Talk:Neurolaw

WP is not a library list

See also section was completely unmanageable. I have eliminated all the refs from the see also section. Nevertheless they could be used as references for future use and integrated into the article. --Garrondo (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

List copied from see also section the 27-01-2011

Popular Press Articles

Rosen, Jeffrey (2007). The Brain on the Stand. New York Times. Magazine section, March 11.

Carlat, Daniel (2008). Brain Scans as Mind Readers? Don’t Believe the Hype. Wired Magazine, May 18. http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-06/mf_neurohacks

Talbot, M (2007). Duped: Can brain scans uncover lies? New Yorker vol. July 2 pp. 52-61.

Lehrer, J. (2008). Misreading the Mind: We’re looking for too much in brain scans. Los Angeles Times, Jan 20.

Neuroscience Articles and Reviews

Logothetis, N (2008) What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature 453 (7197) pp. 869-78.

Haynes and Rees (2006) Decoding mental states from brain activity in humans. Nature Reviews Neuroscience: 7 (7) pp. 523-534.

McCabe, DP, and AD Castel (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition 107 (1) pp. 343-52.

Weisberg, DS, FC Keil, J Goodstein, E Rawson, JR Gray (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 20 (3) pp. 470-7

Burns, JM and RH Swerdlow (2003). Right orbitofrontal tumor with pedophilia symptom and constructional apraxia sign. Archives of neurology 60 (3) pp. 437-40.

Wager, TD, JK Rilling, EE Smith, A Sokolik, KL Casey, RJ Davidson, SM Kosslyn, RM Rose, JD Cohen (2004). Placebo-induced changes in FMRI in the anticipation and experience of pain. Science 303 (5661) pp. 1162-7

Law Review Articles and “Neurolaw” Scholarship

Greely, H and J Illes (2007). Neuroscience-based lie detection: The urgent need for regulation. American Journal of Law and Medicine 33 pp. 377-431.

Roskies, A. (2008). Neuroimaging and inferential distance. Neuroethics 1 (1) pp. 19-30.

Feigenson, N (2006). Brain imaging and courtroon evidence: on the admissibility and persuasiveness of fMRI. International Journal of Law in Context 2 (03) pp. 233-255.

Mobbs, D, HC Lau, OD Jones, CD Frith (2007). Law, responsibility, and the brain. PLoS Biology 5 (4) pp. e103.

Morse SJ. (2007) The non-problem of free will in forensic psychiatry and psychology. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 25 pp. 203-220.

Books

Frith, C (2007) Making up the Mind: How the Brain Creates our Mental World. Blackwell Publishing.

Notice about page revisions

As part of a project for my Neuroscience class at Boston College, I will be updating this article with two of my peers in hopes of obtaining good article status. The page will undergo substantial revisions over the next month as we complete this task. Other editors are free to help by either editing the article directly, or sending messages to my talk page. If you have questions about the project, please also see my talk page. Pathyland (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool! Looie496 (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced questions

I moved the unsourced questions from the old version here if anyone wants to use it. Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Some questions to which neurolaw practitioners seek answers include:

• How will increasingly accurate lie detection technologies impact our court system?
• How will new insight into brain disorders affect legal notions of intent and culpability?
• How would legal standards (such as self-defense, sentencing, intent to kill, competence to stand trial, cruel and unusual punishment…) change in the face of developments in neuroscience? Should they change?
• Who should be responsible for the integration of new neuroscience into our legal system - judges, legislators, executive leaders, scientists, or some combination thereof?
• How might neuroscience-based understanding of behaviors such as addiction lead to changes in sentencing or treatment guidelines?
• How is neuroscience evidence being used by legal decision makers? Is the evidence being used appropriately?

DARPA?

I have no idea why material about DARPA research is being added to this article. What does that have to do with the relationship between neuroscience and the law? Looie496 (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any relationship, and would support removing that section. Kansan (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The relationship is there, but it has not yet been made explicit due to poor use of sources. See my comments below. The original editor is trying to lead up to a discussion of the ethics of consent when it comes to the use of enhancements which Begley 2006 alludes to in a legal context. Wikipedia is strict when it comes to making sources and the source material explicit, so either more sources need to be found and/or major editing needs to take place. Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: It does seem that an educational assignment relating to this page is currently taking place, which could potentially be the source: [1] Kansan (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm one of the group members working on the assignment. I'm not sure it why it was added either. I'll talk to the group member and see if it's justified, otherwise it'll come down soon.Pathyland (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

The editor is on the right path but subsequent edits will be needed. For example, the Begley 2006 source says the following:

Presumably, workers and students will have the legal right to reject such "enhancements," Prof. Moreno says. Soldiers might not. Should they? Will employers or others pressure people to accept better thinking through technology? Will the use of such "augmented cognition" by business competitors have the same effect as steroids in baseball, where the perception that everyone is using them exerts pressure to do the same, to keep the playing field level? There has been virtually no debate on the ethical questions raised by the brave new brain technologies.[2]

This has not yet been added to the article yet, which is why Looie496 (and myself) were initially confused. On Wikipedia, the general rule of thumb is to rely heavily on secondary sources that explicitly mention the topic. Otherwise, there could be problems with topic scope and relevancy when the article comes up for independent review. It is also a good idea for an editor to search out better sources on the subject when we run into situations like this. If none can be found, then the material should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Added {{Offtopic}} until context is made explicit. Much of this can be salvaged with either more sources or better use of the current sources. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation issue

I've noticed that older sources (particularly from the 1990s) use the concept of "neurolaw" in a different context, usually referring to TBI and SCI. I am not clear if the term for this type of injury law has changed or how it relates to this topic. My guess is that it does not, and the term is no longer used to refer to this type of law practice. Can someone look into this? I will post a query on the law project as well. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

From my understanding, the references to TBI or SCI are applications of neurolaw, in that they are accessing culpability of a criminal action. Because diseases and injuries can affect the decision making process, the neuroimaging of TBIs and SCI's have been used in legal courts. Shortly a section will be added under criminal law that describes its relation in further detail. If the sources you found do not coincide with my understanding, could you cite them so I can take a better look at the subject. Boothra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

That sounds reasonable. My concern arose when I noticed there was nothing about the origins of the field in the article. I went looking and found several sources that attribute the modern origins of the term to J. Sherrod Taylor. Perhaps you could look into that. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

This topic seems very relevant and controversial in today's society, and I thought you guys have done a really good job of providing an extensive, unbiased account of the issue. I especially like the "criticism section." I thought it was well done and had a lot of valid points. One portion of the page that I thought was a little confusing and could use some elaboration is the part about the effect of the environment, law, and behavior on each other. It seems interesting, but I couldn't quite follow what you meant, and then it seems as if it is just left abruptly and only talked about briefly. I wasn't quite sure how it fit into the rest of the paragraph, though it did have a figure associated with it. Also, this might be a bit of a judgement call, but I thought there was a couple of instances where a word or phrase was unnecessarily linked, like "grey area" and the word "intentionality." Otherwise, great job, I couldn't find any obvious grammar or capitalization mistakes, and I thought the whole article flowed really well. Easy to read and informative. Gleasoda (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting topic. I agree that the beginning of the Criminal Law section is pretty confusing, but the idea seems promising. Try to rework that part. You do a good job describing the debates surrounding neurolaw and the potential effect of popular culture on people's perceptions of it. In the section about Crime Prediction you don't explicitly state whether neuroscience has been put to use in that are or whether there's research being done on it or if it's still just an idea. I though the sections on Nootropics and military usage of neuroscience were really interesting and relevant to your topic. Good job all around. mccartqd (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

In examining the content of the project topic, this page is well done in the breadth of information given. I like how the lead contains questions as an introductory hook. However, I am wondering if a couple of subtopics could be expanded. It may be interesting to add a heading at the end for 'research directions' so that the ending of the page is not so abrupt - either by adding more about future research, or combining the two subsections you have that allude to research, just to keep the flow more organized. I also agree with the above poster about the discussion of environmental pressures affecting the proposal of laws; I would have liked more explanation about that because I did not really understand how it related to that section of criminal law. In terms of writing voice and grammar, be careful to keep a neutral tone because sometimes I caught instances of phrases such as "the legal system MUST" - see if there is a way to neutralize the tone in those types of sentences. I did see some grammatical and spelling mistakes such as the misuse of "its" vs. "it's" and "conscience" vs. "conscious" along with a couple of typos. Finally, when mentioning terms that can be acronyms, it's easiest to mention the full version of the term the first time it appears in the article, and then put the acronym in parentheses, such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) - and then each time after that when you use the same term, you can just use the acronym and not have to worry about having to explain what it stands for again. Similarly, when doing internal links, you may want to just link the word the first time it appears and then keep it in regular type for each subsequent time it comes up. Overall though, this article is very informative-keep up the good work! -- JCal2011 (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)