Connecting neuroscience and law: Anticipatory discourse and the role of sociotechnical imaginaries

New Genetics and Society

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 27-40

  Pickersgill, Martyn ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

expectations; law; neuroethics; neurolaw; neuroscience; sociotechnical imaginaries

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FORENSIC MEDICINE; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; MORALITY; NEUROSCIENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCIENTIST;

EID: 79952658917     PISSN: 14636778     EISSN: 14699915     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14636778.2011.552298     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Aharoni, E., et al., 2008. Can neurological evidence help courts assess criminal responsibility? Lessons from law and neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1124, 145-160. (Pubitemid 351506784)
2. Alder, K., 2007. The lie detectors: the history of an American obsession. New York: Free Press.
3. Appelbaum, P.S., 2007. The new lie detectors: neuroscience, deception, and the courts. Psychiatric Services, 58, 460-462. (Pubitemid 46640635)
4. Aronson, D.D., 2007. Brain imaging, culpability and the juvenile death penalty. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 115-142.
5. Baird, A.A. and Fugelsang, J.A., 2004. The emergence of consequential thought: evidence from neuroscience. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 359, 1797-1804. (Pubitemid 39606387)
6. Barry, A., Born, G., andWeszkalnys, G., 2008. Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society, 37, 20-49.
7. Batts, S., 2009. Brain lesions and their implications in criminal responsibility. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27, 261-272.
8. Bennett, M., 2009. Criminal law as it pertains to "mentally incompetent defendants": a McNaughton Rule in the light of cognitive neuroscience. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 289-299.
9. Blair, R.J.R., 2008. The cognitive neuroscience of psychopathy and implications for judgments of responsibility. Neuroethics, 1, 149-157.
10. Brown, N., 2003. Hope against hype: accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science Studies, 16, 3-21.
11. Burns, K. and Bechara, A., 2007. Decision making and free will: a neuroscience perspective. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 263-280. (Pubitemid 46733425)
12. Casebeer, W.D., 2003. Moral cognition and its neural constituents. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 840-847.
13. Chamak, B., 1999. The emergence of cognitive science in France: a comparison with the USA. Social Studies of Science, 29, 643-684.
14. Chorvat, T. and McCabe, K., 2004. The brain and the law. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 359, 1727-1736. (Pubitemid 39606380)
15. Clarke, A. and Fujimura, J., eds., 1992. The rights tools for the job. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
16. Dressing, H., Sartorius, A., and Meyer-Lindenberg, A., 2008. Implications of fMRI and genetics for the law and the routine practice of forensic psychiatry. Neurocase, 14, 7-14. (Pubitemid 351974041)
17. Eastman, N. and Campbell, C., 2006. Neuroscience and legal determination of criminal responsibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 311-318.
18. Erickson, S.K. and Felthous, A.R., 2009. Introduction to this issue: the neuroscience and psychology of moral decision making and the law. Behavioral Science and the Law, 27, 119-121.
19. Fabian, J.M., 2010. Neuropsychological and neurological correlates in violent and homicidal offenders: a legal and neuroscience perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 209-223.
20. Fox, D., 2009. The right to silence as protecting mental control. Akron Law Review, 42, 763-801.
21. Garland, B., ed., 2004. Neuroscience and the law: brain, mind and the scales of justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22. Garland, B. and Glimcher, P.W., 2006. Cognitive neuroscience and the law. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16, 130-134.
23. Gazzaniga, M.S., 2008. The law and neuroscience. Neuron, 60, 412-415.
24. Glannon, W., 2008. Moral responsibility and the psychopath. Neuroethics, 1, 158-166.
25. Greene, J. and Cohen, J., 2004. For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 359, 1775-1785. (Pubitemid 39606385)
26. Greene, J.D., et al., 2001. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgement. Science, 293, 2105-2108. (Pubitemid 32848061)
27. Hedgecoe, A. and Martin, P., 2003. The drugs don't work: expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics. Social Studies of Science, 33 (3), 327-363.
28. Heisenberg, M., 2009. Is free will an illusion? Nature, 459, 164-165.
29. Jasanoff, S., 2006. Just evidence: the limits of science in the legal process. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 34, 328-341. (Pubitemid 43936921)
30. Jasanoff, S. and Kim, S.-H., 2009. Containing the atom: sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47, 119-146.
31. Joyce, K.A., 2008. Magnetic appeal: MRI and the myth of transparency. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
32. Kaposy, C., 2009. Will neuroscientific discoveries about free will and selfhood change our ethical practices? Neuroethics, 2, 51-59.
33. Kawohl, W. and Habermeyer, E., 2007. Free will: reconciling German Civil Law with Libet's neurophysiological studies on the readiness potential. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 309-320. (Pubitemid 46733428)
34. Keckler, C.N.W., 2006. Cross-examining the brain: a legal analysis of neural imaging for credibility impeachment. Hastings Law Journal, 57, 509-556. (Pubitemid 43561732)
35. Kerr, I., Binnie, M., and Akoi, C., 2008. Tessling on my brain: the future of lie detection and brain privacy in the criminal justice system. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 50, 367-387.
36. Knabb, J.J., et al., 2009. Neuroscience, moral reasoning, and the law. Behavioral Science and the Law, 27, 219-236.
37. Kozel, F.A., Padgett, T.M., and George, M.S., 2004. A replication study of the neural correlates of deception. Behavioral Neuroscience, 118, 852-856. (Pubitemid 38970506)
38. Kroeber, H., 2007. The historical debate on brain and legal responsibility - revisited. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 251-261. (Pubitemid 46733424)
39. Langleben, D.D. and Datillio, F.M., 2008. Commentary: the future of forensic functional brain imaging. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 36, 502-504.
40. LANP (Law and Neuroscience Project), 2010. Mission [online]. Available from: http://www.lawandneuroscienceproject.org/About-Us/Mission.aspx [Accessed 10 June 2010].
41. Lederman, C., 2010. Science in the courtroom: vital to best interests and reasonable efforts. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 61, 63-68.
42. Lee, T.M.C., et al., 2005. Neural correlates of feigned memory impairment. NeuroImage, 28, 305-313. (Pubitemid 41443502)
43. Libet, L., 1985. Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 8, 529-566.
44. Littlefield, M., 2009. Constructing the organ of deceit: the rhetoric of fMRI and brain fingerprinting in post-9-11 America. Science, Technology and Human Values, 34, 365-392.
45. Luber, B., et al., 2009. Non-invasive brain stimulation in the detection of deception: scientific challenges and ethical consequences. Behavioral Science and the Law, 27, 191-208.
46. Maibom, H.L., 2008. The mad, the bad and the psychopath. Neuroethics, 1, 167-184.
47. Markowitsch, H.J., 2008. Neuroscience and crime. Neurocase, 14, 1-6. (Pubitemid 351974040)
48. Martell, D.A., 2009. Neuroscience and the law: philosophical differences and practical constraints. Behavioral Science and the Law, 27, 123-136.
49. Meegan, D.V., 2008. Neuroimaging techniques for memory detection: scientific, ethical and legal issues. American Journal of Bioethics, 8, 9-20. (Pubitemid 351185574)
50. Molyneux-Hodgson, S. and Meyer, M., 2009. Tales of emergence: synthetic biology as a scientific community in the making. BioSocieties, 4, 129-145.
51. Moreno, J.D., 2006. Mind wars: brain research and national defense. New York and Washington. DC: The Dana Foundation.
52. Moriarty, J.C., 2009. Visions of deception: neuroimages and the search for truth. Akron Law Review, 42, 739-761.
53. Morse, S., 2005. New neuroscience, old problems: legal implications of brain science. Cerebrum, 6, 81-90.
54. Nerlich, B. and Halliday, C., 2007. Avian flu: the creation of expectations at the interplay between science and the media. Sociology of Health and Illness, 29, 46-65.
55. New York City Bar Foundation Committee on Science and Law, 2005. Are your thoughts your own? "Neuroprivacy" and the legal implications of brain imaging, [online]. Available from: http://www.abcny.org/pdf/report/ Neuroprivacy-revisions.pdf [Accessed 25 June 2009].
56. O'Hara, E.A., 2004. How neuroscience might advance the law. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 359, 1677-1684. (Pubitemid 39606376)
57. Pickersgill, M., 2009. Between soma and society: neuroscience and the ontology of psychopathy. BioSocieties, 4, 45-60.
58. Pickersgill, M.D., in press. "Promising" therapies: neuroscience, clinical practice, and the treatment of psychopathy. Sociology of Health and Illness.
59. Pockett, S., 2007. The concept of free will: philosophy, neuroscience and the law. Behavioral Science and the Law, 25, 281-293. (Pubitemid 46733426)
60. Pustelnik, A., 2009. Violence on the brain: a critique of neuroscience in criminal law. Wake Forest Law Review, 44, 183-238.
61. Rose, N., 2007. The politics of life itself: biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
62. Roskies, A., 2006. Neuroscientific challenges to free will and responsibility. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 419-423. (Pubitemid 44291560)
63. Sapolsky, R.M., 2004. The frontal cortex and the criminal justice system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 359, 1787-1796. (Pubitemid 39606386)
64. Schauer, F., 2010. Neuroscience, lie-detection, and the law: contrary to the prevailing view, the suitability of brain-based lie-detection for courtroom or forensic use should be determined according to legal and not scientific standards. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 101-103.
65. Silva, J.A., 2007. The relevance of neuroscience to forensic psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 35, 6-9. (Pubitemid 46663286)
66. Soon, C.S., et al., 2008. Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 543-545. (Pubitemid 351595206)
67. Spence, S.A., 2008. Playing devil's advocate: the case against fMRI lie detection. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 11-25. (Pubitemid 351300678)
68. Spence, S.A., et al., 2001. Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. NeuroReport, 12, 2849-2853. (Pubitemid 32881994)
69. Stoller, S.E. and Wolpe, P.R., 2007. Emerging neurotechnologies for lie detection and the fifth amendment. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 33, 359-375. (Pubitemid 47436164)
70. Tancredi, L.R., 2007. The neuroscience of "free will.". Behavioral Science and the Law, 25, 295-308.
71. Thompson, C., 2005. Ontological choreography: reproductive technologies and their economies. Cambridge: MIT Press.
72. Tovino, S.A., 2007. Functional neuroimaging and the law: trends and directions for future scholarship. American Journal of Bioethics, 7, 44-56. (Pubitemid 47397882)
73. Tovino, S.A., 2008. The impact of neuroscience on health law. Neuroethics, 1, 101-117.
74. Tovino, S.A., 2009. Neuroscience and health law: an integrative approach? Akron Law Review, 42, 469-517.
75. Van Lente, H. and Rip, A., 1998. The rise of membrane technology: from rhetorics to social reality. Social Studies of Science, 28, 221-254.
76. Vincent, N.A., 2010. On the relevance of neuroscience to criminal responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 4, 77-98.
77. Wilkie, A. and Michael, M., 2009. Expectation and mobilisation: enacting future users. Science, Technology and Human Values, 34, 502-522.
78. Wolpe, P.R., Foster, K.R., and Langleben, D.D., 2005. Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: promises and perils. American Journal of Bioethics, 5, 39-49. (Pubitemid 41673996)
79. Zeki, S. and Goodenough, O.R., 2004. Law and the brain: introduction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 359, 1661-1665. (Pubitemid 39606374)