The Law and Neuroscience Blog

Welcome to the Law and Neuroscience Blog

 

Welcome to the The Law and Neuroscience Blog--which we have created to provide an on-line forum where the members of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience can share their ideas and interact with not only other researchers but also with the interested public more generally.  One of the main goals of the blog is to provide a resource with information about cutting edge research at the cross-roads of neuroscience, law, and philosophy.  

 

 

Law and Policy of the Developing Brain: Neuroscience from Womb to Death

Law and Policy of the Developing Brain: Neuroscience from Womb to Death

2/10/2012, 8:30 am – 7:00 pm
Location: UC Hastings College of the Law, 200 McAllister Street, Alumni Reception Center

2/11/2012, 8:00 am – 5:00 pm
Location: Stanford Law School, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Room 190

The Conference on Law and Neuroscience will be a two-day event, beginning on Friday, February 10th, with a full day of panels at UC Hastings followed by a reception. A second full day of panels and talks will take place at Stanford University on Saturday, February 11th.

The theme of the Conference revolves around the law and policy surrounding the developing brain. The Conference will begin Friday morning at UC Hastings with a principal talk from Dr. Robert Sapolsky on the general themes of the two-day conference. The panels and speakers over the two days of the conference will consider law and neuroscience issues as they arise throughout the human lifespan, beginning Friday morning with prenatal and infant brains, and ending Saturday afternoon with the neuroscience of aging and death.

This event is free and open to the public, but please be sure to RSVP here.

From NeuroSelves to NeuroSocieties: Cross-disciplinary Conversations around the Neurosciences and Society

Hampshire College

An interdisciplinary conference: June 11 and 12, 2012
Sponsored by the FPR-Hampshire College Program in Culture, Brain, and Development

CALL FOR PROPOSALS: GUIDELINES

Proposals should be one to two pages in length and should include:
• A brief description of your academic/professional background;
• A statement of your interest in this topic and what you would offer to the discussion;
• A description of a particular issue or question that engages with, or could shed light on, issues at the intersections of the neurosciences and law, philosophy, economics, ethics, or other aspects of the cultural/social/political sphere, and a brief description of how you might approach this issue or question.

Proposals must be submitted by February 15, 2012

For more information, visit http://www.hampshire.edu/cbd/22808.htm

Penn Neuroscience Boot Camp

The 3^rd Annual Penn Neuroscience Boot Camp, hosted at the University of Pennsylvania Center for Neuroethics and Society and supported in part by the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, will run from July 30 – August 8, 2012.

Scholarships are available for law faculty. The number of scholarships is limited. Application deadline: February 3, 2012

On-line applications now available at: http://www.neuroethics.upenn.edu/index.php/events/neuroscience-bootcamp

Toward a Neuroscience Model of Tort Law: How Functional Neuroimaging Will Transform Tort Doctrine

Jean Macchiaroli Eggen & Eric J. Laury
Columbia Science and Technology Law Review

The “neuroscience revolution” has now gained the attention of legal thinkers and is poised to be the catalyst for significant changes in the law. Over the past several decades, research in functional neuroimaging has sought to explain a vast array of human thought processes and behaviors, and the law has taken notice. Although functional neuroimaging is not yet close to being a staple in the courtroom, the information acquired from these studies has been featured in a handful of cases, including a few before the United States Supreme Court. Our assertion involves the incorporation of functional neuroscience evidence in tort law related to the variety of mental states, including intent, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. As the courts become saturated with neurimaging evidence, it is imperative to be prepared with a framework for addressing the many legal questions that the new neuroscience will pose. Our proposed neuroscience model of tort law is both simple and complex. Its simplicity lies in a workable framework for allowing the law to move forward while incorporating functional neuroimaging evidence in tort law. Its complexity is in the challenges posed by the interpretation of the neuroscience data and by extrapolation from the evidence to the legal issues. Our model is intended to commence the discourse about ways in which tort law may be improved through an understanding of, and appropriate use of, information acquired through the newest technologies of functional neuroimaging. We intend this model to provide guidance to judges and attorneys when confronted with functional neuroimaging evidence in tort cases, and we anticipate that serious consideration of the model will propel courts toward incorporating these relevant social and scientific advances into the evolving principles of tort law.

Jean Macchiaroli Eggen & Eric J. Laury, Toward a Neuroscience Model of Tort Law: How Functional Neuroimaging Will Transform Tort Doctrine, Columbia Science and Technology Law Review

Differential brain activity for Black and White faces predicts damage awards in hypothetical employment discrimination cases

Harrison A. Korn, Micha A. Johnson, Marvin M. Chun
Social Neuroscience

Currently, potential jurors' racial biases are measured by explicit questioning––a poor measure because people often hide their views to adhere to social norms, and people have implicit views they are not consciously aware of. In this experiment, we investigated whether two alternative methods of measuring racial bias––a standard Black/White, good/bad Implicit Association Test (IAT) and neural activity, measured by fMRI, in response to seeing faces of Black and White individuals––could predict how much money subjects would award Black victims in hypothetical employment discrimination cases. IAT scores failed to predict how much money subjects awarded victims. However, in right inferior parietal lobule (BA 40) and in right superior/middle frontal gyrus (BA 9/10)––which have both previously been implicated in measuring biases and implicit preferences––the difference in neural activity between when subjects viewed Black faces paired with neutral adjectives and when subjects viewed White faces paired with neutral adjectives was positively correlated with the amount of money the subjects awarded victims. This suggests that brain activity measures racial bias with more practical validity, at least in this situation and with our sample size, than a common behavioral measure (the IAT).

Harrison A. Korn, Micha A. Johnson, Marvin M. Chun, Differential brain activity for Black and White faces predicts damage awards in hypothetical employment discrimination cases, Social Neuroscience 1 (2011).

Taking Aim at Free Will

Kerri Smith
Nature

Scientists think they can prove that free will is an illusion.
Philosophers are urging them to think again.

Smith, Kerri. (2011), Taking Aim at Free Will. Nature: 1 Sept 2011, 477, 23-25.

9th Cir. Conference includes Neurolaw Expert Panel

Four neurolaw experts spoke on “The Promises and Perils of Neuroscience Evidence in the Courtroom” at the Annual Conference of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, in Carlsbad, California, on August 16, 2011.  The panel included Professors Owen Jones (Vanderbilt), Nita Farahany (Vanderbilt), Stephen Morse (Pennsylvania) and Hank Greely (Stanford).  Before a large audience that included the Hon. Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Hon. Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the 9^th Circuit, the panelists provided a brief introduction to law-relevant neuroscience, summarized the growing use of neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom, and addressed both the benefits and pitfalls of trying to use such evidence to inform legal decision-making.

The Brain on Trial

David M. Eagleman
Baylor College of Medicine

This article summarizes several difficulties with the current system of criminal justice. It begins with several examples to clarify the relationship between biology and behavior, identifies problems with the assumption that all brains are created equal, argues for a forward-looking justice system, describes new opportunities from neuroscience for rehabilitation, and offers a roadmap to achieve a more tailored, customized, neurally-compatible system of sentencing.

Eagleman, David M. (2011), The Brain on Trial. Atlantic Monthy: Jul/Aug 2011, 308:1, 112-123.

Adolescent Brains and Juvenile Justice

In May 2011, Arizona State University hosted a conference on "Adolescent Brains and Juvenile Justice: New Insights from Neuroscience, Genetics and Addiction Science."  The conference was co-sponsored by the ASU Center for Law, Science & Innovation, the Diane Halle Center for Family Justice, the ASU Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics, and the MacArthur Law and Neuroscience Project.  To learn more about the conference, please visit the conference site.

"Neuroimage Evidence and the Insanity Defense"

N.J. Schweitzer and Michael J. Saks
Arizona State University

Abstract:

The introduction of neuroscientific evidence in criminal trials has given rise to fears that neuroimagery presented by an expert witness might inordinately influence jurors' evaluations of the defendant. In this experiment, a diverse sample of 1,170 community members from throughout the U.S. evaluated a written mock trial in which psychological, neuropsychological, neuroscientific, and neuroimage-based expert evidence was presented in support of a not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) defense. No evidence of an independent influence of neuroimagery was found. Overall, neuroscience-based evidence was found to be more persuasive than psychological and anecdotal family history evidence. These effects were consistent across different insanity standards. Despite the non-influence of neuroimagery, however, jurors who were not provided with a neuroimage indicated that they believed neuroimagery would have been the most helpful kind of evidence in their evaluations of the defendant. 

Schweitzer, N. J. and Saks, M. J. (2011), Neuroimage Evidence and the Insanity Defense. Behavioral Sciences & the Law.

Justice Breyer cites neuroscience research in videogame dissent

 
 
Hon. Stephen G. Breyer: “[c]utting-edge neuroscience has shown that ‘virtual violence in video game playing results in those neural patterns that are considered characteristic for aggressive cognition and behavior’”

 

 

The U.S. Supreme Court recently invalidated (7-2) a California law that banned the sale of violent videogames to children.  The majority, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, held in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assoc., that videogames were subject to First Amendment “speech” protection.  In dissent, Justice Breyer noted that “[c]utting-edge neuroscience has shown that ‘virtual violence in video game playing results in those neural patterns that are considered characteristic for aggressive cognition and behavior.’” He argued the Court should defer, for this reason among others, to the elected legislature’s conclusion that the videogames in question were likely to harm children.