Skip to main content

MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience

MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience

News

February 3, 2017

 

This message brings news about:

A) Recent or Forthcoming Neurolaw Publications
 B) Neurolaw Media & News Clippings
 C) Conferences & Speaker Series
 D) Other Developments

 A.  Recent or Forthcoming Neurolaw Publications

 

    1. Owen D. Jones, Readying the Legal Community for More Neuroscientific Evidence. OPINION: Understanding Complex Advances in Neurolaw Can Aid the Administration of Justice , The Nat'L L. J. (2016).

 

    1. Dennis Patterson & Michael S. Pardo, The Promise of Neuroscience for Law: ‘ Overclaiming ’ in Jurisprudence, Morality, and Economics, Dennis Patterson & Michael S. Pardo eds. (2016).

 

    1. Nada Gligorov , Brain Imaging and the Privacy of Inner States in Neuroethics and the Scientific Revision of Common Sense (2016).         

 

    1. Eugenio Picozza, Neurolaw: An Introduction , Eugenio Picozza, ed. (2016).

 

    1. Eugenio Picozza, Neuro Law: Validity and Limits of a Neuroscientific Approach to Problems Relating to Law and Justice in Neurolaw: An Introduction, Eugenio Picozza, ed. (2016).

 

    1. David Terracina, Criminal Law Issues in Neurolaw: An Introduction, Eugenio Picozza, ed. (2016).

 

    1. Laura Capraro, Criminal Procedure Issues in Neurolaw: An Introduction, Eugenio Picozza, ed. (2016).

 

    1. Vera Cuzzocrea, General Issues in Neurolaw: An Introduction, Eugenio Picozza, ed. (2016).

 

    1. Keith B. Senholzi & Jennifer T. Kubota, The Neural Mechanisms of Prejudice Intervention in Neuroimaging Personality, Social Cognition, and Character, Jasmin Cloutier, ed. (2016).

 

    1. Lyn M. Gaudet, Jason Kerkmans, Nathaniel E. Anderson, & Kent Kiehl, Can Neuroscience Help Predict Future Antisocial Behavior? 85 Fordham L. Rev. 503 (2016).

 

    1. Deborah W. Denno, How Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys Differ in Their Use of Neuroscience Evidence , 85 Fordham L. Rev. 453 (2016).    

 

    1. Sheri Lynn Johnson, When Empathy Bites Back: Cautionary Tales from Neuroscience for Capital Sentencing , 85 Fordham L. Rev. (2016).      

 

    1. Nancy Gertner, Neuroscience and Sentencing , 85 Fordham L. Rev. 533 (2016).    

 

    1. Ruben C. Gur, A Perspective on the Potential Role of Neuroscience in the Court , 85 Fordham L. Rev. 547 (2016).

 

    1. Erin Murphy, Neuroscience and the Civil/Criminal Daubert Divide , 85 Fordham L. Rev. 619 (2016).

 

    1. Bernice B. Donald & Erica Bakies, A Glimpse Inside the Brain's Black Box: Understanding the Role of Neuroscience in Criminal Sentencing , 85 Fordham L. Rev. 481 (2016).

 

    1. Deborah W. Denno, Criminal Behavior and the Brain: When Law and Neuroscience Collide Foreword , 85 Fordham L. Rev. 399 (2016).

 

    1. Jane Campbell Moriarty, Seeing Voices: Potential Neuroscience Contributions to a Reconstruction of Legal Insanity , 85 Fordham L. Rev. 599 (2016).

 

    1. Joel Zivot, Too Sick to Be Executed: Shocking Punishment and the Brain , 85 Fordham L. Rev. 697 (2016).

 

    1. Elizabeth Bennett, Neuroscience and Criminal Law: Have We Been Getting It Wrong for Centuries and Where Do We Go from Here? 85 Fordham L. Rev. 437 (2016).

 

    1. Francis X. Shen, The Overlooked History of Neurolaw , 85 Fordham L. Rev. 667 (2016).

 

    1. Arielle R. Baskin-Sommers & Karelle Fonteneau, Correctional Change Through Neuroscience , 85 Fordham L. Rev. 423 (2016).

 

    1. Neil Garrett, Stephanie C. Lazzaro, Dan Ariely & Tali Sharot, The Brain Adapts to Dishonesty , 19 Nature Neuroscience 1727 (2016).           

 

    1. Daniel D. Langleben, Polygraphy and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Lie Detection: A Controlled Blind Comparison Using the Concealed Information Test , 77 J. Clinical Psychiatry 1372 (2016).

 

    1. Gerben Meynen, Neurolaw: Recognizing Opportunities and Challenges for Psychiatry , 4 J. Psychiatry Neuroscience 3 (2016).

 

    1. Dennis Patterson & Michael S. Pardo, Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience , Dennis Patterson & Michael S. Pardo eds. (2016).

 

    1. Stephen J. Morse, The Inevitable Mind in the Age of Neuroscience in Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience, Dennis Patterson & Michael Pardo, eds. (2016).

 

    1. Nita A. Farahany, A Neurological Foundation for Freedom in Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience, Dennis Patterson & Michael Pardo, eds. (2016).

 

    1. Frederick Schauer, Lie-Detection, Neuroscience, and the Law of Evidence   in Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience, Dennis Patterson & Michael Pardo, eds. (2016).

 

    1. Alex Stein, Dualism and Doctrine in Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience, Dennis Patterson & Michael Pardo, eds. (2016).

 

    1. Gideon Yaffe, Mind-Reading by Brain-Reading and Criminal Responsibility in Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience, Dennis Patterson & Michael Pardo, eds. (2016).

 

    1. Katrina L. Sifferd, Unconscious Mens Rea: Lapses, Negligence, and Criminal Responsibility in Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience, Dennis Patterson & Michael Pardo, eds. (2016).

 

    1. Michael S. Moore, The Neuroscience of Volitional Excuse in Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience, Dennis Patterson & Michael Pardo, eds. (2016).

 

    1. Chris Deubert, I. Glenn Cohen, & Holly Fernandez Lynch, Protecting and Promoting the Health of NFL Players: Legal and Ethical Analysis and Recommendations , Petrie-Flom Ctr. For Health L. Pol'y, Biotechnology, & Bioethics (2016).

 

    1. Joshua Preston, The Legal Implications of Detecting Alzheimer's Disease Earlier , 18 AMA J. Ethics 1207 (2016).    

 

    1. Andreas Kuersten, When a Picture is Not Worth a Thousand Words , 84 George Washington L. R. Arguendo 178-91 (2016).  

 

    1. Amy L. Wax, The Poverty of the Neuroscience of Poverty: Policy Payoff or False Promise? 57 Jurimetrics (2016).

 

 B.  Neurolaw Media & News Clippings

1.       Lie Detection Op-Ed: The Research Network is pleased to share an opinion piece, “Lies, Brains and Courtrooms,” authored by Network Director Owen Jones and Member Judge Morris Hoffman which ran in the Jan. 12 edition of Bloomberg BNA's  United States Law Week.  Their piece focuses on the evolution of lie detection, and the role it might play in criminal and civil cases as technology is evolving. In addition to putting lie detection in a historical context, the piece examines the effectiveness of current methods, promising research and emerging techniques in the field. Most importantly, it delves into how great knowledge shifts in the legal and scientific communities are coalescing in unprecedented ways, creating excitement -- and raising skepticism -- about the role neuroscience should play in our legal system. You can view the piece here and view the Network's recent knowledge brief on fMRI and lie detection here .

 

2.       Congratulations to Network Member David Faigman:  David Faigman has been named UC-Hastings College of the Law’s Chancellor and Dean after an interim role for most of 2016.  To read more, click here , and congratulations, David!

 

3.       Neurorelevance with Nita Farahany: Nita Farahany (Duke University School of Law) was recently interviewed by the blog In Search of Refinement - Reflections of an Ideas Prospector on the topic of neurorelevance .  To learn more click here .

 

4.       Book Review by Morris Hoffman: Research Network Member and U.S. District Judge Morris Hoffman recently penned a book review titled “Guilty or Not Guilty: Does Inequality Really Lead to Murder?”  Hoffman “weighs up the evidence for the prosecution in Martin Daly's book Killing the Competition , and wonders why murder is so rare.” To read more, click here .

 C.  Conferences & Speaker Series

 

1.       Assessing Neurolaw: On January 4, 2017 a panel was offered at the Annual Conference of the American Association of Law Schools titled Assessing Neurolaw: Promise, Accomplishments, and Limits. Speakers included Oliver R. Goodenough (Vermont Law School), Ann Aiken (District Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Oregon), Jennifer A. Drobac (Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law), Henry T. Greely (Stanford Law School), Owen D. Jones (Vanderbilt University Law School & Professor of Biological Sciences), Stephen J. Morse (University of Pennsylvania Law School), Mark Sherman (Assistant Division Director, Probation and Pretrial Services, Federal Judicial Center), and Anthony Wagner (Professor, Stanford University Department of Psychology).

 

2.       Law and the Biosciences Conference Announcement: The Bio LawLapalooza!
News from the organizers of an upcoming conference:
Advances in the biological sciences from such fields as genetics, neuroscience, reproductive biology, and ecology are increasingly challenging society and the laws that attempt to order, regulate, and protect it. These advances are crystalizing a new area of work: Law and the Biosciences. We take a very broad view of Law and the Biosciences and see it encompassing the intersections of both fields. It ranges from CRISPR’d babies and head transplants to patent law in the biosciences with intermediate stops at FDA, health plan coverage decisions, torts, property, and more. It also includes ways in which biology and its models and approaches may help us understand better that living and evolving organism that is “the law.”


The Journal of Law and the Biosciences and the Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences, will host the first annual Bio LawLapalooza Conference at Stanford Law School on Thursday afternoon and all day Friday, April 20 and 21. We hope this will provide a forum for people interested in Law and the Biosciences to gather, talk, and share insights, following the precedent of Patent Con, among other conferences. Registration is free but participants will be responsible for their own travel and accommodation expenses; much meals will be included.

We welcome scholars who are interested in presenting at the conference as well as those who just want to attend, listen, talk, and schmooze. But we encourage all scholars interested in Law and the Biosciences to apply to present at the Conference. Titles and abstracts of proposed presentations are due on February 14, 2017. The peer-reviewed Journal of Law and the Biosciences will welcome submissions coming out of the conference. Please contact Hank at hgreely@stanford.edu with any questions. We hope to see you all at Stanford in late April 2017!

3.       The Philosophy and Science of Self-Control Project Summer Seminar: Dr. Alfred Mele of the Florida State University Department of Philosophy is directing The Philosophy and Science of Self-Control project, a grant project funded by the John Templeton Foundation. The project is hosting a five day summer seminar on the topic of self-control for up to twelve graduate students and recent Ph.D.s (Ph.D. received no earlier than 2012). The aim is to enhance participants’ capacity to do scientific or scientifically informed research on self-control. We expect applications from a variety of fields, including neuroscience, philosophy, and various branches of psychology.

The seminar will be followed by the PSSC capstone conference, which begins on June 9 (afternoon) and ends on June 11 (afternoon).  All seminar attendees are strongly encouraged to attend the conference, and we will cover their housing during the seminar and the conference.  For more information and details on the application process, please visit https://philosophyandscienceofself-control.com/seminar/ .  Questions can be directed to pssc@fsu.edu , and information about the overall project is available on the project website at https://philosophyandscienceofself-control.com .

 

4.       Coordinating Global Brain Projects 2016 Conference: The goal of this day-long conference, held at The Rockefeller University, was to promote collaboration and cooperation in emerging large-scale international brain projects, as part of the National Science Foundation support for the U.S. BRAIN Initiative. Speakers at the event included scientists and administrators who represent public and private projects around the world. Read more about the event and see the conference agenda here .

D.  Other Developments

1.       Focus Programs on Neuroscience & Law: The focus program on neuroscience and law at the Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law addresses the implications for law in neuroscience, focusing on core legal issues involved in decision-making, behavior, and responsibility. Learn more about the program here .

 

2.       Small Fibs Pave the Way for Big Lies: Many dishonest acts can be traced back to smaller transgressions. To test this in the lab, researchers had participants look at jars full of pennies and asked them to tell a partner how much money was in the jar. In some scenarios, researchers adjusted the incentives such that people would be rewarded for lying about the amount of money. During this, participant's brains were scanned. Researchers looked specifically for activity in the amygdala region, known to process emotion. As participants continued to lie, the amygdala became less active over time. To read about this study in the news, click here . To read the scientific study, click here .

 

3.       Empirical Neuroenchantment : From Reading Minds to Thinking Critically: While most experts agree on the limitations of neuroimaging, the unversed public—and indeed many a scholar—often valorizes brain imaging without heeding its shortcomings. Here we test the boundaries of this phenomenon, which we term neuroenchantment . How much are individuals ready to believe when encountering improbable information through the guise of neuroscience? We introduced participants to a crudely-built mock brain scanner, explaining that the machine would measure neural activity, analyze the data, and then infer the content of complex thoughts. Using a classic magic trick, we crafted an illusion whereby the imaging technology seemed to decipher the internal thoughts of participants. We found that most students—even undergraduates with advanced standing in neuroscience and psychology, who have been taught the shortcomings of neuroimaging—deemed such unlikely technology highly plausible. Our findings highlight the influence neuro-hype wields over critical thinking. To read more, click here .

 

 

 

Neurolaw News is produced by The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, headquartered at Vanderbilt University Law School, 131 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37203.  For more information, please see: < / >.  For phone inquiries, please call 615-343-9797.

 

To UNSUBSCRIBE or to SUBSCRIBE: send an email to Executive Assistant Sarah Grove at < sarah.e.grove@vanderbilt.edu > with either “Unsubscribe” or “Subscribe” in the subject line.  To access the Neurolaw News archives, visit /listserv.php#archives