Neuroethics & Law Blog

"Commons, Cognition, and Climate Change"

Recently posted on SSRN: "Commons, Cognition, and Climate Change"

CAROL M. ROSE, University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law

Coping with climate disruption is often characterized as a commons or collective action problem. In this essay I argue that certain major cognitive blockages are inherent in the structure of commons or collective problems—especially such large scale collective problems as climate disruption. The essay identifies those baked-in cognitive impediments as distrust, ignorance, and insouciance, and it describes how they emerge from the structure of collective action. The essay then discusses some potential antidotes to collective action cognitive blockages, including motivated belief, commitment, and what I call interestingness and fun. Since these antidotes would appear to be rather weak in the face of a collective action problem so vast as climate disruption, the essay turns to types of action that potentially reduce the collective character of climate issues; here I discuss adaptation, geoengineering, and market measures. The essay concludes that market measures would appear to be the most promising, insofar as they can turn climate-related collective action into decision-making based on small-group or individual interest.

 

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

Bizarre Brain-Implant Experiment Sought to "Cure" Homosexuality, Scientific American: Cross-Check   The Science of Fright: Why We Love to be Scared, The Conversation Why We Still Don’t Understand Sleep, and Why it Matters, Mosaic Does Regulating Artificial Intelligence Save Humanity or Just Stifle Innovation?, The Conversation Scientists and Surgeons Team Up to Create Virtual Human Brain Cells, NPR How Fiction Becomes Fact on Social Media, New York Times We Need Computers with Empathy, MIT Technology Review Neuroscience Sense. Guest, Amanda Pustilnik, The Week in Health Law Blade Runner 2049, Parfit and Identity, Practical Ethics, University of Oxford What's the Worst Taste in the World?, Gizmodo Scaring Babies for Science, Discover Magazine How to Root Out Hidden Biases in AI, MIT Technology Review A Lazy Person's Guide to Happiness, The Atlantic Predictably Unpredictable: Why We Don't Act Like We Should, NPR The Science of Puppy Dog Eyes, Nature Magazine “Hyper Brains”? High Intelligence and Health, Discover Magazine Too Far or Not Far Enough: The Ethics and Future of Neuroscience and Law, The Neuroethics Blog   Social Comparison in the Brain: A Coordinate-Based Meta-Analysis of Functional Brain Imaging Studies on the Downward and Upward Comparisons, Human Brain Mapping Positive Allosteric Modulation of Cannabinoid Receptor Type 1 Suppresses Pathological Pain Without Producing Tolerance or Dependence, Biological Psychiatry Semagacestat is a Pseudo-Inhibitor of γ-Secretase, Cell Reports

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.

 

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

Scientists Somehow Just Discovered a New System of Vessels in Our Brains, The Atlantic   Bizarre Brain-Implant Experiment Sought to "Cure" Homosexuality, Scientific American: Cross-Check Magic mushrooms 'reboot' brain in depressed people – study, The Guardian Computer Learns To Play Go At Superhuman Levels 'Without Human Knowledge,' NPR: The Two-Way Can you predict future brain damage? Hundreds of pro fighters are helping researchers find out, STAT What happened when I made my students turn off their phones, Aeon You Think With the World, Not Just Your Brain, The Atlantic Studies Skewed By Focus On Well-Off, Educated Brains, NPR: Shots Peer pressure forced whales and dolphins to evolve big brains, like humans, Quartz Four brain genes help explain obsessive compulsive disorder, New Scientist Brain game: the freaky factor of artificial intelligence, The Guardian Do gamers behave the way game theory predicts they should? The Conversation You Could Become an AI Master Before You Know It. Here’s How. MIT Technology Review  The Neuroethics Blog Reader, The Neuroethics Blog Postdoctoral Fellowship in Neuroethics and Neurotechnology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences   Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge, Nature Psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression: fMRI-measured brain mechanisms, Scientific Reports Clinical Ethics in the Context of Deep Brain Stimulation for Movement Disorders, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology Importance of a species’ socioecology: Wolves outperform dogs in a conspecific cooperation task, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science N-back Versus Complex Span Working Memory Training, Journal of Cognitive Enhancement Stress and Exploitative Decision-Making, Journal of Neuroscience Eye-Tracking Causality, Psychological Science

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.

 

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

The Real Reason Some People Become Addicted to Drugs, The Conversation   My Sudden Synaesthesia: How I Went Blind and Started Hearing Colours, Mosaic Science Scientists Somehow Just Discovered a New System of Vessels in Our Brains, The Atlantic We Almost Gave Up On Building Artificial Brains, Discover Magazine Brains, 3:AM Magazine Who Is Rachael? Blade Runner and Personal Identity, Iai News Blade Runner’s Chillingly Prescient Vision of the Future, The Conversation Does Modern Neuroscience Really Help Us Understand Behavior?, Massive The Neuroethics Blog Series on Black Mirror: San Junipero, The Neuroethics Blog Toward an Imagination Science, Scientific American Little-Known Drug Keeps Climbers’ Minds Sharp at High Altitude, New Scientist How to Dump Someone the Humane Way, The Washington Post Acupuncture Works by ‘Re-Wiring’ the Brain, Evidence Suggests, Discover Magazine “I’d Choose Friends by the Flavor of Their Names”: The Rare Trait That Lets People Taste Sounds, Quartz   Inside the Moonshot Effort to Finally Figure Out the Brain, MIT Technology Review   Short Term Changes in the Proteome of Human Cerebral Organoids Induced by 5-MeO-DMT, Scientific Reports The Dopaminergic Reward System Underpins Gender Differences in Social Preferences, Nature Human Behavior Distal Axotomy Enhances Retrograde Presynaptic Excitability onto Injured Pyramidal Neurons via Trans-Synaptic Signaling, Nature Communications Disruption and Rescue of Interareal Theta Phase Coupling and Adaptive Behavior, PNAS Bilateral extracephalic transcranial direct current stimulation improves endurance performance in healthy individuals, Brain Stimulation

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.

 

"Brief of Amici Curiae of 11 Addiction Experts in Support of Appellee"

Recently posted on SSRN: "Brief of Amici Curiae of 11 Addiction Experts in Support of Appellee" 

GENE M. HEYMAN, Boston College - Department of Psychology

SCOTT O. LILIENFELD, Emory University - Emory College of Arts and Sciences

STEPHEN MORSE, University of Pennsylvania Law School

SALLY SATEL, American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

This brief is a critique of the brain disease model and many supposed implications of that model. It begins with a brief history of the model and moves to a discussion of the motivations behind the characterization of addiction as a “chronic and relapsing brain disease.” We follow with an enumeration of fallacious inferences based upon the brain disease model, including the very notion that addiction becomes a “brain disease” simply because it has neurobiological correlates. Regardless of whether addiction is labeled a brain disease, the real question, we contend, is whether the behavioral manifestations of addiction are unresponsive to contingencies. We then present an overview of data demonstrating that addiction is a set of behaviors whose course can be altered by foreseeable consequences. The same cannot be said of conventional brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s or multiple sclerosis. The best scientific and clinical data we have do not support the view that addicts are unable to refrain from using substances by choice. By “choice” we mean the product of the capacity to respond to incentive and reasons, which obviously varies among addicts but which are virtually never entirely lost. Data amply show that addicts retain that capacity. Finally, we demonstrate how a decision in favor of the probationer could have significant implications for the future of treatment-based approaches to criminal justice, as well as for criminal responsibility more generally. We conclude that the probationer’s claim should be denied because it rests on refuted scientific premises and will have negative consequences if it is accepted.

"Neuroscience Nuance: Dissecting the Relevance of Neuroscience in Adjudicating Criminal Culpability"

Recently posted on SSRN: "Neuroscience Nuance: Dissecting the Relevance of Neuroscience in Adjudicating Criminal Culpability"

CHRISTOPHER SLOBOGIN, Vanderbilt University - Law School

Most scholars who have written about the role of neuroscience in determining criminal liability and punishment take a stance somewhere between those who assert that neuroscience has virtually nothing to say about such determinations and those that claim it will upend the assumption that most choices to commit crime are blameworthy. At the same time, those who take this intermediate position have seldom clarified how they think neuroscience can help. This article tries to answer that question more precisely than most works in this vein. It identifies five types of neuroscience evidence that might be presented by the defense and discusses when that evidence is material under accepted legal doctrine. It concludes that, even on the assumption that the data presented are accurate, much commonly proffered neuroscientific evidence is immaterial or only weakly material, not only at trial but also at sentencing. At the same time, it recognizes that certain types of neuroscience evidence can be very useful in criminal adjudication, especially at sentencing.

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

Humans Have Way Less Agency Than We Think. Be Grateful For the Illusion, Quartz   Understanding the Neuroscience and Philosophy of Consciousness, Bill of Health, Harvard Law How Science Saved Me from Pretending to Love Wine, The New Yorker “It is Sometimes a Sad Life, and it is a Long Life:” Artificial Intelligence and Mind Uploading in World of Tomorrow, The Neuroethics Blog The Touch of Madness, Pacific Standard An Inner Look into the Minds and Brains of People with OCD, Scientific American ‘But You Can’t Do That!’ Why Immoral Actions Seem Impossible, Aeon If You’re Not a White Male, Artificial Intelligence’s Use in Healthcare Could Be Dangerous, Quartz The Real Reason Some People Become Addicted to Drugs, The Conversation In or Out – How Brain Activity Can Predict Your Vote on Brexit, The British Psychological Society - Research Digest What Machines Can't Do, Iai Player Book Review: “Into the Gray Zone” by Adrian Owen, Bill of Health, Harvard Law What Songbirds Could Teach Us About Constructive Tweeting, Aeon Center for Neuroscience and Society Visiting Scholars, University of Pennsylvania     Switch to Standard View The Neuroscience of Socioeconomic Status: Correlates, Causes, and Consequences, Neuron Graphic Violence as Moral Motivator: The Effects of Graphically Violent Content in News, Mass Communication and Society Spontaneous Reoccurrence of “Scooping”, a Wild Tool-Use Behaviour, in Naïve Chimpanzees, PeerJ Bottlenose Dolphins That Forage with Artisanal Fishermen Whistle Differently, Ethology The Rewarding Nature of Social Contact, Science Magazine Intermittent Stimulation of the Nucleus Basalis of Meynert Improves Working Memory in Adult Monkeys, Science Magazine Should a Few Null Findings Falsify Prefrontal Theories of Conscious Perception?, Journal of Neuroscience

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.

 

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

The Social Life of Opioids, Scientific American   Brain Stimulation Partly Awakens Patient After 15 years in Vegetative State, STAT Ethical Issues when Modelling Brain Disorders in Non-human Primates, Journal of Medical Ethics Blog Yes, Aaron Hernandez Suffered Brain Injury. But That May Not Explain His Violence, The New York Times Humans Have Way Less Agency Than We Think. Be Grateful For the Illusion, Quartz SJC to Weigh if Courts Can Force Sobriety on Drug Users, Boston Globe 42 Minutes, £2,600 Lost: The U.K.’s Growing Gambling Problem, The New York Times Is it Possible to Be Scared to Death?, The Atlantic Neanderthal Brains 'Grew More Slowly', BBC News Intel’s New Ship Design Takes Pointers from Your Brain, Wired Magazine Can Neuroscience Inform Everyday Life? The “Translation Problem”, Discover Magazine Is it Ethical for Scientists to Create Nonhuman Primates with Brain Disorders?, The Hastings Center The Heavy Metal Brain, Discover Magazine Bringing My Own Kind of ‘Madness’ to the Office, The New York Times   Positive Mood on the Day of Influenza Vaccination Predicts Vaccine Effectiveness: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study, Brain, Behavior, and Immunity The Moral Bioenhancement of Psychopaths, Journal of Medical Ethics Public Attitudes Towards Moral Enhancement. Evidence that Means Matter Morally, Neuroethics

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.

 

"Retributive Justifications for Jail Diversion of Individuals with Mental Disorder"

Recently posted on SSRN:  "Retributive Justifications for Jail Diversion of Individuals with Mental Disorder"

E. LEA JOHNSTON, University of Florida - Levin College of Law

Jail diversion programs have proliferated across the United States as a means to decrease the incarceration of individuals with mental illnesses. These programs include pre-adjudication initiatives, such as Crisis Intervention Teams, as well as post-adjudication programs, such as mental health courts and specialized probationary services. Post-adjudication programs often operate at the point of sentencing, so their comportment with criminal justice norms is crucial. This article investigates whether and under what circumstances post-adjudication diversion for offenders with serious mental illnesses may cohere with principles of retributive justice. Key tenets of retributive theory are that punishments must not be inhumane and that their severity must be proportionate to an offender’s desert. Three retributive rationales could justify jail diversion for offenders with serious mental illnesses: reduced culpability, the avoidance of inhumane punishment, and the achievement of punishment of equal impact with similarly situated offenders. The article explores current proposals to effectuate these rationales, their manifestations in law, and how these considerations may impact decisions to divert individuals with serious mental illnesses from jail to punishment in the community.