Functional neuroimaging and the law: Trends and directions for future scholarship

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 7, Issue 9, 2007, Pages 44-56

  Tovino, Stacey A ^a  

^a HAMLINE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Brain; FMRI; Law; Neuroethics; Neuroimaging; Thoughts

Indexed keywords

ADVERTIZING; BRAIN MAPPING; CIVIL RIGHTS; CONFIDENTIALITY; EMPLOYMENT; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL LIABILITY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NEUROSCIENCE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATENT; RECUMBENCY; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

ADVERTISING; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; BRAIN MAPPING; CIVIL RIGHTS; CONFIDENTIALITY; DECEPTION; EMPLOYMENT; HUMANS; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; LIABILITY, LEGAL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NEUROSCIENCES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34548554256     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15265160701518714     Document Type: Review

References (132)

1. CFR. 1630.3(d)(1).
2. C.F.R. 1630.3(d)(2).
3. C.F.R. 1630.3(e).
4. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977).
5. Alexander, A. 2006. Functional magnetic resonance imaging lie detection: Is a "brainstorm" heading for the "gatekeeper"? Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy 7:1-56.
6. Allen, A. 2002. Origins and growth of U.S. privacy law. Practising Law Institute 701: 83-102.
7. American Medical Association. 2006a. Code of medical ethics: Current opinions with annotations. Ethical opinion E-2.135, Insurance companies and genetic information. Chicago: AMA Press.
8. American Medical Association. 2006b. Code of medical ethics: Current opinions with annotations. Ethical opinion E-2.136, Genetic information and the criminal justice system. Chicago: AMA Press.
9. American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12117,2007.
10. Appendix to 29 C.F.R. Part 1630.
11. Bandes, S. 2006. Loyalty to one's convictions: The prosecutor and tunnel vision. Howard Law Journal 49(2): 475-494.
12. Bentham, J. 1802 [1914]. Of property. In Tlie theory of legislation, vol. 1. Principles of civil code, part 2, ed. E. Dumont, 145-147. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13. Bitz, D. M., and J. S. Bitz. 1999. Incompetence in the brain injured individual. St. Thomas Law Review 12:205-276.
14. Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).
15. Boire, R. G. 1999-2000. On cognitive liberty (part I). Journal of Cognitive Liberties 1(1): 7-13.
16. Boire, R. G. 2005. Searching the brain: The fourth amendment implications of brain-based deception devices. American Journal of Bioethics 5(2): 62-63.
17. Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432,436n3 (1957).
18. Brown, G. G., and L. T. Eyler. 2006. Methodological and conceptual issues in functional magnetic resonance imaging: Applications to schizophrenia research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2: 51-81.
19. Caplan, A. 2002. No-brainer: Can we cope with the ethical ramifications of new knowledge of the human brain? InNeuroethics: Mapping the field, ed. S. J. Marcus, 95-131. New York, NY: Dana Press.
20. Cephos Corporation. 2006. CEPHOS' CEO Speaks on Commercial Testing. Available at http://www.cephoscorp.com/cephos. comm_testing_20061215%20v2.pdf (accessed July 2, 2007).
21. Clifford, R. D. 2005. Random numbers, chaos theory and cogitation: A search for the minimal creativity standard in copyright law. Denver University Law Review 82(2): 259-299.
22. Coghill, R. C., J. G. McHaffie, and Y-F Yen. 2003. Neural correlates of interindividual differences in the subjective experience of pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100(14): 8538-8542.
23. Coghill, R. C., C. N. Sang, J. M. Maisog, and M.J. Iadarola. 1999. Pain intensity processing within the human brain: A bilateral, distributed mechanisms. Journal of Neurophysiology 82(4): 1934-1943.
24. [Collection of authors]. 2006. The mind of a child: The relationship between brain development, cognitive functioning, and accountability under the law. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 3(2): 317-541.
25. Committee on Science and Law. 2005. Are your thoughts your own?: "Neuroprivacy" and the legal implications of brain imaging. CBA Record 60: 407-436.
26. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., Text Revised. 2000. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
27. Donaldson, D. I. 2004. Parsing brain activity with fMRI and mixed designs: What kind of a state is neuroimaging in? Trends in Neurosciences 27(8): 442.
28. Drobac, J. A. 2006. "Developing capacity": Adolescent "consent" at work, at law, and in the sciences of the mind. Journal of Juvenile Law and Policy 10:1-68.
29. Eisenberger, N.I. 2006. Identifying the neural correlates underlying social pain: Implications for developmental processes. Human Development 49(5): 273-293.
30. Eisenberger, N. I. and M. D. Lieberman. 2004. Why rejection hurts: A common neural alarm system for physical and social pain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(7): 294-300.
31. Eisenberger, N. I., M. D. Lieberman, and K. D. Williams. 2003. Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science 302(5643): 290-292.
32. Elhauge, E. R. 2006. Can health law become a coherent field of law? Wake Forest Law Review 41(2): 365-390.
33. Employee Polygraph Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2001-2009. 2007.
34. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC]. 1995. Employment guidance: Preemployment disability-related questions and medical examinations, Notice No. 915.002.
35. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC]. 2000. EEOC enforcement guidance on disability-related inquiries and medical examinations of employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Notice No. 915.002.
36. Fallon, J. H. 2006. Neuroanatomical background to understanding the brain of the young psychopath. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 3(2): 341-367.
37. Fallon, J. H. 2007. Through a glass darkly: Transdisciplinary brain imaging studies to predict and explain abnormal behavior. Presented at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law conference: The law and ethics of brain scanning: Coming soon to a courtroom near you? Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, April 13, 2007. PowerPoint and MP3 audio file available at http://www.law.asu.edu/brainscanning (accessed July 2, 2007).
38. Farah, M. 2006. Neuroethics: The practical and philosophical. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(1): 34-40.
39. Farah, M. J., and P. R. Wolpe. 2004. Monitoring and manipulating brain function: New neuroscience technologies and their ethical implications. Hastings Center Report 34(3): 36.
40. Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41-58 (2006).
41. Ferguson, L. C. 2004. The implications of developmental cognitive research on "evolving standards of decency" and the imposition of the death penalty on juveniles. American University Law Review 54(Dec): 441-484.
42. Foster, K. R., P. R. Wolpe and A. Caplan. 2003. Bioethics and the brain. IEEE Spectrum June: 34-39.
43. Fugelsang, J. A., and K. N. Dunbar. 2006. A cognitive neuroscience framework for understanding causal reasoning and the law. In Law & the brain, ed. S. Zeki and O. Goodenough, 157-166. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
44. Ganske-Frist Amendment, 35 U.S.C. § 287(c) (2006).
45. Garland, B. 2004. Neuroscience and the law: Brain, mind, and the scales of justice. New York, NY: Dana Press.
46. Glenn, L. M. 2005. Keeping an open mind: What legal safeguards are needed? American Journal of Bioethics 5(2): 60-61.
47. Goodenough, O. R. 2006. Responsibility and punishment: Whose mind? A response. In Law & the brain, ed. S. Zeki and O. Goodenough, 259-266. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
48. Goodenough, O. R., and K. Prehn. 2006. A neuroscientific approach to normative judgment in law and justice. In Law & the brain, ed. S. Zeki and O. Goodenough, 77-109. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
49. Greely, H. T. 2004. Prediction, litigation, privacy, and property: Some possible legal and social implications of advances in neuroscience. In Neuroscience and the law: Brain, mind, and the scales of justice, ed. B. Garland, 114-156. New York, NY: Dana Press.
50. Greely, H. T. 2005. Premarket approval regulation for lie detection: An idea whose time may be coming. American Journal of Bioethics 5(2): 50-52.
51. Greely, H. T. 2006c. The social effects of advances in neuroscience: Legal problems, legal perspectives. In Neuroethics: Defining the issues in theory, practice, and policy, ed. J. Illes, 245-263. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
52. Greely, H. T. 2006d. Some thoughts on academic health law. Wake Forest Law Review 41(2): 391-409.
53. Greely, H. T., and J. Illes. In press. Neuroscience-based lie detection: The urgent need for regulation. American Journal of Law and Medicine 33.
54. Green, R. M. 2005. Spy versus spy. American Journal of Bioethics 5(2): 53-54.
55. Grey, B., commentator. 2007. The law and ethics of brain scanning: The next big thing coming soon to a courtroom near you. Presented at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law Conference: The law and ethics of brain scanning: Coming soon to a courtroom near you? Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, April 13, 2007. MP3 audio file available at http://www.law.asu.edu/brainscanning (accessed July 2, 2007).
56. Gruber, S. A., and D. A. Yurgelun-Todd. 2006. Neurobiology and the law: A role in juvenile justice? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 3(2): 321-333.
57. Haider, A. 2006. Roper v. Simmons: The role of the science brief. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 3(2): 369-377.
58. Hall, M. A. 2006. The history and future of health care law: An essentialist view. Wake Forest Law Review 41(2): 347-364.
59. Hall, M. A., C. E. Schneider, and L. Shepherd. 2006. Rethinking health law. Wake Forest Law Review 41(2): 341-345.
60. Illes, J. 2003. Neuroethics in a new era of neuroimaging. American Journal of Radiology 24(9): 1739-1740.
61. Illes, J., and E. Racine. 2005. Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics. American Journal of Bioethics 5(2): 5-18.
62. th Cir. 2002).
63. Jaffee, S. 2004. Fake method for research impartiality. Seien tist 18(14): 64.
64. Jones, O. D., and T. H. Goldsmith. 2005. Law and behavioral biology. Columbia Law Review 105(2): 405-500.
65. Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584 (1942).
66. Keckler, C. N. 2006. Cross-examining the brain: A legal analysis of neural imaging for credibility impeachment. Hastings Law Journal 57(3): 509-556.
67. Kolber, A. J. 2007. Pain detection and the privacy of subjective experience. American Journal of Law & Medicine 33(1)-(2). Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=976831.
68. Kulynych, J. 1997. Psychiatric neuroimaging evidence: A high-tech crystal ball? Stanford Law Review 49:1249-1270.
69. Kulynych, J. 2002. Legal and ethical issues in neuroimaging research: Human subjects protection, medical privacy, and the public communication of research results. Brain and Cognition 50(3):345-357.
70. Kulynych, J. In press. The regulation of MRI neuroimaging research: Disentangling the Gordian knot. American Journal of Law and Medicine 331.
71. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
72. Le Bihan, D., P. Jezzard, J. Haxby, N. Sadato, L. Rueckert, and V. Mattay. 1995. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Annals of Internal Medicine 122(4): 296-303.
73. Mandavilli, A. 2006. Actions speak louder than images. Nature 444(7120): 664-665.
74. McCaffrey, E. J., D. J. Kahneman, and M. L. Spitzer. 1995. Framing the jury: Cognitive perspectives on pain and suffering awards. Virginia Law Review 81:1341.
75. McKinzey, R. K. 2001. A judge's introduction to neuropsychological assessments. Court Review 37: 24-30.
76. Mills, L. G. 2006. The justice of recovery: How the state can heal the violence of crime. Hastings Law Journal 57(3): 457-508.
77. Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act, Minn. Stat. § 325F.67 (2006).
78. Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, subd. 1 (2006).
79. Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Minn. Stat. § 325D.09-.16 (2006).
80. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
81. Moreno, J. D. 2003. Neuroethics: An agenda for neuroscience and society. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4(2): 152.
82. Moreno, J. D. 2005. Dual use and the 'moral taint' problem. American Journal of Bioethics 5(2): 52.
83. Morse, S. J. 2004. Reasons, results, and criminal responsibility. University of Illinois Law Review 2004(2): 363-444.
84. Morse, S. J. 2006a. Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: A diagnostic note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 3(2): 397-412.
85. Moulton, E. A., M. L. Keaser, R. P. Gullapalli, and J. D. Greenspan. 2005. Regional intensive and temporal patterns of functional MRI activation distinguishing noxious and innocuous contact heat. Journal of Neurophysiology 93: 2183-2193.
86. National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health [NIH]. 2001. FMRI signal found "faithful" to neuronal activity. Available at http://www.nimh.nih.gov/press/fmrisignal.cfm (accessed July 2, 2007).
87. [No author]. 2003. Clinical neuropsychologists: Training, credentials and courtroom credibility. Journal of the Missouri Bar 59:184-187.
88. No Lie MRI. 2006a. http://www.noliemri.com/.
89. No Lie MRI. 2006b. http://www.noliemri.com/customers/GroupOrCorporate. htm.
90. No Lie MRI. 2006c. http://www.noliemri.com/customers/Individuals.htm.
91. No Lie MRI. 2006d. http://www.noliemri.com/products/Overview.htm.
92. No Lie MRI. 2006e. http://www.noliemri.com/pressNPubs/Publications.htm.
93. No Lie MRI. 2006f. http://www.noliemri.com/customers/Government.htm.
94. Ochsner, K. N., D. H. Ludlow, K. Knierim, J. Hanelin, T. Ramachandran, G. C. Glover, and S. C. Mackey. 2006. Neural correlates of individual differences in pain-related fear and anxiety. Pain 120: 69-77.
95. Olson, S. 2005. Brain scans raise privacy concerns. Science 307(5715): 1548-1550.
96. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
97. Pettit, M. In press. fMRI and BF meet FRE: Brain imaging and the federal rules of evidence. American Journal of Law and Medicine 33.
98. Peyron, R., B. Laurent, and L. Garda-Larrea. 2000. Functional imaging of brain responses to pain: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 30(5): 263-288.
99. Porro, C.A. 2003. Functional imaging and pain: Behavior, perception, and modulation. Neuroscientist 9(5): 354-369.
100. Porro, C.A., V. Cettolo, M. P. Francescato, and P. Baraldi. 1998. Temporal and intensity coding of pain in human cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology 80(6): 3312-3320.
101. Rainville, P., G. H. Duncan, D. D. Price, B. Carrier, and M. C. Bushnell. 1997. Pain affect encoded in human anterior cingulated but not somatosensory cortex. Science 277(5328): 968-971.
102. Redding, R. E. 2006. The brain-disordered defendant: Neuroscience and legal insanity in the twenty-first century. American University Law Review 56(1): 51-127.
103. Ryan, E. P., and S. B. Berson. 2006. Mental illness and the death penalty. St. Louis University Public Law Review 25: 351-381.
104. Saunders, K. W 2005. A disconnect between law and neuroscience: Modern brain science, media influences, and juvenile justice. Utah Law Review 2005: 695-741.
105. Schacter, D. L., J. Kagan, and M. D. Leichtman. 1995. True and false memories in children and adults: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law 1: 411-24.
106. Schick, A. 2005. Neuro exceptionalism? American Journal of Bioethics 5(2): 36-38.
107. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
108. Seiden, J. A. 2004. The criminal brain: Frontal lobe dysfunction evidence in capital proceedings. Capital Defense Journal 16: 395-420.
109. Shipley, W. E. 2005. Requiring submission to physical examination or test as violation of constitutional rights. American Law Reports 2nd ed. 25:1407.
110. Spence, S. A., M. D. Hunter, T. F. D. Farrow, R. D. Green, D. H. Leung, C. J. Hughes, and V. Ganesan. 2006. A cognitive neurobiological account of deception: Evidence from functional neuroimaging. In Law & the brain, ed. S. Zeki and O. Goodenough, 169-182. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
111. Stake, J. E. 2006. The property 'instinct.' In Law & the Brain, ed. S. Zeki and O. Goodenough, 185-204. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
112. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969).
113. Stoller, S., and P. R. Wolpe. In press. Emerging neurotechnologies for lie detection and the fifth amendment. American Journal of Law and Medicine 33.
114. Thompson, S. K. In press. A brave new world of interrogation jurisprudence. American Journal of Law and Medicine 33.
115. Thompson, S. K. 2005. The legality of the use of psychiatric neuroimaging in intelligence interrogation. Cornell Law Review 90(6): 1601-1637.
116. Tovino, S. A. 2005. The confidentiality and privacy implications of functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33(4): 844-848.
117. Tovino, S. A. 2006. The visible brain: Confidentiality and privacy implications of functional magnetic resonance imaging. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas Medical Branch.
118. Tovino, S.A. 2007. Imagingbody structure and mapping brain function: A historical approach. American Journal of Law and Medicine 33.
119. Tovino, S. A. In press. Functional neuroimaging information: A case for neuro exceptionalism? Florida State University Law Review 34.
120. U.S. Const, amend. I.
121. U.S. Const, amend IV.
122. U.S. Const, amend. V.
123. U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976).
124. U.S. v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351 (1971).
125. Ventania School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995).
126. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
127. Wild, J. 2005. Brain imaging ready to detect terrorists, say neuroscientists. Nature 437(7058): 457.
128. Willing, R. 2006. MRI tests offer glimpse at brains behind the lies. USA Today, June 26: n.p.
129. Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985).
130. Wolpe, P. R. 2004. Neuroethics. In Encyclopedia of bioethics 3rd ed., ed. S. G. Post, 1894-1898. New York, NY: Macmillan Reference.
131. Wolpe, P. R., K. R. Foster, and D. D. Langleben. 2005. Emerging technologies for lie-detection: Promises and perils. American Journal of Bioethics 5(2): 39-49.
132. Zeki, S., and O. Goodenough. 2006. Law & the Brain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.