Neuroethics & Law Blog

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

Last Edition's Most Popular Article(s): This Is a Baby’s Brain on Pain, TIME In The Popular Press: The Brain of a Tinnitus Sufferer, New York Times Sugar as a Stress Reliever, New York Times: Well Blog Neurons Rewrite Their DNA On The Go, Science 2.0 Bioethics Commission Recommends Further Research on Consent Capacity and Ethical Protections for Participants, Blog of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues This Is What Happens When You Read to a Child, TIME Deep Learning Machine Solves the Cocktail Party Problem, MIT Technology Review Can Sugar be Addicting?, The Neuroethics Blog Tired Of Getting Songs Stuck In Your Head? Try This One Weird (And Delicious) Trick!, Discover Brain Circuitry of Positive Vs Negative Memories Discovered In Mice, National Institutes of Health Souped-Up Remote Control Switches Behaviors On-And-Off In Mice, National Institutes of Health Air Pollution Tied to Brain Aging, New York Times: Well Blog The Brain Tumor Is Benign, but Threats Remain, New York Times: Well Blog In the Academic Literature: Internet-Based Brain Training Games, Citizen Scientists, and Big Data: Ethical Issues in Unprecedented Virtual Territories, Neuron Cognitive Training Enhances Intrinsic Brain Connectivity in Childhood, The Journal of Neuroscience Want To Block Earworms From Conscious Awareness? B(u)y Gum!, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Subscribe to our mailing list 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.

 

"The Myth of the Double-Edged Sword: An Empirical Study of Neuroscience Evidence in Criminal Cases"

Recently published in SSRN (and recently published in 56 Boston College Law Review 493-551 (2015)):

 

"The Myth of the Double-Edged Sword: An Empirical Study of Neuroscience Evidence in Criminal Cases"

 

DEBORAH W. DENNO, Fordham University School of Law

This Article presents the results of my unique study of 800 criminal cases addressing neuroscience evidence over the past two decades (1992-2012). Many legal scholars have theorized about the impact of neuroscience evidence on the criminal law, but this is the first empirical study of its kind to systematically investigate how courts assess the mitigating and aggravating strength of such evidence. My analysis reveals that neuroscience evidence is usually offered to mitigate punishments in the way that traditional criminal law has always allowed, especially in the penalty phase of death penalty trials. This finding controverts the popular image of neuroscience evidence as a double-edged sword — one that will either get defendants off the hook altogether or unfairly brand them as posing a future danger to society. To the contrary, my study indicates that neuroscience evidence is typically introduced for a well-established legal purpose — to provide fact-finders with more complete, reliable, and precise information when determining a defendant’s fate. My study also shows that courts accept neuroscience evidence for this purpose, and in fact expect attorneys to raise this evidence when possible on behalf of their clients. This expectation is so entrenched that courts are willing to grant defendants their “ineffective assistance of counsel” claims when attorneys fail to pursue this mitigating evidence. Meanwhile, my study also reveals that the potential future danger posed by defendants is rarely a facet of cases involving neuroscience evidence — again contradicting the myth of the double-edged sword. The cases that do address future danger, however, offer fascinating insight into the complex legal issues raised by neuroscience evidence. As courts continue to embrace neuroscience tools and techniques, the empirical data collected in my study provide a foundation for discussions regarding the use of neuroscience evidence in criminal cases. The findings presented in this Article will ensure that those discussions are grounded in fact rather than hyperbole.

A NY Court Decides Chimps Can Challenge Detention

See here, and see my 2001 paper on legal personhood for apes.

Fellow, Stanford Program in Neuroscience and Society

Fellow, Stanford Program in Neuroscience and Society

Description
Stanford Law School invites applications for the 2015-2016 Fellowship in the Stanford Program in Neuroscience and Society (SPINS), part of the Center for Law and the Biosciences.

The Goal
This fellowship is intended for people who want an academic or policy career working on ethical, legal, and social issues arising from advances in neuroscience.

The Center
The Stanford Program in Neuroscience and Society (SPINS) is an initiative newly funded by the Stanford Neuroscience Institute and directed by Professor Hank Greely of Stanford Law School. SPINS will examine the effects of neuroscience discoveries on society and on law. SPINS will be run with the Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences, also directed by Professor Greely. That Center, in turn, is part of the Law School’s Program in Law, Science & Technology.

Located at the heart of the world’s biotechnology industry and inside a preeminent research university, SPINS will bring together academics, lawyers, scientists, policy-makers, and students. Through conferences, workshops, lectures, and academic courses, the Program promotes research and public discourse on the ethical, legal, scientific, economic, and social implications of accelerated technological change in the life sciences. A special aspect of this Program is that each year it will conduct a workshop process focusing on a concrete near-term or mid-term ethical, social, or legal issue arising from neuroscience. The Program will produce and disseminate recommendations about that issue in an effort to increase public understanding and to influence public policy.
Qualifications
 
The Fellowship is a residential fellowship that provides an opportunity to conduct research in the dynamic environment of Stanford Law School. This is a one-year Fellowship with the possibility of a one year extension. We are accepting applications from candidates with a background, knowledge, and interest in both neuroscience and some aspect of law, policy, ethics, or social analysis. One of the main expectations and responsibilities of the fellowship will be managing the annual working group process described above. We expect fellows to dedicate much of their time to that working group project. The rest of the time they will pursue their own research projects, in preparation for their post-fellowship career, while also devoting about one-sixth of their time to organizing and implementing other SPINS activities, including public events and writing for our blog. Fellows are encouraged to attend weekly faculty lunch seminars and participate in activities with the other fellows at Stanford Law School to learn more about their legal scholarship and academic life. For the 2015-2016 fellowship, we will provide fellows with office space, a competitive salary, and a generous benefits package. Applicants should have a JD or other doctoral level degree (MD, PhD) in a relevant area. The expected start date for this fellowship is the start of the academic year (2015-2016) or the summer shortly before the start of the Stanford academic year.

The Application Process
Applicants should submit a CV, contact information for three references, a writing sample, and a discussion of their own planned research (in 2000 words or less) to the Stanford Career website: https://stanfordcareers.stanford.edu/job-search?jobId=66427

Application Deadline: Friday, May 23, 2015. We will choose the fellow based on demonstrated academic merit and on the intellectual strength of their research proposals. Decisions will be made by early June.

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

Last Edition's Most Popular Article(s): Brain Development in Children Could be Affected by Poverty, Study Shows, The Guardian In The Popular Press: Sushi Science: A 3-D View Of The Body's Wasabi Receptor, NPR Shots Blog Art for the Knowing Nose, NY Times Neuroethics: New Wine in Old Bottles?The Ethics Blog, Uppsala University Defeating Alzheimer’s by 2025 could be within reach, Quartz On Killing: Neuroscience and State-Sponsored Executions, The Neuroethics Blog Brain size and socioeconomic status, Practical Ethics Blog, Oxford University Cultural neuroscience and health: Developing an international cultural neuroscience consortium, The NIH OBSSR Connector Thought-Controlled Genes Could Someday Help Us Heal, Scientific American There's no such thing as a sex drive, New Scientist Work Begins on Brain Stimulator to Correct Memory, MIT Tech Review IBM Tests Mobile Computing Pioneer’s Controversial Brain Algorithms, MIT Tech Review A Navigation System for Rats Nearly as Good as Sight, NY Times The Ideal Brain Scanner, Neuroskeptic In the Academic Literature: Special Issue: Reviews on Neuroengineering, Neuron An Ethics Toolbox for Neurotechnology, Neuron The neural correlates of justified and unjustified killing: an fMRI study, Social, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Guns, Impulsive Angry Behavior, and Mental Disorders: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), Behavioral Sciences & The Law Learning-induced autonomy of sensorimotor systems Artificial Association of Pre-stored Information to Generate a Qualitatively New Memory, Cell Reports Gender Differences in Responses to Moral Dilemmas, Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin

Subscribe to our mailing list 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.

 

"Bad Boys’ Brains: Law, Neuroscience and the Gender of ‘Aggressive’ Behavior"

Recently published in SSRN (and recently published in Gendered Neurocultures: Feminist and Queer Perspectives on Current Brain Discourses, Zaglossus, Vienna, 2014 (eds. Sigrid Schmitz and Grit Hoppner)):

 

"Bad Boys’ Brains: Law, Neuroscience and the Gender of ‘Aggressive’ Behavior"

 

KAREN O'CONNELL, University of Technology Sydney, Faculty of Law

As law begins to integrate neuroscientific research about behavior, brain-based models of identity are emerging. In these models, behaviors such as aggression, swearing and impulsivity are increasingly categorized as brain-based disabilities, raising questions about how law should respond. 

In the public institution of school, an increasing cohort of students are exhibiting what would once have been considered “bad” behavior and a trigger for exclusion from school. Yet with this rapidly expanding knowledge about the biological bases of behavior, students with challenging behavior can increasingly invoke the protection of disability discrimination laws. Such behavior may also be viewed through a criminal lens, as “anti-social” behavior, which ultimately tends to exclusion from public institutions rather than inclusion. Should law take a protective or punitive stance towards people exhibiting “anti-social” behaviors if those behaviors have a biological source? 

Taking a feminist approach, this paper addresses gender and disability in Australian discrimination cases on “bad” behavior. It argues for a contextual approach to regulating brain-based behavior, one that sees the brain as inseparable from its functioning within the body and embedded in overlapping biological, social and environmental systems. Such an approach makes visible the gendered underpinnings of unacceptable behavior and how it is regulated in law.

"Behavioral Public Choice and the Law"

Recently published in SSRN (and forthcoming in West Virginia Law Review, Vol. 118 (2015)):

 

"Behavioral Public Choice and the Law"

 

GARY LUCAS, JR., Texas A&M School of Law
SLAVISA TASIC, University of Mary

Behavioral public choice is the study of irrationality among political actors. In this context, irrationality means systematic bias, a deviation from rational expectations, or other departure from economists’ conception of rationality. Behavioral public choice scholars extend the insights of behavioral economics to the political realm and show that irrational behavior is an important source of government failure. This Article makes an original contribution to the legal literature by systematically reviewing the findings of behavioral public choice and explaining their implications for the law and legal institutions. We discuss the various biases and heuristics that lead political actors to support and adopt bad laws and describe how irrationality influences specific areas of the law, including tax, antitrust, consumer protection, corporate, and employment law. We also discuss various proposals for minimizing the effects of irrationality on public policy. Our goal is to introduce this new field of research to legal scholars, most of whom have previously ignored it. Familiarity with behavioral public choice will help legal scholars better understand the types of policies that are likely to emerge from real-world political processes and will facilitate efforts to promote realistic policy reform.

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

Last Edition's Most Popular Article(s): Bioethics Commission Releases Final Neuroscience Report as Part of BRAIN Initiative: Focuses on Controversial Topics that Must be Addressed if Neuroscience is to Progress and be Applied Ethically, The Blog of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues In The Popular Press: Brain Development in Children Could be Affected by Poverty, Study Shows, The Guardian In Brazil, Some Inmates Get Therapy With Hallucinogenic Tea, New York Times Mood-Altering Drug Use Highest in West Virginia, Lowest in Alaska, Gallup Science and Ethics: Deep Brain Stimulation for the Treatment of Anorexia, Oxford Practical Ethics Blog Neuron Encyclopaedia Fires up to Reveal Brain Secrets, Nature News Repurposed Experimental Cancer Drug Restores Brain Function In Mouse Models Of Alzheimer’s Disease, NIH Bioethics Commission Makes Recommendations on Existing and Novel Methods to Maintain and Improve Neural Health, Blog of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues We Must Pull Together To Grasp Consciousness, New Scientist The Goosebumps Test: Science Has Found The Emotion You Need To Stay Healthy, Quartz This Is What Your Brain Looks Like During An Orgasm, Vox A Social Network Designed to Combat Depression, Wired The Right Headphones Can Train Your Brain To Be Calm, Quartz How the Brain Makes Memories, Scientific American Why Macaroni And Cheese Tastes So Good When We’re Down, Washington Post A Search Engine Could Become The First True Artificial Intelligence, Quartz Non-Invasive Technique Allows Amputee To Use Bionic Hand, Powered By His Thoughts, Science Daily The Brain-Belly Connection: Scientists Find Key Genetic Triggers In Weight-Regulating Brain Cells, Science Daily In the Academic Literature: The Effect Of Music Performance On The Transcriptome Of Professional Musicians, Scientific Reports Insight Reconfigures Hippocampal-Prefrontal Memories, Current Biology The Apple Of The Mind's Eye: Everyday Attention, Metamemory, And Reconstructive Memory For The Apple Logo, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Brain Feminization Requires Active Repression Of Masculinization Via DNA Methylation, Nature Neuroscience Searching for Explanations: How the Internet Inflates Estimates of Internal Knowledge, Journal of Experimental Psychology Mental States as Emergent Properties: From Walking to Consciousness, Open MIND Project

Subscribe to our mailing list 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.