Neuroforensics Exploring the Legal Implications of Emerging Neurotechnologies: Proceedings of a Workshop (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 Introduction and Background
1 Introduction and Background
Pages 1-8
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
The workshop brought together stakeholders from neuroscience and legal communities in both the United States and the United Kingdom to explore the current uses of neuroscience, with a particular focus on neuroimaging technologies, in legal settings as well as the implications of potentially expanded use of these technologies in the future. 1The planning committee's role was limited to planning the workshop, and the Proceedings of a Workshop was prepared by the workshop rapporteurs as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop.
|
From page 2... ...
Finnegan Family Director of the Center for Brain Science at Harvard University, said neuroscience is permeating the legal system and that neuroscience evidence is being introduced at an increasingly rapid rate. Originally used mostly in death penalty cases, Sanes said it has extended to cases involving drugs, assault, burglary, child abuse, rape, fraud, theft, and kidnapping.
|
From page 3... ...
By building better tools to record and modulate activity in brain circuits and detect abnormalities in brain function, novel ways to diagnose and treat brain diseases are likely to emerge, she added. In terms of understanding neural circuits and producing dynamic pictures of brain function, the BRAIN Initiative is funding efforts to improve large-scale
|
From page 4... ...
While many of these emerging technologies are currently confined to animal studies, a few participants noted that successful demonstration of their use may serve as an impetus for researchers in academia and industry to modify them in the future for use in humans. Joshua Buckholtz, associate professor of psychology at Harvard University, added that neuroscience has developed at a pace that could scarcely be imagined in the early 1940s when Stephen Kuffler first described synaptic transmission (Kuffler, 1942)
|
From page 5... ...
. • While modern machine learning methods have allowed researchers to make fairly complicated and detailed maps that illustrate what kinds of information are encoded where in the brain and to create decoding models, it is limited to the accuracy and quality of brain activity measurements (Gallant)
|
From page 6... ...
By engaging an interdisciplinary group of scientists, clinicians, jurists, and legal scholars, the workshop aimed to assess, in a coordinated and proactive manner, how best to integrate neuroscientific evidence into legal practice, said Buckholtz. The use of neuroscientific evidence to make legal determinations about minds and brains always needs to be constrained by the limits of scientific inference, he said, and resolving inferential issues that lie at the intersection of law and neuroscience will be required to fulfill the promise of neuroscience with respect to the law.
|
From page 7... ...
Chapter 3 peeks into the future, exploring emerging technologies that may potentially reveal even more detailed and complex information about human behavior to be used in court. In Chapter 4, judges and legal scholars weigh in with a discussion of how to establish frameworks and standards for using neuroscience evidence, both now and in anticipation of new neurotechnologies on the horizon.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.