temp_copy

During the weekend of September 12 th , Georgia State University was home to fascinating conversations between prominent lawyers, neuroscientists, philosophers, and psychologists. The challenging, thought-provoking, and interdisciplinary nature of this forum was condensed within its title: Neurointerventions and the Law: Regulating Human Mental Capacity . Image from AJOB Neuroscience Organized by the Atlanta Neuroethics Consortium (ANEC), the conference sought debate on the legal implications of using modern neuro-interventions. Some of the questions that were raised included, but were not limited to: What mental capacities does one need in order to be eligible for trial? For punishment? For release? For cognitive enhancement? What policies should be in place to control such neuro-interventions? What are the current neuro-interventions used in the courts, and how are they regulated? How should we view the relationship between mental capacity and both moral and legal responsibility?...

Last week, Reuters carried a story  by Kate Kelland about a pediatrician in Italy, Domenico Mattiello, accused of sexually abusing his patients. [1]  His lawyers plan to present evidence that his pedophilic urges are the result of a brain tumor and argue that the judge in the case should be lenient. As the Reuter's story mentions, this case is very similar to a US case I blogged about a few months ago , where a 40 year old man suddenly developed pedophilic urges and had to be removed from his home.  The US case was presented at a medical conference, with very little discussion of criminal charges, while Mattiello's case is presented by Kelland as an extreme example of the sort of challenges neuroscience may bring to our understandings of criminal responsibility. I want to push back against this framing, and argue that a tumor such as this poses an interesting ethical question because it does not simply challenge ideas about criminal responsibility, but also serv...

As a college student deep into my studies, I have developed a dependency on a warm, slightly sweetened morning cup of coffee. I begin each day (or sometimes each afternoon) with a mug full of the deep brown nectar, with its bold, slow roasted flavor. I suppose I could quit any time I want, right? You know, I could put the cup down and be the same. Maybe I would have a harder time getting started in the morning or be less productive at work. It might be a little more challenging to stay awake on my drive to campus. Maybe I’ll go to bed a little earlier and put off my assignments for another day. On second thought, maybe I’ll stick to my coffee. I don’t think I could do much without it. Original Image from Americannonfiction.com With the knowledge that I am far from being the only one with this compulsion, I want to open the discussion on addiction and responsibility. Getting started on ‘something,’ such as drugs, gambling--some are now suggesting even the Internet--is generally consider...

Last month I blogged a little bit about constitutional protection, lie detection technology, and wildly speculative but totally valid concerns about what happens if someone else could tell what I was thinking. As promised, this month I’m going to follow up with some information about “precrime”: what it is, outside of a science-fiction context, what it could become, and what neuroscientific knowledge contributes to the area. This is a wonderful book ; everyone should go read it. Pre-crime is exactly what it sounds like; it is the science of predicting when crimes are likely to happen and trying to intervene and prevent them. The idea that police officers could prevent crime by predicting it captures the public imagination in a big way, leading to a lot of sensationalism. There were a series of articles starting in 2004 about London’s so-called “Homocide Prevention Unit,” which captured public imagination so much it had a television show based on it. [1] According to more recent reports...

Greetings from DC!  The Neuroethics Program is busy hobnobbing with some of world's most cutting-edge, interdisciplinary group of innovative thinkers at the International Neuroethics Society (INS)! In case you didn't get the chance to attend this year, here is a brief summary of what you missed. The full list of events can be seen here and featured events from Day 1 of this year's meeting can be seen here . This year INS hosted its annual meeting at the Carnegie Institution for Science . Day 2 of the annual INS meeting was an exciting and inspiring day featuring outstanding sessions. Each session highlighted some of the most pressing topics in the field of neuroethics. The day opened with a panel on Neuroscience, National Security, and Society. The panel featured Jonathan Moreno , University of Pennsylania; William Casebeer , DARPA ; and James Giordano , Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. Dr. Moreno is the author of the book Mind Wars . Moreno outlined the past, curre...