Cognitive neuroscience and the law

Brent Garland, Paul Glimcher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Advances in cognitive neuroscience now allow us to use physiological techniques to measure and assess mental states under a growing set of circumstances. The implication of this growing ability has not been lost on the western legal community. If biologists can accurately measure mental state, then legal conflicts that turn on the true mental states of individuals might well be resolvable with techniques ranging from electroencephalography to functional magnetic resonance imaging. Therefore, legal practitioners have increasingly sought to employ cognitive neuroscientific methods and data as evidence to influence legal proceedings. This poses a risk, because these scientific methodologies have largely been designed and validated for experimental use only. Their subsequent use in legal proceedings is an application for which they were not intended, and for which those methods are inadequately tested. We propose that neurobiologists, who might inadvertently contribute to this situation, should be aware of how their papers will be read by the legal community and should play a more active role in educating and engaging with that community.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)130-134
Number of pages5
JournalCurrent Opinion in Neurobiology
Volume16
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2006

Fingerprint

Aptitude
Electroencephalography
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Cognitive Neuroscience
Conflict (Psychology)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuroscience(all)

Cite this

Cognitive neuroscience and the law. / Garland, Brent; Glimcher, Paul.

In: Current Opinion in Neurobiology, Vol. 16, No. 2, 04.2006, p. 130-134.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Garland, Brent ; Glimcher, Paul. / Cognitive neuroscience and the law. In: Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 2006 ; Vol. 16, No. 2. pp. 130-134.
@article{fbc3ea88c9e84b1fae7aea477ad6b3b4,
title = "Cognitive neuroscience and the law",
abstract = "Advances in cognitive neuroscience now allow us to use physiological techniques to measure and assess mental states under a growing set of circumstances. The implication of this growing ability has not been lost on the western legal community. If biologists can accurately measure mental state, then legal conflicts that turn on the true mental states of individuals might well be resolvable with techniques ranging from electroencephalography to functional magnetic resonance imaging. Therefore, legal practitioners have increasingly sought to employ cognitive neuroscientific methods and data as evidence to influence legal proceedings. This poses a risk, because these scientific methodologies have largely been designed and validated for experimental use only. Their subsequent use in legal proceedings is an application for which they were not intended, and for which those methods are inadequately tested. We propose that neurobiologists, who might inadvertently contribute to this situation, should be aware of how their papers will be read by the legal community and should play a more active role in educating and engaging with that community.",
author = "Brent Garland and Paul Glimcher",
year = "2006",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.conb.2006.03.011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "130--134",
journal = "Current Opinion in Neurobiology",
issn = "0959-4388",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cognitive neuroscience and the law

AU - Garland, Brent

AU - Glimcher, Paul

PY - 2006/4

Y1 - 2006/4

N2 - Advances in cognitive neuroscience now allow us to use physiological techniques to measure and assess mental states under a growing set of circumstances. The implication of this growing ability has not been lost on the western legal community. If biologists can accurately measure mental state, then legal conflicts that turn on the true mental states of individuals might well be resolvable with techniques ranging from electroencephalography to functional magnetic resonance imaging. Therefore, legal practitioners have increasingly sought to employ cognitive neuroscientific methods and data as evidence to influence legal proceedings. This poses a risk, because these scientific methodologies have largely been designed and validated for experimental use only. Their subsequent use in legal proceedings is an application for which they were not intended, and for which those methods are inadequately tested. We propose that neurobiologists, who might inadvertently contribute to this situation, should be aware of how their papers will be read by the legal community and should play a more active role in educating and engaging with that community.

AB - Advances in cognitive neuroscience now allow us to use physiological techniques to measure and assess mental states under a growing set of circumstances. The implication of this growing ability has not been lost on the western legal community. If biologists can accurately measure mental state, then legal conflicts that turn on the true mental states of individuals might well be resolvable with techniques ranging from electroencephalography to functional magnetic resonance imaging. Therefore, legal practitioners have increasingly sought to employ cognitive neuroscientific methods and data as evidence to influence legal proceedings. This poses a risk, because these scientific methodologies have largely been designed and validated for experimental use only. Their subsequent use in legal proceedings is an application for which they were not intended, and for which those methods are inadequately tested. We propose that neurobiologists, who might inadvertently contribute to this situation, should be aware of how their papers will be read by the legal community and should play a more active role in educating and engaging with that community.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33645794296&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33645794296&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.conb.2006.03.011

DO - 10.1016/j.conb.2006.03.011

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 130

EP - 134

JO - Current Opinion in Neurobiology

JF - Current Opinion in Neurobiology

SN - 0959-4388

IS - 2

ER -