for once something has come to mind that seems more thoughtful than the usual "what i did" blog...
yesterday, ilana and i skipped work to go to a discussion at the National Academy of Sciences in downtown DC. (it wasn't really skipping, as one of the lab' big cheeses was participating in the discussion and had advertised it to us, but it got us out of the NIH campus nonetheless). The topic was neuroimaging and its uses and implications in the legal field. I hadn't really given legal stuff much thought until i went to this, and my opinion still hasn't wavered much, but it's opened up some discussion. The discussions were preceded by presentations by Peter (from our lab) and this lawyer. First off, the lawyer started her presentation with a quote that i need to find online somewhere, because what the quote said pretty much sums up why i love studying neuroscience and the brain. Parts of my personal statement says something to the effect that studying the brain taps into what makes us unique as human beings. The quote had more eloquent words to illlustrate this idea.
Anyway, the issues at hand were things like, could neuroimaging methods be used to predict social behavior, and if so, is it something that can be used in a courtroom environment? The lawyer presented one case in Iowa where a judge had allowed a certain piece of evidence called a "brain fingerprint," which just threw a red flag up in my mind because it sounded so odd and offbeat. Apparently people had obtained some sort of "brain fingerprint" from a defendant and it exonerated him from a crime because the waves that were recorded did not match brainwaves that would suggest that he had the memory of doing a crime. It was weird. But the judge let the evidence in. Peter had presented that imaging methods are still so variable that it would not be a good idea to infer that certain brain activity/inactivity is suggestive of certain behaviors. That makes sense. There are some studies where researchers can predict certain things about people's behavior/minds based on brain activity, but of course, it is all based on a certain baseline under experimental conditions.
One thing that I thought of after the question/answer session was something based on the false memories that were planted in people (from the E. Loftus studies)...if people had these false memories, how would their brain waves look compared to real memories? Would they be any different, even though they are false, but the person firmly believes them to be true? That would affect something in a court setting, wouldn't it?
Ah, science and the law. A combination i'd never really thought of until Eric C. Fascinating stuff.
yesterday, ilana and i skipped work to go to a discussion at the National Academy of Sciences in downtown DC. (it wasn't really skipping, as one of the lab' big cheeses was participating in the discussion and had advertised it to us, but it got us out of the NIH campus nonetheless). The topic was neuroimaging and its uses and implications in the legal field. I hadn't really given legal stuff much thought until i went to this, and my opinion still hasn't wavered much, but it's opened up some discussion. The discussions were preceded by presentations by Peter (from our lab) and this lawyer. First off, the lawyer started her presentation with a quote that i need to find online somewhere, because what the quote said pretty much sums up why i love studying neuroscience and the brain. Parts of my personal statement says something to the effect that studying the brain taps into what makes us unique as human beings. The quote had more eloquent words to illlustrate this idea.
Anyway, the issues at hand were things like, could neuroimaging methods be used to predict social behavior, and if so, is it something that can be used in a courtroom environment? The lawyer presented one case in Iowa where a judge had allowed a certain piece of evidence called a "brain fingerprint," which just threw a red flag up in my mind because it sounded so odd and offbeat. Apparently people had obtained some sort of "brain fingerprint" from a defendant and it exonerated him from a crime because the waves that were recorded did not match brainwaves that would suggest that he had the memory of doing a crime. It was weird. But the judge let the evidence in. Peter had presented that imaging methods are still so variable that it would not be a good idea to infer that certain brain activity/inactivity is suggestive of certain behaviors. That makes sense. There are some studies where researchers can predict certain things about people's behavior/minds based on brain activity, but of course, it is all based on a certain baseline under experimental conditions.
One thing that I thought of after the question/answer session was something based on the false memories that were planted in people (from the E. Loftus studies)...if people had these false memories, how would their brain waves look compared to real memories? Would they be any different, even though they are false, but the person firmly believes them to be true? That would affect something in a court setting, wouldn't it?
Ah, science and the law. A combination i'd never really thought of until Eric C. Fascinating stuff.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home