Neurolaw and some of its potential dangers
As I have blogged before, neurolaw is fraught with danger and unsubstantiated promises. It overestimates what we can do, and learn about people, with the current state of neuroscience and leaves out some of the research that contradicts many of its assertions and predictions. Scary. I hope to promote critical thinking on the topic.
At the seminar on neuroscience and conflict resolution last week, I asked Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz to talk about the MacArthur Foundation grant to study neuroscience and law. He covered several of the problems that could result from research that leaves out much of the picture. (See my blog post for more.)
The morning of the seminar, The [London] Times coincidentally published an article on some problems with neurolaw. Here's an excerpt from "Why blame me? It was all my brain's fault-The dubious rise of 'neurolaw'" . . .
Meanwhile, the neuromitigation of blame has to be treated with suspicion except in those instances where there is unambiguous evidence of grossly abnormal brain function or abnormal mental function due to clearcut illness that may have its origin in brain disease. Our knowledge of the relationship between brain and consciousness, brain and self, and brain and agency is so weak and so conceptually confused that the appeal to neuroscience in the law courts, the police station or anywhere else is premature and usually inappropriate. And, I would suggest, it will remain both premature and inappropriate. Neurolaw is just another branch of neuromythology.
What did Dr. Schwartz say about the research being conducted by the Law and Neuroscience Project?
Posted by: Emily Murphy | October 30, 2007 at 05:19 PM