This paper considers the implications of neuroimaging in three under discussed aspects of criminal procedure - the implications of Ake v. Oklahoma (an indigent defendant's access to expert testimony) in cases where neuroimaging tests might be critical, (2) the defendant's competency to consent to the imposition of a neuroimaging test or examination; and (3) the impact of medications - specifically, antipsychotic medications - on a defendant's brain at the time that such a test is performed.

Given the warning signals that have been raised by commentators as to the potentiality of juror misuse and misinterpretation of neuroimaging testimony, it is critical that we take seriously the issues raised here. I conclude that there are hidden landmines inevitably present when we think about the use of neuroimaging in criminal trials - landmines that go can infect the fairness of the trial process itself.

If an indigent criminal defendant is refused access to an independent expert in an area where jurors may uncritically accept neuroimaging testimony (because of its visual appeal and its apparent lack of falsifiability), the fairness of the entire trial remains in question. If no attention is paid to the difficult and complex ethical issues that should surface if the question of the defendant's competency to consent to being tested is not raised, trial fairness is a concern. And finally, if we ignore the reality that the neuroimaging evidence shown to jurors may not be an accurate depiction of the defendant's brain at the time of the offense - but rather, a depiction of his brain at a later time when his brain biochemistry has been altered by the imposition of medication - we willfully blind ourselves to the possibility (perhaps "likelihood") that the database presented to the jury is potentially fatally flawed.