Neuroethics: the ethical, legal, and societal impact of neuroscience

Neuroethics and neurolaw in forensic neuropsychiatry: A guide for clinicians

As neuroscience technologies develop, ethical and legal questions arise regarding their use and societal impact. Neuroethics and neurolaw are growing interdisciplinary fields that address these questions. This review article presents the research agenda of both areas, examines the use and admissibility of neuroscience in expert testimony and legal settings, and discusses ethical issues related to forensic neuropsychiatrists claiming expertise in neuroscience, formulating medical opinions based on neuroscience, and considering its relevance to criminal responsibility. Forensic neuropsychiatrists should be aware of emerging neuroscientific evidence, its utility and limits in rendering diagnoses and explaining behavior, and, before seeking such evidence for legal purposes, its availability and admissibility. When testifying in matters involving neuroscientific evidence, ensuring truthfulness and balance, having sufficient and validated knowledge (including openness with confirming and disconfirming evidence), understanding standards of practice, and drawing relevant and appropriate conclusions remain important.

Macrodosing to microdosing with psychedelics: Clinical, social, and cultural perspectives

To date, the clinical and scientific literature has best documented the effects of classical psychedelics, such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), psilocybin, and dimethyltryptamine (DMT), in typical quantities most often associated with macrodosing. More recently, however, microdosing with psychedelics has emerged as a social trend and nascent therapeutic intervention. This variation in psychedelic practice refers to repeat, intermittent ingestion of less-than-macrodose amounts that do not cause the effects associated with full-blown "trips". Microdosing paves the road to incorporating psychedelic drugs into a daily routine while maintaining, or even improving, cognitive and mental function. Unlike macrodosing with psychedelics, the influence of microdosing remains mostly unexplored. And yet, despite the paucity of formal studies, many informal accounts propose that microdosing plays an important role as both a therapeutic intervention (e.g., in mental disorders) and enhancement tool (e.g., recreationally-to boost creativity, improve cognition, and drive personal growth). In response to this relatively new practice, we provide an integrative synthesis of the clinical, social, and cultural dimensions of microdosing. We describe some of the overarching context that explains why this practice is increasingly in vogue, unpack potential benefits and risks, and comment on sociocultural implications. In addition, this article considers the effects that macro- and microdoses have on behavior and psychopathology in light of their dosage characteristics and contexts of use.

The Simpsons Neuron: A Case Study Exploring Neuronal Coding and the Scientific Method for Introductory and Advanced Neuroscience Courses

A fictitious patient, Miguel, has been diagnosed with drug-resistant epilepsy and is awaiting neurosurgery. While in the hospital, Miguel agrees to participate in a research study in which depth electrodes are used to record neuronal activity in response to a range of stimuli. Interestingly, a neuron is identified that seems to respond selectively to video clips of the animated satirical TV show The Simpsons. Students are challenged to make observations, formulate and revise hypotheses, and interpret data, excerpted from an authentic dataset derived from actual patients in a 2008 Science paper. Students then consider implications for these data, evaluate their ability to generalize to non-human (rodent) models, and speculate about future directions for this research. Adaptations of this case have been implemented in introductory and advanced neuroscience courses. Students responded positively to the case, and reported gains in science competence and identity, particularly in the introductory courses. Suggestions for implementation and adaptation of this experience are offered. While this case has been implemented in undergraduate neuroscience courses, it might also be used in physiology, psychology, biology, research methods, or clinical courses.

Assessing the Perceived Value of Neuroethics Questions and Policy to Neuro-Entrepreneurs

Neuroscience and its findings have deep personal and cultural meaning, so the implications of brain science raise new flavors of ethical issues not covered by traditional bioethics. The field of neuroethics bridges this gap, addressing and responding to the ethical, legal, and social issues intimately related to the evolving landscape of neuroscience. Neuroethical concerns have registered at the highest levels of government. In 2018, an interdisciplinary global neuroethics group working with leading scientists from the International Brain Initiative, a consortium of seven large-scale national-level brain research projects around the globe, published “Neuroethics Questions to Guide Ethical Research in the International Brain Initiatives.” The document provides guiding questions to consider throughout the lifecycle of neuroscience research. These questions tackle issues such as identity, morality, cross-cultural differences, privacy, and potential stakeholder involvement in ethical decision-making. In our work with the International Brain Initiative, we noted the important role that the private sector will play in translating and scaling neuroscience for society. We also noticed a gap in communication and collaboration between government, academia and the private sector. These guiding questions were largely co-created with policy makers and academics, so it was unclear how these issues might be received by neuro-entrepreneurs and neuro-industry. We hoped to identify not only common concerns, but also a common language for discussing neuroethical issues with stakeholders outside of government and academia. We used empirical ethics methods to assess the perceived value and attitudes of neuro-entrepreneurs toward neuroethical issues and whether or not these issues align with the process of neuro-innovation. We conducted one-on-one structured interviews with 21 neuro-entrepreneurs in the private sector and used two independent reviewers to analyze for themes. From this preliminary research, we identified key neuroethical themes and processual pain points of neurotech entrepreneurs throughout the innovation process. We also provide a preliminary neuroethics needs assessment for neuro-industry and suggest avenues through which neuroethicists can work with neurotech leadership to build an ethically aligned future. Overall, we hope to raise awareness and provide actionable steps toward advancing and accelerating societally impactful neuroscience.

Neuroethics and Animals: Report and Recommendations From the University of Pennsylvania Animal Research Neuroethics Workshop

Growing awareness of the ethical implications of neuroscience in the early years of the 21st century led to the emergence of the new academic field of “neuroethics,” which studies the ethical implications of developments in the neurosciences. However, despite the acceleration and evolution of neuroscience research on nonhuman animals, the unique ethical issues connected with neuroscience research involving nonhuman animals remain underdiscussed. This is a significant oversight given the central place of animal models in neuroscience. To respond to these concerns, the Center for Neuroscience and Society and the Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society at the University of Pennsylvania hosted a workshop on the “Neuroethics of Animal Research” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. At the workshop, expert speakers and attendees discussed ethical issues arising from neuroscience research involving nonhuman animals, including the use of animal models in the study of pain and psychiatric conditions, animal brain-machine interfaces, animal–animal chimeras, cerebral organoids, and the relevance of neuroscience to debates about personhood. This paper highlights important emerging ethical issues based on the discussions at the workshop. This paper includes recommendations for research in the United States from the authors based on the discussions at the workshop, loosely following the format of the 2 Gray Matters reports on neuroethics published by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.

A practical approach to the ethical use of memory modulating technologies

Background

Recent advancements in neuroscientific techniques have allowed us to make huge progress in our understanding of memories, and in turn has paved the way for new memory modification technologies (MMTs) that can modulate memories with a degree of precision, which was not previously possible. With advancements in such techniques, new and critical ethical questions have emerged. Understanding and framing these ethical questions within the current philosophical theories is crucial in order to systematically examine them as we translate these techniques to the clinic.

Main body

In this paper, we discuss the ethical implications of modern neuroscience techniques that aim to disrupt or enhance memories. We attempt to frame the MMTs in the context of existing ethical philosophical theories to provide a cohesive analysis of the myriad of ethical quagmires that might emerge from such technologies. We argue the application of Aristotle’s Golden Mean and multiple accounts of authenticity are useful in approaching the ethical questions surrounding MMTs. We then propose a framework in which ethical considerations can be systematically examined. Lastly, we provide caveats and considerations for the use of this framework. Overall, we provide a practical approach for the ethical use of MMTs depending on the situation.

Conclusion

While at face value, our model appears to put severe limitations on the application of MMTs, we are not completely opposed to their use, but rather our framework guides the agent to consider the implications before making any decisions. Most importantly, we argue that the use of MMTs does not reduce the responsibility of the initial decision, and the agent must accept the post-MMT self as the new “true self” regardless of the outcome. As the developmental trajectory of MMTs suggests we are getting closer to practical clinical applications, ethical concerns across a wide range of disciplines need to be addressed to develop best strategies and policies when dealing with MMTs. If this can be achieved, we believe the ethical use of MMTs is not only possible but would also be of tremendous benefit to many people suffering from memory-related mental disorders.

Real Neurolaw in the Netherlands: The Role of the Developing Brain in the New Adolescent Criminal Law

Previous publications discussed the conditions under which courts admitted or could admit neurotechnological evidence like brain scans. There were also first attempts to investigate legal decisions neuroscientifically. The present paper analyzes a different way in which neuroscience already influenced the law: The legal justification of the new Dutch adolescent criminal law explicitly mentions findings on brain development to justify a higher maximum age for the application of juvenile criminal law than before. The lawmaker’s reasoning is compared with the neuroscientific studies on which it is based. In particular, three neurodevelopmental publications quoted by the Dutch Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles to justify that adolescents can be legally less responsible are analyzed in detail. The paper also addresses possibilities under which brain research could improve legal decision-making in the future. One important aspect turns out to be that neuroscience should not only matter on the level of justification, but also provide better instruments on the individual level of application.

Neuroethical issues in cognitive enhancement: Modafinil as the example of a workplace drug?

The use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by healthy individuals has been a feature for much of recorded history. Cocaine and amphetamine are modern cases of drugs initially enthusiastically acclaimed for enhancing cognition and mood. Today, an increasing number of healthy people are reported to use cognitive-enhancing drugs, as well as other interventions, such as non-invasive brain stimulation, to maintain or improve work performance. Cognitive-enhancing drugs, such as methylphenidate and modafinil, which were developed as treatments, are increasingly being used by healthy people. Modafinil not only affects ‘cold’ cognition, but also improves ‘hot’ cognition, such as emotion recognition and task-related motivation. The lifestyle use of ‘smart drugs’ raises both safety concerns as well as ethical issues, including coercion and increasing disparity in society. As a society, we need to consider which forms of cognitive enhancement (e.g. pharmacological, exercise, lifelong learning) are acceptable and for which groups under what conditions and by what methods we would wish to improve and flourish.

Neuroenhancement as Instrumental Drug Use: Putting the Debate in a Different Frame

The use of performance-enhancing drugs to study or work better is often called "cognitive enhancement" or "neuroenhancement" and sparked a debate between scholars from many disciplines. I argue that such behavior can better be subsumed under the more general category of "instrumental drug use". This broader perspective allows understanding neuroenhancement better from the perspective of addiction medicine and public health and supports a more consistent drug policy. I also summarize the most important systematic reviews and individual surveys of nonmedical substance use to study or work better. Different definitions and methodologies limit the comparability of these studies. The unified approach of drug instrumentalization would partially solve such problems. Finally, prevalence studies from the 1960s to 1980s as well as anecdotal evidence since the late 19th century show that instrumental drug use is and has been for a long time a common phenomenon. It should thus also be investigated and treated accordingly.

How information about perpetrators' nature and nurture influences assessments of their character, mental states, and deserved punishment

Evidence of perpetrators' biological or situational circumstances has been increasingly brought to bear in courtrooms. Yet, research findings are mixed as to whether this information influences folk evaluations of perpetrators' dispositions, and subsequently, evaluations of their deserved punishments. Previous research has not clearly dissociated the effects of information about perpetrators' genetic endowment versus their environmental circumstances. Additionally, most research has focused exclusively on violations involving extreme physical harm, often using mock capital sentences cases as examples. To address these gaps in the literature, we employed a "switched-at-birth" paradigm to investigate whether positive or negative information about perpetrators' genetic or environmental backgrounds influence evaluations of a perpetrator's mental states, character, and deserved punishment. Across three studies, we varied whether the transgression involved direct harm, an impure act that caused no harm, or a case of moral luck. The results indicate that negative genetic and environmental backgrounds influenced participants' evaluations of perpetrators' intentions, free will, and character, but did not influence participants' punishment decisions. Overall, these results replicate and extend existing findings suggesting that perpetrators' supposed extenuating circumstances may not mitigate the punishment that others assign to them.

Knowledge development, technology and questions of nursing ethics

This article explores emerging ethical questions that result from knowledge development in a complex, technological age. Nursing practice is at a critical ideological and ethical precipice where decision-making is enhanced and burdened by new ways of knowing that include artificial intelligence, algorithms, Big Data, genetics and genomics, neuroscience, and technological innovation. On the positive side is the new understanding provided by large data sets; the quick and efficient reduction of data into useable pieces; the replacement of redundant human tasks by machines, error reduction, pattern recognition, and so forth. However, these innovations require skepticism and critique from a profession whose mission is to care for and protect patients. The promise of technology and the new biological sciences to radically and positively transform healthcare may seem compelling when couched in terms of safety, efficiency, and effectiveness but their role in the provision of ethical nursing care remains uncertain. Given the profound moral and clinical implications of how today's knowledge is developed and utilized, it is time to reconsider the relationship between ethics and knowledge development in this new uncharted area.

From the Brain to the Field: The Applications of Social Neuroscience to Economics, Health and Law

Social neuroscience aims to understand the biological systems that underlie people’s thoughts, feelings and actions in light of the social context in which they operate. Over the past few decades, social neuroscience has captured the interest of scholars, practitioners, and experts in other disciplines, as well as the general public who more and more draw upon the insights and methods of social neuroscience to explain, predict and change behavior. With the popularity of the field growing, it has become increasingly important to consider the validity of social neuroscience findings as well as what questions it can and cannot address. In the present review article, we examine the contribution of social neuroscience to economics, health, and law, three domains with clear societal relevance. We address the concerns that the extrapolation of neuroscientific results to applied social issues raises within each of these domains, and we suggest guidelines and good practices to circumvent these concerns.

Neuroethics beyond Normal

An integrated and principled neuroethics offers ethical guidelines able to transcend conventional and medical reliance on normality standards. Elsewhere we have proposed four principles for wise guidance on human transformations. Principles like these are already urgently needed, as bio- and cyberenhancements are rapidly emerging. Context matters. Neither "treatments" nor "enhancements" are objectively identifiable apart from performance expectations, social contexts, and civic orders. Lessons learned from disability studies about enablement and inclusion suggest a fresh way to categorize modifications to the body and its performance. The term "enhancement" should be broken apart to permit recognition of enablements and augmentations, and kinds of radical augmentation for specialized performance. Augmentations affecting the self, self-worth, and self-identity of persons require heightened ethical scrutiny. Reversibility becomes the core problem, not the easy answer, as augmented persons may not cooperate with either decommissioning or displacement into unaccommodating societies. We conclude by indicating how our four principles of self-creativity, nonobsolescence, empowerment, and citizenship establish a neuroethics beyond normal that is better prepared for a future in which humans and their societies are going so far beyond normal.

Informed Consent in Implantable BCI Research: Identifying Risks and Exploring Meaning

Implantable brain-computer interface (BCI) technology is an expanding area of engineering research now moving into clinical application. Ensuring meaningful informed consent in implantable BCI research is an ethical imperative. The emerging and rapidly evolving nature of implantable BCI research makes identification of risks, a critical component of informed consent, a challenge. In this paper, 6 core risk domains relevant to implantable BCI research are identified-short and long term safety, cognitive and communicative impairment, inappropriate expectations, involuntariness, affective impairment, and privacy and security. Work in deep brain stimulation provides a useful starting point for understanding this core set of risks in implantable BCI. Three further risk domains-risks pertaining to identity, agency, and stigma-are identified. These risks are not typically part of formalized consent processes. It is important as informed consent practices are further developed for implantable BCI research that attention be paid not just to disclosing core research risks but exploring the meaning of BCI research with potential participants.

Drugs As Instruments: Describing and Testing a Behavioral Approach to the Study of Neuroenhancement

Neuroenhancement (NE) is the non-medical use of psychoactive substances to produce a subjective enhancement in psychological functioning and experience. So far empirical investigations of individuals' motivation for NE however have been hampered by the lack of theoretical foundation. This study aimed to apply drug instrumentalization theory to user motivation for NE. We argue that NE should be defined and analyzed from a behavioral perspective rather than in terms of the characteristics of substances used for NE. In the empirical study we explored user behavior by analyzing relationships between drug options (use over-the-counter products, prescription drugs, illicit drugs) and postulated drug instrumentalization goals (e.g., improved cognitive performance, counteracting fatigue, improved social interaction). Questionnaire data from 1438 university students were subjected to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to address the question of whether analysis of drug instrumentalization should be based on the assumption that users are aiming to achieve a certain goal and choose their drug accordingly or whether NE behavior is more strongly rooted in a decision to try or use a certain drug option. We used factor mixture modeling to explore whether users could be separated into qualitatively different groups defined by a shared "goal × drug option" configuration. Our results indicate, first, that individuals' decisions about NE are eventually based on personal attitude to drug options (e.g., willingness to use an over-the-counter product but not to abuse prescription drugs) rather than motivated by desire to achieve a specific goal (e.g., fighting tiredness) for which different drug options might be tried. Second, data analyses suggested two qualitatively different classes of users. Both predominantly used over-the-counter products, but "neuroenhancers" might be characterized by a higher propensity to instrumentalize over-the-counter products for virtually all investigated goals whereas "fatigue-fighters" might be inclined to use over-the-counter products exclusively to fight fatigue. We believe that psychological investigations like these are essential, especially for designing programs to prevent risky behavior.

The Return of Lombroso? Ethical Aspects of (Visions of) Preventive Forensic Screening

The vision of legendary criminologist Cesare Lombroso to use scientific theories of individual causes of crime as a basis for screening and prevention programmes targeting individuals at risk for future criminal behaviour has resurfaced, following advances in genetics, neuroscience and psychiatric epidemiology. This article analyses this idea and maps its ethical implications from a public health ethical standpoint. Twenty-seven variants of the new Lombrosian vision of forensic screening and prevention are distinguished, and some scientific and technical limitations are noted. Some lures, biases and structural factors, making the application of the Lombrosian idea likely in spite of weak evidence are pointed out and noted as a specific type of ethical aspect. Many classic and complex ethical challenges for health screening programmes are shown to apply to the identified variants and the choice between them, albeit with peculiar and often provoking variations. These variations are shown to actualize an underlying theoretical conundrum in need of further study, pertaining to the relationship between public health ethics and the ethics and values of criminal law policy.

Deconstructing the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations

Previous work showed that people find explanations more satisfying when they contain irrelevant neuroscience information. The current studies investigate why this effect happens. In Study 1 ( N=322), subjects judged psychology explanations that did or did not contain irrelevant neuroscience information. Longer explanations were judged more satisfying, as were explanations containing neuroscience information, but these two factors made independent contributions. In Study 2 ( N=255), subjects directly compared good and bad explanations. Subjects were generally successful at selecting the good explanation except when the bad explanation contained neuroscience and the good one did not. Study 3 ( N=159) tested whether neuroscience jargon was necessary for the effect, or whether it would obtain with any reference to the brain. Responses to these two conditions did not differ. These results confirm that neuroscience information exerts a seductive effect on people’s judgments, which may explain the appeal of neuroscience information within the public sphere.

Cognitive enhancement kept within contexts: neuroethics and informed public policy

Neurothics has far greater responsibilities than merely noting potential human enhancements arriving from novel brain-centered biotechnologies and tracking their implications for ethics and civic life. Neuroethics must utilize the best cognitive and neuroscientific knowledge to shape incisive discussions about what could possibly count as enhancement in the first place, and what should count as genuinely "cognitive" enhancement. Where cognitive processing and the mental life is concerned, the lived context of psychological performance is paramount. Starting with an enhancement to the mental abilities of an individual, only performances on real-world exercises can determine what has actually been cognitively improved. And what can concretely counts as some specific sort of cognitive improvement is largely determined by the classificatory frameworks of cultures, not brain scans or laboratory experiments. Additionally, where the public must ultimately evaluate and judge the worthiness of individual performance enhancements, we mustn't presume that public approval towards enhancers will somehow automatically arrive without due regard to civic ideals such as the common good or social justice. In the absence of any nuanced appreciation for the control which performance contexts and public contexts exert over what "cognitive" enhancements could actually be, enthusiastic promoters of cognitive enhancement can all too easily depict safe and effective brain modifications as surely good for us and for society. These enthusiasts are not unaware of oft-heard observations about serious hurdles for reliable enhancement from neurophysiological modifications. Yet those observations are far more common than penetrating investigations into the implications to those hurdles for a sound public understanding of cognitive enhancement, and a wise policy review over cognitive enhancement. We offer some crucial recommendations for undertaking such investigations, so that cognitive enhancers that truly deserve public approval can be better identified.

The warrior in the machine: neuroscience goes to war

Ever since Stone Age men discovered that knapping flint produced sharp stone edges that could be used in combat as well as for cooking and hunting, technological advances of all kinds have been adapted and adopted by the military.The opportunities provided by modern neuroscience are proving no exception, but their application in a military context is accompanied by complex practical and ethical considerations.

What's Special about the Ethical Challenges of Studying Disorders with Altered Brain Activity?

Where there is no viable alternative, studies of neuronal activity are conducted on animals. The use of animals, particularly for invasive studies of the brain, raises a number of ethical issues. Practical or normative ethics are enforced by legislation, in relation to the dominant welfare guidelines developed in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Guidelines have typically been devised to cover all areas of biomedical research using animals in general, and thus lack any specific focus on neuroscience studies at the level of the ethics, although details of the specific welfare recommendations are different for invasive studies of the brain. Ethically, there is no necessary distinction between neuroscience and other biomedical research in that the brain is a final common path for suffering, irrespective of whether this involves any direct experience of pain. One exception arises in the case of in vitro studies, which are normally considered as an acceptable replacement for in vivo studies. However, to the extent sentience is possible, maintaining central nervous system tissue outside the body naturally raises ethical questions. Perhaps the most intractable challenge to the ethical use of animals in order to model neuronal disorder is presented by the logical impasse in the argument that the animal is similar enough to justify the validity of the experimental model, but sufficiently different in sentience and capacity for suffering, for the necessary experimental procedures to be permissible.

Numerical processing in the human parietal cortex during experimental and natural conditions

Human cognition is traditionally studied in experimental conditions wherein confounding complexities of the natural environment are intentionally eliminated. Thus, it remains unknown how a brain region involved in a particular experimental condition is engaged in natural conditions. Here we use electrocorticography to address this uncertainty in three participants implanted with intracranial electrodes and identify activations of neuronal populations within the intraparietal sulcus region during an experimental arithmetic condition. In a subsequent analysis, we report that the same intraparietal sulcus neural populations are activated when participants, engaged in social conversations, refer to objects with numerical content. Our prototype approach provides a means for both exploring human brain dynamics as they unfold in complex social settings and reconstructing natural experiences from recorded brain signals.

Human neuronal activity during cognitive processing is usually studied under experimental conditions but activity under natural conditions is poorly understood. Here the authors develop a method to accurately characterize the activity of the same neuronal population under both conditions.

The state of the art in organizational cognitive neuroscience: the therapeutic gap and possible implications for clinical practice

In the last decade, researchers in the social sciences have increasingly adopted neuroscientific techniques, with the consequent rise of research inspired by neuroscience in disciplines such as economics, marketing, decision sciences, and leadership. In 2007, we introduced the term organizational cognitive neuroscience (OCN), in an attempt to clearly demarcate research carried out in these many areas, and provide an overarching paradigm for research utilizing cognitive neuroscientific methods, theories, and concepts, within the organizational and business research fields. Here we will revisit and further refine the OCN paradigm, and define an approach where we feel the marriage of organizational theory and neuroscience will return even greater dividends in the future and that is within the field of clinical practice.

The neuroethics and neurolaw of brain injury

Neuroethics and neurolaw are fields of study that involve the interface of neuroscience with clinical and legal decision-making. The past two decades have seen increasing attention being paid to both fields, in large part because of the advances in neuroimaging techniques and improved ability to visualize and measure brain structure and function. Traumatic brain injury (TBI), along with its acute and chronic sequelae, has emerged as a focus of neuroethical issues, such as informed consent for treatment and research, diagnostic and prognostic uncertainties, and the subjectivity of interpretation of data. The law has also more frequently considered TBI in criminal settings for exculpation, mitigation and sentencing purposes and in tort and administrative law for personal injury, disability and worker's compensation cases. This article provides an overview of these topics with an emphasis on the current challenges that the neuroscience of TBI faces in the medicolegal arena.

Opportunities, threats and limitations of neuroscience data in forensic psychiatric evaluation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In the last decade, a number of studies have been published to shed light on the interaction between neuroscience and the law, notably on the introduction of neuroscience data in forensic psychiatric evaluation (FPE). Even if there is a growing consensus on the relevance of neuroscience in clinical practice, the role of neuroscience in FPE is still controversial.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of neuroscience data in FPE can support the detection of psychopathological disabilities (e.g. deficit of self-control, aggressiveness) that may be involved in criminal action. Traumatic brain injury-related clinical disorders that may lead to misconduct have a relevant role in the debate. Traditionally, literature refers also to rare and weird cases in which brain tumours, infections and morphological abnormalities were supposed to be significantly associated with disorders leading to criminal action.

SUMMARY

After reviewing recent literature from both legal and neuroscientific perspectives, we consider a broader range of clinical conditions (e.g. disorders of consciousness in sleepwalking, dopamine replacement therapy in Parkinson's disease, misattributions of self in delusional experience) that may have implications in legal settings. Obviously, it would be possible to consider also different clinical conditions. We conclude by suggesting further experimental and theoretical analysis.

The social life of the brain: Neuroscience in society

Neuroscience is viewed by a range of actors and institutions as a powerful means of creating new knowledge about our selves and societies. This article documents the shifts in expertise and identities potentially being propelled by neuroscientific research. It details the framing and effects of neuroscience within several social domains, including education and mental health, discussing some of the intellectual and professional projects it has animated therein (such as neuroethics). The analysis attends to the cultural logics by which the brain is sometimes made salient in society; simultaneously, it points towards some of parameters of the territory within which the social life of the brain plays out. Instances of societal resistance and agnosticism are discussed, which may render problematic sociological research on neuroscience in society that assumes the universal import of neuroscientific knowledge (as either an object of celebration or critique). This article concludes with reflections on how sociotechnical novelty is produced and ascribed, and the implications of this.

How has neuroscience affected lay understandings of personhood? A review of the evidence

The prominence of neuroscience in the public sphere has escalated in recent years, provoking questions about how the public engages with neuroscientific ideas. Commentaries on neuroscience's role in society often present it as having revolutionary implications, fundamentally overturning established beliefs about personhood. The purpose of this article is to collate and review the extant empirical evidence on the influence of neuroscience on commonsense understandings of personhood. The article evaluates the scope of neuroscience's presence in public consciousness and examines the empirical evidence for three frequently encountered claims about neuroscience's societal influence: that neuroscience fosters a conception of the self that is based in biology, that neuroscience promotes conceptions of individual fate as predetermined, and that neuroscience attenuates the stigma attached to particular social categories. It concludes that many neuroscientific ideas have assimilated in ways that perpetuate rather than challenge existing modes of understanding self, others and society.

Unraveling the genetic etiology of adult antisocial behavior: a genome-wide association study

Crime poses a major burden for society. The heterogeneous nature of criminal behavior makes it difficult to unravel its causes. Relatively little research has been conducted on the genetic influences of criminal behavior. The few twin and adoption studies that have been undertaken suggest that about half of the variance in antisocial behavior can be explained by genetic factors. In order to identify the specific common genetic variants underlying this behavior, we conduct the first genome-wide association study (GWAS) on adult antisocial behavior. Our sample comprised a community sample of 4816 individuals who had completed a self-report questionnaire. No genetic polymorphisms reached genome-wide significance for association with adult antisocial behavior. In addition, none of the traditional candidate genes can be confirmed in our study. While not genome-wide significant, the gene with the strongest association (p-value = 8.7×10(-5)) was DYRK1A, a gene previously related to abnormal brain development and mental retardation. Future studies should use larger, more homogeneous samples to disentangle the etiology of antisocial behavior. Biosocial criminological research allows a more empirically grounded understanding of criminal behavior, which could ultimately inform and improve current treatment strategies.