The 3rd 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
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 9th 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 Annals of General Psychiatry has a nice review piece entitled, "The 'antisocial' person: an insight in to biology, classification and current evidence on treatment."
Abstract
Background: This review analyses and summarises the recent advances in understanding the neurobiology of violence and empathy, taxonomical issues on defining personality disorders characterised by disregard for social norms, evidence for efficacy of different treatment modalities and ethical implications in defining 'at-risk' individuals for preventive interventions.
Methods: PubMed was searched with the keywords 'antisocial personality disorder', 'dissocial personality disorder' and 'psychopathy'. The search was limited to articles published in English over the last 10 years (1999 to 2009)
Results: Both diagnostic manuals used in modern psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual published by the American Psychiatric Association and the International Classification of Diseases published by the World Health Organization, identify a personality disorder sharing similar traits. It is termed antisocial personality disorder in the diagnostic and statistical manual and dissocial personality disorder in the International Classification of Diseases. However, some authors query the ability of the existing manuals to identify a special category termed 'psychopathy', which in their opinion deserves special attention. On treatment-related issues, many psychological and behavioural therapies have shown success rates ranging from 25% to 62% in different cohorts. Multisystemic therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy have been proven efficacious in many trials. There is no substantial evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological therapy. Currently, the emphasis is on early identification and prevention of antisocial behaviour despite the ethical implications of defining at-risk children.Conclusions: Further research is needed in the areas of neuroendocrinological associations of violent behaviour, taxonomic existence of psychopathy and efficacy of treatment modalities.
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog has an interesting piece on science and the death penalty. Here is a brief excerpt:
Will scientific advances ultimately spell doom for capital punishment?
That’s the question raised by this piece over at the Arizona Republic, which examined a recent conference at Arizona State that looked at advances in neuroscience and genetics — and how they might help explain criminal behavior.
The thought goes like this: A better understanding of criminal behavior might ultimately lead society to show more compassion for those who suffer from the genetic defects that lead them to kill, maim, or commit other criminal acts.
“There is a ton of new science coming forward in both genetics and neuroscience that describe the brain in a way that leads to a predisposition to violent behavior,” said Gary Marchant, the executive director of the Center for Law, Science & Innovations at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. In the not-to-distant future, predicts Marchant, science will kill the death penalty.
Happy reading!
Matthew Baum has a new piece in Neuroethics entitled, "The MAOA Predisposition to Impulsive Violence: Is it Relevant to Criminal Trials?"
Here is the abstract:
In Italy, a judge reduced the sentence of a defendant by 1 year in response to evidence for a genetic predisposition to violence. The best characterized of these genetic differences, those in the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), were cited as especially relevant. Several months previously in the USA, MAOA data contributed to a jury reducing charges from 1st degree murder (a capital offence) to voluntary manslaughter. Is there a rational basis for this type of use of MAOA evidence in criminal court? This paper will review in context recent work on the MAOA gene–environment interaction in predisposing individuals to violence and address the relevance of such findings to murder trials. Interestingly, the MAOA genetic variants impact future violence and aggression only when combined with the adverse environmental stimuli of childhood maltreatment. Thus nature and nurture interact to determine the individual’s risk. Based on current evidence, I argue there is a weak case for mitigation. But should future experiments confirm the hypothesis that individual differences in impulse control and response to provocation found in MAOA-L men (without abuse) are significantly magnified when combined with childhood maltreatment, the case could turn into a stronger one.
Abstract:
Scientific discovery and technological advances in neuroscience have created the newly formed field of cognitive enhancement. Cognitive enhancement is improving the psychological or intellectual functions of individuals who are not ill. While the opportunities may be endless, careful scrutiny must be paid to the looming ethical implications of improving the cognitive function of an individual with no specific illness or disorder. Because of the increasingly accelerated pace of research and development in the field of neuroscience, it is important that the government, along with key stakeholders and the community-at-large, address these ethical considerations and devise a comprehensive regulatory framework to provide the appropriate guidelines for this emerging science.
Part I of this Article will define cognitive enhancement and delineate the difference between treatment and enhancement. Part I identifies cognitive enhancers, including “smart drugs,” memory enhancement and dampening drugs, and dietary supplements, and considers the possibility of a time when humans will no longer be the innovative power behind cognitive enhancement. Part II addresses the ethical implications of cognitive enhancement, such as human dignity and the devaluation of normal, fairness and equality, coercion and pressure to use in a competitive culture, control versus treatment, safety and efficacy, and innovation and the notion of cognitive liberties. Part III outlines the regulatory framework necessary to meet these ethical concerns. In conclusion, Part IV reaffirms the need for a comprehensive regulatory framework to address the ethical implication of cognitive enhancement.
Nature News has a recent piece on developing technologies for detecting "malintent." Here is an excerpt:
"Planning a sojourn in the northeastern United States? You could soon be taking part in a novel security programme that can supposedly 'sense' whether you are planning to commit a crime.
Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST), a US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) programme designed to spot people who are intending to commit a terrorist act, has in the past few months completed its first round of field tests at an undisclosed location in the northeast, Nature has learned.
Like a lie detector, FAST measures a variety of physiological indicators, ranging from heart rate to the steadiness of a person's gaze, to judge a subject's state of mind. But there are major differences from the polygraph. FAST relies on non-contact sensors, so it can measure indicators as someone walks through a corridor at an airport, and it does not depend on active questioning of the subject.
The tactic has drawn comparisons with the science-fiction concept of 'pre-crime', popularized by the film Minority Report, in which security services can detect someone's intention to commit a crime. Unlike the system in the film, FAST does not rely on a trio of human mutants who can see the future. But the programme has attracted copious criticism from researchers who question the science behind it."
Check out the original article for the rest of the story!
Charlie Rose recently hosted a series of discussions about recent advances in the sciences of the mind. One of these shows featured LANP's own Joshua Greene. The episide is entitled, "The Deciding Brain."
I have a forthcoming paper with Stephanos Bibas, Scott Grafton, Kent Kiehl, Andrew Mansfield, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Michael Gazzaniga entitled "Neuroprediction, Violence, and the Law: Setting the Stage," that is available as an "on-line first" draft on Neuroethics.
Here is the abstract:
In this paper, our goal is to (a) survey some of the legal contexts within which violence risk assessment already plays a prominent role, (b) explore whether developments in neuroscience could potentially be used to improve our ability to predict violence, and (c) discuss whether neuropredictive models of violence create any unique legal or moral problems above and beyond the well worn problems already associated with prediction more generally. In “Violence Risk Assessment and the Law”, we briefly examine the role currently played by predictions of violence in three high stakes legal contexts: capital sentencing (“Violence Risk Assessment and Capital Sentencing”), civil commitment hearings (“Violence Risk Assessment and Civil Commitment”), and “sexual predator” statutes (“Violence Risk Assessment and Sexual Predator Statutes”). In “Clinical vs. Actuarial Violence Risk Assessment”, we briefly examine the distinction between traditional clinical methods of predicting violence and more recently developed actuarial methods, exemplified by the Classification of Violence Risk (COVR) software created by John Monahan and colleagues as part of the MacArthur Study of Mental Disorder and Violence [1]. In “The Neural Correlates of Psychopathy”, we explore what neuroscience currently tells us about the neural correlates of violence, using the recent neuroscientific research on psychopathy as our focus. We also discuss some recent advances in both data collection (“Cutting-Edge Data Collection: Genetically Informed Neuroimaging”) and data analysis (“Cutting-Edge Data Analysis: Pattern Classification”) that we believe will play an important role when it comes to future neuroscientific research on violence. In “The Potential Promise of Neuroprediction”, we discuss whether neuroscience could potentially be used to improve our ability to predict future violence. Finally, in “The Potential Perils of Neuroprediction”, we explore some potential evidentiary (“Evidentiary Issues”), constitutional (“Constitutional Issues”), and moral (“Moral Issues”) issues that may arise in the context of the neuroprediction of violence.
