Neuroethics & Law Blog

Recently published on SSRN (and forthcoming in Drake Law Review):

 

"Under the Radar: Neuroimaging Evidence in the Criminal Courtroom"

 

LYN M. GAUDET, Arizona State University (ASU) - Center for Law, Science, and Innovation
GARY E. MARCHANT, Arizona State University - College of Law

This Article analyzes court decisions in 361 criminal cases involving neuroimaging evidence through the end of 2015. There has been a steady upward trend in the number of criminal cases considering neuroimaging evidence with the number of reported decisions being the highest in the most recent period of 2013-2015. Neuroimaging evidence has been used in competency, guilt, and penalty phases of criminal trials, with the most efficacy being seen in the penalty phase, especially in capital cases. In order to provide a helpful analysis of uses and trends of this specific type of evidence, this Article includes an identification of the specific neuroimaging modality used or requested in each case (CT, MRI, EEG, PET, SPECT), the reason for the request for neuroimaging, the legal argument involving the imaging data, and the court’s response. In addition, common concerns regarding the use of neuroimaging data are also addressed, including the complexity of the various techniques and analysis, individual variability of the brain, the time gap between scanning and the criminal act, and the ability to make statements about groups versus about one individual. As supported by the trends demonstrated in this analysis, there has been a shift in recent years from discussion about whether neuroimaging evidence is relevant and admissible toward admissibility of this type of evidence and a focus on the substantive results and appropriate use of the neuroimaging data.

International Bioethics Retreat in Paris

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

"Sixth Sense" May Be More Than Just a Feeling, NIH   The Psychology Behind Why Clowns Creep Us Out, The Conversation Tech Giants Team Up To Tackle The Ethics Of Artificial Intelligence, NPR Can CRISPR–Cas9 Boost Intelligence?, Scientific American Worldwide Brain-Mapping Project Sparks Excitement — and Concern, Nature Magazine Ants Get Addicted to Morphine, Nature Magazine Neuroscience and Psychology Have Rendered it Basically Unnecessary to Have a Soul, Quartz Election Buzz: A Look At Brain Science As 5 States Vote On Legalizing Pot, Kaiser Health News A Corner on the Neuromarket, The Neuroethics Blogs Rats That Reminisce May Lead To Better Tests For Alzheimer's Drugs, NPR How High Blood Pressure May Hurt Children’s Brains, The New York Times Psychedelic Experiences Might "Cure" Smoking and OCD. Should We Allow them?, Vox News BRAIN Initiative Fellows: Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) Individual Postdoctoral Fellowship (F32), NIH The 4 Traits That Put Kids at Risk for Addiction, The New York Times Can Sheer Willpower Keep Patients Alive in Their Dying Hours?, STAT Americans Wary of Using Chip Implants to Boost Brain Power for the Healthy, Pew Research Center Drug to Treat Alcohol Use Disorder Shows Promise among Drinkers with High Stress, NIH   Predicting the Future — Big Data, Machine Learning, and Clinical Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine Neural Signatures of Value Comparison in Human Cingulate Cortex during Decisions Requiring an Effort-Reward Trade-off, Journal of Neuroscience How MDMA Flows Across the USA: Evidence from Price Data, Global Crime The Opposite Lane: A Path to Memories?, Nature Neuroscience Too Bored to Stay Awake, Nature Neuroscience FMRP Regulates an Ethanol-Dependent Shift in GABABR Function and Expression with Rapid Antidepressant Properties, Nature Communications

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.

 

"Philosophy for Our Times" Podcast

The Institute of Art and Ideas recently introduced a new podcast, "Philosophy for Our Times". 

The launch line-up features eminent analytic philosopher John Searle, Nobel prize-winner Paul Krugman, How the Laws of Physics Lie author Nancy Cartwright, former leader of the Conservative Michael Howard and Guardian journalist Owen Jones. Debate questions include: “Are the laws of nature illusory?”, “Are there alternatives to Capitalism”, “Do we need a new account of truth?”, “Is the self real?”.

Episodes of interest include "Philosophy for Our Times" and particularly the debate regarding neuroscience and mental illness in "Mind, Myth and Madness".

The Effects of Closed-Loop Medical Devices on the Autonomy and Accountability of Persons and Systems"

"Effects of Closed-Loop Medical Devices on the Autonomy and Accountability of Persons and Systems" by Philipp Kellmeyer, Thomas Cochrane, Oliver Müller, Tonio Ball, Joseph J. Fins, and Nikola Biller-Andorno has recently been published in Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Volume 25, Issue 4 (Clinical Neuorethics):

Abstract

Closed-loop medical devices such as brain-computer interfaces are an emerging and rapidly advancing neurotechnology. The target patients for brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are often severely paralyzed, and thus particularly vulnerable in terms of personal autonomy, decisionmaking capacity, and agency. Here we analyze the effects of closed-loop medical devices on the autonomy and accountability of both persons (as patients or research participants) and neurotechnological closed-loop medical systems. We show that although BCIs can strengthen patient autonomy by preserving or restoring communicative abilities and/or motor control, closed-loop devices may also create challenges for moral and legal accountability. We advocate the development of a comprehensive ethical and legal framework to address the challenges of emerging closed-loop neurotechnologies like BCIs and stress the centrality of informed consent and refusal as a means to foster accountability. We propose the creation of an international neuroethics task force with members from medical neuroscience, neuroengineering, computer science, medical law, and medical ethics, as well as representatives of patient advocacy groups and the public.

"Parsing the Behavioral and Brain Mechanisms of Third-Party Punishment"

Recently published on SSRN (and in Journal of Neuroscience, Vol. 36, 9420-9434):

"Parsing the Behavioral and Brain Mechanisms of Third-Party Punishment" 

MATTHEW R. GINTHER, Vanderbilt University - Law School, Vanderbilt University - Neuroscience Graduate Program
RICHARD J. BONNIE, University of Virginia - School of Law
MORRIS B. HOFFMAN, Second Judicial District Court Judge, State of Colorado
FRANCIS X. SHEN, University of Minnesota Law School
KENNETH W. SIMONS, University of California, Irvine School of Law, Boston University - School of Law
OWEN D. JONES, Vanderbilt University - Law School & Dept. of Biological Sciences
RENE MAROIS, Vanderbilt University - Department of Psychology Center for Integrative and Cognitive Neuroscience

The evolved capacity for third-party punishment is considered crucial to the emergence and maintenance of elaborate human social organization and is central to the modern provision of fairness and justice within society. Although it is well established that the mental state of the offender and the severity of the harm he caused are the two primary predictors of punishment decisions, the precise cognitive and brain mechanisms by which these distinct components are evaluated and integrated into a punishment decision are poorly understood.

Using a brain-scanning technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we implemented a novel experimental design to functionally dissociate the mechanisms underlying evaluation, integration, and decision. This work revealed that multiple parts of the brain – some analytic, some subconscious or emotional – work in a systematic pattern to decide blameworthiness, assess harms, integrate those two decisions, and then ultimately select how a person should be punished. Specifically, harm and mental state evaluations are conducted in two different brain networks and then combined in the medial prefrontal and posterior cingulate areas of the brain, while the amygdala acts as a pivotal hub of the interaction between harm and mental state. This integrated information is then used by the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex when the brain is making a decision on punishment amount.

These findings provide a blueprint of the brain mechanisms by which neutral third parties make punishment decisions.

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

As More States Consider Legalizing, Questions About Pot And The Brain, NPR   Worldwide Brain-Mapping Project Sparks Excitement — and Concern, Nature Magazine "Sixth Sense" May Be More Than Just a Feeling, NIH It’s Time for a Serious Debate About Head Transplants, New Scientist Head Transplant Team’s New Animal Tests Fail to Convince Critics, New Scientist Brain Has Carrot and Stick to Teach Us How to Behave, New Scientist My Sister Made Her End-of-Life Wishes Clear. Then Dementia Took Hold, STAT Watching Films Releases 'Natural Painkiller', BBC News This Wi-Fi Can Tell If You're Sad, Gizmodo How Can We Address Real Concerns Over Artificial Intelligence?, The Guardian First 3-D Map of a Fruit Fly’s Brain Network, MIT Technology Blog Where Creativity Comes From, Scientific American Why Teen Brains Need Later School Start Time, The Conversation Blind People Use Brain’s Visual Cortex to Help Do Maths, New Scientist Embodied Cognition: What it means to "Throw like a Girl", The Neuroethics Blog Are the Experts Worried About the Existential Risk of Artificial Intelligence?, MIT Technology Review Math Study Shows Our Brains Are Far More Adaptable than We Know, Johns Hopkins' HUB NIH Announces Funding Concepts for Fiscal Year 2017, NIH Drunk People Feel Soberer around Heavy Drinkers, Scientific American Hawaiian Crows Join Tool-Users Club, New York Times Horses Can Use Symbols to Talk to Us, Science Magazine More Child Suicides Are Linked to A.D.D. Than Depression, Study Suggests, New York Times   Absence of Visual Experience Modifies the Neural Basis of Numerical Thinking, PNAS The Human Connectome Project's Neuroimaging Approach, Nature Neuroscience Is the Brain Prewired for Letters?, Nature Neuroscience A Dendritic Disinhibitory Circuit Mechanism for Pathway-Specific Gating, Nature Communications

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.

 

Macquarie Workshop on Dementia in the Courtroom

Via Allan McCay:

The Macquarie University Research Centre for Agency, Values, and Ethics (CAVE), the Agency and Moral Cognition Network, and the Australian Neurolaw Database Project are co-hosting a workshop on dementia in the courtroom.

Workshop: Dementia in the Courtroom

Date: Friday 14 October 2016

Time: 14:45 - 17:00

Venue: TBC, Macquarie University

All are welcome, but please register with Jeanette Kennett for catering purposes: jeanette.kennett@mq.edu.au

Dementia is the single greatest cause of disability in older Australians aged 65 and over, with a significant associated economic and social burden. Given our aging population there will be an increasing number of people with dementia entering the legal system, creating unique challenges around evidence, capacity, responsibility, just sentencing, and management of offenders.

Dementia may affect capacity to make decisions in various legal domains, including financial management and creation or alteration of a will. Fronto-temporal dementia (behavioural type) causes changes in a person's behaviour and personality, which can result in criminal behaviour. In this workshop, an expert panel will discuss a selection of recent criminal cases from the Australian Neurolaw Database (www.neurolaw.edu.au) where dementia has been a central issue and draw out the legal, ethical and policy issues raised by these cases.

Expert Panellists will include:

• Associate Professor Arlie Loughnan: Criminal Law Theorist
• Dr Hayley Bennett: Barrister and Neuropsychologist
• Dr Pauline Langeluddeke: Clinical Psychologist and expert witness
  
  Program: 
  
  14:45 - 15:05: Registration and afternoon tea
  15:05 - 15:10: Welcome and Introductions
  15:10 - 16:15: Presentation of cases and panel discussion
  16:15 - 16:45: Q&A
  16:45 - 17:00: Summing up and close

All are welcome!

CAVE Website: mq.edu.au/cave/events

Facebook: www.facebook.com/MQCAVE

Australian Neurolaw Database: www.neurolaw.edu.au

Agency and Moral Cognition Network: http://mq.edu.au/cave/research-clusters/agency-and-moral-cognition-network

"Law and Neuroscience: What, Why and Where to Begin"

Via the folks at Vanderbilt:

The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience is pleased to announce the release of a new product, Law and Neuroscience: What, Why and Where to Begin. This brief, important tool will help inform the legal, policy, and justice advocacy communities about the ways in which law and neuroscience are intersecting, and potential applications for their work.

In addition to providing a wealth of resources and information, the tool offers basic answers to common questions about neurolaw, such as: What new developments have emerged in the past decades that we should be aware of? What are neurolaw’s potential legal applications and limitations? What are the neuroscientific technologies, and how do they work? And, why should I care about this new field and how could it impact me?

You can view and download Law and Neuroscience: What, Why and Where to Begin on the Network website here:http://www.lawneuro.org/neurolawintro.pdf

In conjunction with the release of the Network’s new product, Network Director Owen D. Jones also published an op-ed in the September 12 edition of the National Law Journal titled “Readying the Legal Community for More Neuroscientific Evidence: Understanding complex advances in neurolaw can aid the administration of justice.”

The op-ed outlines the promise – and pitfalls – of the rapidly expanding field of neurolaw, and why it behooves legal practitioners to educate themselves about it. To read the op-ed, please click here and register for free to access.

"Perceiving Law"

Recently published on SSRN:

 

"Perceiving Law"

 

CHRISTIAN TURNER, University of Georgia Law School

The more we examine what is behind our most difficult legal questions, the more puzzling it can seem that we continue both to disagree strongly and, yet, to cooperate. If law is a reasoned enterprise, how is it that we are neither torn apart nor homogenized by our long social practice of it? I resolve this puzzle, and arrive at a richer understanding of law, using the idea of modeling familiar from the natural sciences and mathematics. I show both that theorists can model legal systems as abstract systems of institutions, information flows, and institutional processing or reasoning and that the participants in a legal system themselves maintain and evaluate models of this sort. Understanding law this way clarifies numerous problems ranging from pluralism to legal interpretation. This work emphasizes four major points of the theory:

(1) An individual’s perception of law is an act of empathetic model-identification, model-building, and attitudinal judgment with respect to a perceived, ongoing instance of cooperation.

(2) All such models can be described as systems of information-connected institutions that each (a) receive inputs from other institutions, (b) process those inputs according to sets of reasons, and (c) produce informational output.

(3) Each institution is modeled by its participants as (a) maintaining its own set of reasons for decisionmaking, those reasons terminating in a local, ultimate rule of recognition but also (b) possessing rules that take account of the information produced by other institutions, such rules coming in various flavors of scrutiny and deference.

(4) The human conceptual system generates many such models depending on the question being asked and produces judgments through simulation. The fact that such modeling happens at many different scales, depending on the question contemplated, explains theoretical disagreement and agreement, otherwise puzzling problems of pluralism, and the moral/legal interface.

Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences Fellowship Applications

Via here:

The Goal:

This fellowship is intended for people who want an academic or policy career working on legal and social issues arising from advances in the biosciences, with a particular emphasis on neuroscience, genetics, or stem cell research.  (Ten of our former fellows are now teaching at universities in the United States, Asia, and Europe.)

The Fellowship:

The Center for Law and the Biosciences Fellowship is a residential fellowship that provides an opportunity to conduct research in the dynamic environment of Stanford Law School.  We prefer two-year fellowships to help the fellow complete a significant body of independent scholarship, but we are willing to consider one-year terms.  We expect fellows to dedicate most of their time to pursuing their proposed research projects, while dedicating about one-sixth of their time to organizing and implementing other Center activities, including our annual conference, our monthly speaker series, our biweekly journal club, and our other activities, as well as writing for our blog.  Fellows are encouraged to become part of a lively law-school-wide community of individuals with an interest in legal academia by attending weekly faculty lunch seminars and participating in activities with the other fellows at Stanford Law School to learn more about their legal scholarship and academic life.  For the 2017-2018 fellowship, we will provide fellows with work space, a competitive stipend, and a generous benefits package.  Applicants should have a JD or other doctoral level degree (MD, PhD) in a relevant area.  A law degree is a substantial advantage, but is not a requirement. (Note – we expect to hire a new fellow for 2017 but that is contingent on funding.)

The Center:

The Center for Law and the Biosciences, directed by Professor Hank Greely, examines bioscience discoveries in the context of the law, weighing their impact on society and the law’s role in shaping that impact.  The Center is part of the Stanford Program in Law, Science & Technology.

Located at the heart of the world’s biotechnology industry and inside a preeminent research university, the Center brings together academics, lawyers, scientists, policy-makers, and students.  Through conferences, workshops, lectures, and academic courses, the Center promotes research and public discourse on the ethical, legal, scientific, economic, and social implications of accelerated technological change in the life sciences.  For more information, visit our website at clb.stanford.edu.

The Application Process:

Applicants should submit a CV with contact information for three references, a writing sample, and a research proposal (2000 words or less) to the Stanford Career website: https://stanfordcareers.stanford.edu/job-search?jobId=72455.

Application Deadline: Monday, December 5, 2016 at 5:00 PM Pacific time. We will choose fellows based on demonstrated academic merit and potential, and on the intellectual strength of their research proposals. Decisions will be made on or around Friday, December 16, 2016.