On Friday, May 23, 2008, Baylor College of Medicine's Initiative on Neuroscience and Law hosted its first Neuroscience and Law Conference. The growing interest in neuroscience and law was clearly evidenced by the fact that over 250 lawyers, academics and students attended the event. The exciting afternoon featured six talks as well as a Q&A session with the panel of speakers.
The afternoon began with Dr. David Eagleman giving a broad overview of the field of Neuroscience and Law. Citing classic examples such as Phineas Gage and Charles Whitman, Dr. Eagleman showed how these issues at the intersection of neuroscience and law have been confronting us for years; however, only recently has the technology and scientific knowledge presented the possibility of addressing them. The introduction was not without controversy as Dr. Eagleman also presented some paradigm-shifting and radical ideas such as his "Law of Sufficient Automatism" (discussed in Dr. Eagleman's upcoming book Dethronement) and the notion of the "Society of Mind" (which views the nervous system as competing, semi-autonomous areas of activity whose competition results in our behavior).
The next speech was by Dr. J. Ray Hays on the topic of scientific evidence and expert witnesses. Dr. Hays discussed Hugo Munsterberg's classic work, On the Witness Stand, which still illuminates the problems facing expert witnesses and scientific evidence. The speech moved into substantive areas of law by discussing the law governing the admission of expert testimony-mainly, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard. Dr. Hays commented at length about the distance that neuroscience will have to cover and the issues it will have to face in trying to become accepted by the law, including the issue of causation and the legal standards for evidence and proof. For lawyers, Dr. Hays stated that the biggest challenge will be to understand both the potential and the limitation of the new technologies.
Dr. Amy McGuire spoke about the similarities between genetics and neuroscience as they intersect with the law. She discussed the regulations of human subject research, and the controversial nature of trying to understand human behavior through deterministic lenses. Finally, she strongly advocated that researchers consider the ethical and social implications of the work they do and recommended that there be increased oversight of such research to ensure that social implications are considered.
Next, Dr. Joseph Kass spoke about capacity issues, decision-making, and the prefrontal cortex. He discussed how decision-making (setting a goal, evaluating options, selecting an option, implementing the decisions, and monitoring) required high-level cognitive capacities such as executive functioning and emotional regulation. He discussed how the various areas of the prefrontal cortex have been implicated in these capacities and how damage to these areas resulted in deficits in these capacities.
Daniel Goldberg spoke about the issue of memory fingerprinting and the application of the undue prejudice standard from Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. One of the most interesting concepts he discussed was the "neurofallacy" or the "fallacy of neurorealism"-the notion that an fMRI image literally captures the phenomenon being measured. Daniel was followed by Dr. Amir Halevy who discussed the issue of brain death and the Uniform Determination of Death Act. The final talk was given by Dr. William Winslade on the topic of sex offenders and chemical castration in Texas. Citing very thought-provoking examples, Dr. Winslade discussed how physiology, criminal behavior, and legal policy can intertwine.
At the end of the afternoon, there was an interesting dialogue between the audience and the speakers. Audience members representing groups ranging from the Department of Justice and the District Attorneys Office to medical students and international guests questioned the speakers on a variety of topics including criminal responsibility, child molestation, and American prison population statistics relative to other developed nations. Hands were still up in the air when Dr. Eagleman had to bring the conference to a close indicating that many questions still remain to be explored in the future.
The conference was taped and will be available online soon at www.neulaw.org. Also, on a similar note, the Neuroscience and Law Project will be hosting their annual conference in Santa Barbara this weekend.
