SEARCH
Current Location:
>
> This Story


Log in or Register to rate this News Story
Forward Printable StoryPrint Send us your Comments

Never Miss a Story

Sign up for email alerts

 

More Industry Headlines

Companies develop pediatric medical devices to compete for $50,000 prize Will the smallest of patients finally have more options?

New imaging method may detect cancer earlier Will shortwave infrared be a bright spot?

Siemens AAMI 2014 CMS debate video released See a video of the debate on CMS's imaging equipment maintenance edict from December 2013

Technology uses extremely cold temperatures to treat breast cancer Multi-center trial enrolls first patients

Samsung's tablet ultrasound can diagnose patients en route to hospital The technology can prove crucial when seconds matter

Ultrasound-powered chip monitors diseases and delivers therapies May be able to study nervous system and treat Parkinson's symptoms

Celgene invests in Sequenta's MRD test Test will participate in trials to create blood cancer medicine

AFT calls for improved Ebola hospital protocols Meanwhile, 43 people in Texas are removed from Ebola watch list

Americans with insurance still not going to doctor Will making cost and quality information transparent be the solution?

Mass. health care cost transparency law underperforming Pricing still murky after transparency law introduced

Can neuroscience
aid the legal system?

Brain Imaging and Criminal Law

by Astrid Fiano , DOTmed News Writer
MacArthur Law and Neuroscience Project (LNP) out of the University of California, Santa Barbara, is an organization devoting serious research to the use of brain imaging in criminal law. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, PhD, Co-Director of the LNP and Professor of Philosophy and Legal Studies at Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, spoke to DOTmed about the goals of the Project and its research topics.

Prof. Sinnott-Armstrong explained that the project developed from the MacArthur Foundation seeking useful projects to pursue. Dr. Robert Sapolsky, Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, at Stanford University, suggested that the criminal justice system was in need of reform, and neuroscience could help. The Foundation approached Professor Sinnott-Armstrong, along with Art Singer, and they put together an advisory board. Dr. Michael Gazzaniga, of the University of California, Santa Barbara (future Director of the Project), and Stephen Morse, Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry from the University of Pennsylvania Law School (future Legal Director of the Project) were on the advisory board, and crucial to the successful proposal to the Foundation and inception of the project. The participants were motivated in part to use "good" neuroscience to aid the legal system and in part to avoid the influence of "bad" neuroscience in the courtroom.

Story Continues Below Advertisement

Delivering on Dose Reduction Promises

Dr. Steven Mendelsohn of Zwanger-Pesiri Radiology, explains his commitment to dose reduction and why he believes a change in attitudes will be driven by patients rather than radiology professionals. Click to read more>>>



Good vs. Bad

What can be considered a "bad" use of neuroscience? Professor Sinnott-Armstrong points out a recent case in India. A process involving EEGs, called the Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature test (BEOS) was developed by Champadi Raman Mukundan, an Indian neuroscientist and former director of the clinical psychology department of the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences in Bangalore. The results of the process were used in court for a murder case in Pune, India. According to the International Herald-Tribune, the judge cited the scan as proof the defendant's brain held guilty knowledge concerning the crime. The defendant was sentenced to life in prison. However, current brain state and imaging technology does not yet appear to function at the level of reliability most legal systems demand.

Using inferences from neuroscience for legal conclusions raises a question at every step, Professor Sinnott-Armstrong points out. As an example, an imaging procedure might be good to detect a structural abnormality within the brain, such as a tumor, but how relevant is the procedure to a legal situation--what does it have to do with criminal responsibility? In other words, can we infer from the brain scan that the person couldn't control his or her actions due to that tumor?

Continue reading Brain Imaging and Criminal Law...
  Pages: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - ... >>

Related:


Interested in Medical Industry News? Subscribe to DOTmed's weekly news email and always be informed. Click here, it takes just 30 seconds.
Access and use of this site is subject to the terms and conditions of our LEGAL NOTICE & PRIVACY NOTICE
Property of and Proprietary to DOTmed.com, Inc. Copyright ©2001-2014 DOTmed.com, Inc.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED