Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:56:44.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neurolaw and Neuroethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2018

JENNIFER A. CHANDLER
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This short article proposes a conceptual structure for “neurolaw,” modeled loosely on the bipartite division of the sister field of neuroethics by Adina Roskies into the “ethics of neuroscience” and the “neuroscience of ethics.” As normative fields addressing the implications of scientific discoveries and expanding technological capacities affecting the brain, “neurolaw” and neuroethics have followed parallel paths. Similar foundational questions arise for both about the validity and utility of recognizing them as distinct subfields of law and ethics, respectively. In both, a useful distinction can be drawn between a self-reflexive inquiry (the neuroscience of ethics and law) and an inquiry into the development and use of brain science and technologies (the ethics and law of neuroscience). In both fields, these two forms of inquiry interact in interesting ways. In addition to a proposed conceptual structure for neurolaw, the article also addresses the neurolegal versions of the critiques made against neuroethics, including charges of reductionism, fact/value confusion, and biological essentialism.

Keywords

neurolawlaw and neuroscienceneuroethicsresponsibility
Type
Symposium: Competing Identities of Neuroethics
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 27 , Special Issue 4: Clinical Neuroethics , October 2018 , pp. 590 - 598
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Roskies, A. Neuroethics for the new millennium. Neuron 2002;35(1):21–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Taylor, JS. Neurolaw and traumatic brain injury: Principles for trial lawyers. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 2015;84:397–409.Google Scholar

3. Shen, FX. The overlooked history of neurolaw. Fordham Law Review 2016;85:667–95.Google Scholar

4. See note 3, Shen 2016.

5. Mittermaier, CJA (trans. from the German). On the application of phrenology to criminal legislation and prison discipline. Letter from Professor Mittermaier to Mr. Combe. Phrenological Journal January 2–6, 1843; available at https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/on-the-application-of-phrenology-to-criminal-legislation-and-prison-discipline (last accessed 15 Nov 2017).Google Scholar

6. Weiss, KJ. Phrenology and expert testimony. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law 2007;35:339–45.Google ScholarPubMed

7. Pustilnik, A. Violence on the brain: A critique of neuroscience in criminal law. Wake Forest Law Review 2009;44:183–237.Google Scholar

8. Lilienfeld, SO, Aslinger, E, Marshall, J, Satel, S. Neurohype: A field guide to exaggerated brain-based claims. In: Johnson, LSM, Rommelfanger, K, eds Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics. New York: Routledge; 2017: 241–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Rose, N, Abi-Rached, JM. Neuro: The New Brain Sciences and the Management of the Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2013.Google Scholar

10. Goodenough, OR, Tucker, M. Law and cognitive neuroscience. Annual Review Law and Social Science 2010;6:61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Jones, OD, Marois, R, Farah, MJ, Greely, HT. Law and neuroscience. Journal of Neuroscience 2013;33(45):17,624–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

12. Jones, OD. Seven ways neuroscience aids law. In: Battro, A, Dehaene, S, Singer, W, eds. Neurosciences and the human person: new perspectives on human activities. Scripta Varia 121, Vatican City: Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 2013; available at http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/sv121/sv121-jones.pdf (last accessed 15 Nov 2017).Google Scholar

13. Shen, FX. The law and neuroscience bibliography: Navigating the emerging field of neurolaw. International Journal of Legal Information 2010;38(3):352–99.Google Scholar

14. See note 11, Jones et al. 2013.

15. Easterbrook, FH. Cyberspace and the law of the horse. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1996;1996:207.Google Scholar

16. See note 15, Easterbrook 1996.

17. Lessig, L. The law of the horse: What cyberlaw might teach. Harvard Law Review 1999;113:501–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. Aagaard, TS. Environmental law as a legal field: An inquiry in legal taxonomy. Cornell Law Review 2010;95(2):221–82.Google Scholar

19. See note 17, Lessig 1999.

20. See note 12, Jones 2013.

21. Merkel, R. Neurolaw: Introduction. In: Clausen, J, Levy, N, eds. Handbook of Neuroethics. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015:1269–78.Google Scholar

22. Meynen, G. Neurolaw: Neuroscience, ethics and law. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2014;17:819–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Roskies, A, Morse, SJ. Neuroscience and the law. In: Morse, SJ, Roskies, A, eds. A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013:240–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. See note 10, Goodenough, Tucker 2010.

25. See note 1, Roskies 2002.

26. See, for example, Johnson, LSM, Rommelfanger, K, eds. Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics. New York: Routledge; 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Racine, E. Pragmatic Neuroethics: Improving Treatment and Understanding the Mind-Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28. Buniak, L, Darragh, M, Giordano, J. A four-part working bibliography of neuroethics: Part 1: Overview and reviews—defining and describing the field and its practices. Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine 2014;16(9):9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. See also, Becker, K, Shook, JR, Darragh, M, Giordano, J. A four-part working bibliography of neuroethics: Part 4 – Ethical issues in clinical and social applications of neuroscience. Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine 2017;12:1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

30. Choudhury, S, Nagel, SK, Slaby, J. Critical neuroscience: Linking neuroscience and society through critical practice. BioSocieties 2009;4:61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Choudhury, S, Slaby, J, eds. Critical Neuroscience. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2012, at 3–4.Google Scholar

32. Pickersgill, M. Connecting neuroscience and law: Anticipatory discourse and the role of sociotechnical imaginaries. New Genetics and Society 2011;30(1):27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. O’Connell, K. A plural thing: Inventing a feminist brain-based subject of law. Australian Feminist Law Journal 2012;37(1):15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Karpin, I, O’Connell, K. Stigmatising the ‘normal’: The legal regulation of behavior as a disability. University of New South Wales Law Journal 2015;38(4):1461–83.Google Scholar

35. Rose, N. Screen and intervene: Governing risky brains. History of the Human Sciences 2010;23(1):79–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

36. Aharoni, E, Vincent, GM, Harenski, CL, Calhoun, VD, Sinnott-Armstrong, W, Gazzaniga, MS, et al. Neuroprediction of future rearrest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2013;110(15):6223–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

37. Shen, FX. Law and neuroscience 2.0. Arizona State Law Journal 2016;48:1043.Google Scholar

38. See note 27, Racine 2010, at chapter 4 for a review of criticisms of neuroethics.

39. Opderbeck, DW. The problem with neurolaw. Saint Louis University Law Journal 2014;58:497–539.Google Scholar

40. Goldberg, DS. Against reductionism in law & neuroscience. Houston Journal of Law & Policy 2012;11:321–46.Google Scholar

41. See, for example, Racine, E, Sample, M. Two problematic foundations of neuroethics and pragmatist reconstruction. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2018;27(4):566–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42. See, for example, the discussion of genetic essentialism in Cheung, BY, Heine, SJ. The double-edged sword of genetic accounts of criminality: Causal attributions from genetic ascriptions affect legal decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2015;41(12):1723–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

43. Morse, SJ. Avoiding irrational neurolaw exuberance: A plea for neuromodesty. Mercer Law Review 2011;62:837–59.Google Scholar

44. Wolf, SM. Neurolaw: the big question. American Journal of Bioethics 2008;8(1):21–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

45. See note 43, Morse 2011.

46. Hoffman, MB. Evolutionary jurisprudence: The end of the naturalistic fallacy and the beginning of natural reform? In: Freeman, M, ed. Law and Neuroscience: Current Legal Issues, Vol. 13, Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011:483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47. See note 39, Opderbeck 2014.

48. See note 44, Wolf 2008.

49. See note 27, Racine 2010.

50. Chandler, JA. Autonomy and the unintended consequences of emerging neurotherapies. Neuroethics 2013;6(2):249–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51. See the discussion of health law in Greely, H. Some thoughts on academic health law. Wake Forest Law Review 2006;41:391–409.Google Scholar

52. See note 44, Wolf 2008.