Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 573–591 | Cite as

Neuroscience, Neuropolitics and Neuroethics: The Complex Case of Crime, Deception and fMRI

  • Stuart Henry
  • Dena Plemmons
Article

Abstract

Scientific developments take place in a socio-political context but scientists often ignore the ways their innovations will be both interpreted by the media and used by policy makers. In the rush to neuroscientific discovery important questions are overlooked, such as the ways: (1) the brain, environment and behavior are related; (2) biological changes are mediated by social organization; (3) institutional bias in the application of technical procedures ignores race, class and gender dimensions of society; (4) knowledge is used to the advantage of the powerful; and (5) its applications may reinforce existing structures of power that pose ethical questions about distributive justice. The case of crime, deception and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) shows the complexity, and the political and ethical challenges that confront those who seek to use neuroscience to explain the etiology of crime, and who base policy on its findings. An ethically grounded neuroscience needs to take account of existing structures of power and difference, and to develop a public neuropolitical consciousness that ensures that those subject to risk by the application of science and technology are participants in the decision-making processes involving the implementation of policies that affect them.

Keywords

Biosocial theories of crime Brain and criminal behavior Criminal justice policy Deception fMRI Neuroethics Neuroimaging Neuropolitics Neuroscience 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Machiel Keestra, Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Amsterdam, and several external reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this article.

References

  1. Aggarwal, N. K. (2009). Neuroimaging, culture, and forensic psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37(2), 239–244.Google Scholar
  2. Allhoff, F. (2011). What are applied ethics? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaver, K. M., & Walsh, A. (Eds.). (2010). Biosocial theories of crime. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  5. Begley, S. (2008, January 12). Mind reading is now possible. Newsweek. http://www.newsweek.com/2008/01/12/mind-reading-is-now-possible.html. Accessed August 8, 2012.
  6. Bennett, C. M., & Miller, M. B. (2010). How reliable are the results from functional magnetic resonance imaging? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191, 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bird, S. J. (2005). Neuroethics. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics (pp. 1310–1316). Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Bird, S. J. (2009). Neuroethics. In L. R. Squire (Ed.), Encyclopedia of neuroscience (pp. 385–391). Oxford: Academic Press/Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blank, R. (1999). Brain policy: How the neurosciences will change our lives and our politics. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brainard, J. & Hermes, J. J. (2008, March 28). Colleges’ earmarks grow, amid criticism. Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Earmarks-Grow-Amid/3252/. Accessed August 8, 2012.
  11. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). (2010). Prison inmates at midyear 2009statistical tables. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2200. Accessed August 8, 2012.
  12. Cacioppo, J. T., & Visser, P. S. (2003). Political psychology and social neuroscience: Strange bedfellows or comrades in arms? Political Psychology, 24(4), 647–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlat, D. (2008, May 19). Brain scans as mind readers? Don’t believe the hype. Wired Magazine 16(6). http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-06/mf_neurohacks. Accessed August 8, 2012.
  14. Casebeer, W. D., & Churchland, P. S. (2003). The neural mechanisms of moral cognition. A multiple-aspect approach to moral judgment and decision-making. Biology and Philosophy, 18, 169–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cephos Corp. (2008). http://www.cephoscorp.com/. Accessed August 8, 2012.
  16. Churchland, P. S. (2005). Moral decision-making and the brain. In J. Illes (Ed.), Neuroethics in the 21st century (pp. 4–16). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dale, R. (2008). The possibility of a pluralist cognitive science. The Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 20(3), 155–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dale, R., Dietrich, E., & Chemeroc, A. (2009). Explanatory pluralism in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 33, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (92–102), 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
  20. De Vries, R. (2004). How can we help? From ‘sociology’ in bioethics to ‘sociology of’ bioethics. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 32(2), 279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Vries, R. (2005). Framing neuroethics: A sociological assessment of the neuroethical imagination. The American Journal of Bioethics, 5(2), 25–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Discover Magazine. (2010, June 6). Federal judge: Brain scans not welcome as lie-detecting evidence. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/06/02/federal-judge-brain-scans-not-welcome-as-lie-detecting-evidence/. Accessed August 8, 2012.
  23. Ellis, L. (1988). Neurohormonal bases of varying tendencies to learn delinquent and criminal behavior. In E. K. Morris & C. J. Braukmann (Eds.), Behavioral approaches to crime and delinquency (pp. 499–518). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  24. Fishbein, D. H. (2006). Integrating findings from neurobiology into criminological thought: Issues, solutions and implications. In S. Henry & M. M. Lanier (Eds.), The essential criminology reader (pp. 43–68). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  25. Fishbein, D. H., & Thatcher, R. W. (1986). New diagnosis methods in criminology: Assessing organic sources of behavioral disorders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 240–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fox, R. G. (1971). The XYY offender: A modern myth. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 62, 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gitlin, J. M. (2011). Thoughtcrime? The ethics of neuroscience and criminality. Ars Technica. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/02/thoughtcrime-the-ethics-of-neuroscience-and-criminality.ars. Accessed August 8, 2012.
  28. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1956). Physique and delinquency. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  29. Greely, H. T. (2004). Prediction, litigation, privacy, and property: Some possible legal and social implications of advances in neuroscience. In B. Garland (Ed.), Neuroscience and the law: Brain, mind, and the scales of justice (pp. 114–156). New York, NY: The Dana Press.Google Scholar
  30. Greely, H. T., & Illes, J. (2007). Neuroscience-based lie detection: The urgent need for regulation. The American Journal of Law and Medicine, 33, 377–431.Google Scholar
  31. Greenberg, D. S. (1967). The politics of pure science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Greenberg, D. S. (1999). The politics of pure science. Revised edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hacking, I. (1995). The looping effects of human kinds. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 351–394). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hackman, D. A., Farah, M. J., & Meaney, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status and the brain: Mechanistic insights from human and animal research. Nature Reviews, 11, 651–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haddock, V. (2006, August 6). Lies wide open: Researchers say technology can show when and how a lie is created inside the brain. San Francisco Chronicle, E1.Google Scholar
  36. Han, S. H., & Northoff, G. (2008). Culture-sensitive neural substrates of human cognition: A transcultural neuroimaging approach. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(8), 646–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Henry, S., & Lanier, M. M. (Eds.). (2001). What is crime?. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  39. Hurwitz, S., & Christiansen, K. O. (1983). Criminology. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  40. Illes, J. (Ed.). (2005). Neuroethics in the 21st century. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Illes, J., & Racine, E. (2005). Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics. American Journal of Bioethics, 5(2), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jacobs, P. A., Brunton, M., Melville, M. M., Brittain, R. P., & McClemont, W. (1965). Aggressive behavior mental subnormality and the XYY male. Nature, 208, 1351–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jeffery, C. R. (1994). Biological and neuropsychiatric approaches to criminal behavior. In G. Barak (Ed.), Varieties of criminology: Readings from a dynamic discipline (pp. 15–28). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  44. Keestra, M. (2012). Bounded mirroring: Joint action and group membership in political theory and cognitive neuroscience. In F. Vander Valk (Ed.), Thinking about the body politic: Essays on neuroscience and political theory (pp. 222–249). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Kozel, F. A., Johnson, K. A., Grenesko, E. L., Laken, S. J., Kose, S., Lu, X., et al. (2009). Functional MRI detection of deception after committing a mock sabotage crime. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(1), 220–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Langleben, D., Dattilio, F. M., & Guthei, T. G. (2006). True lies: Delusions and lie-detection technology. The Journal of Psychiatry and the Law, 34(3), 351–370.Google Scholar
  47. Lanier, M. M., & Henry, S. (2004). Essential criminology (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lanier, M. M., & Henry, S. (2010). Essential criminology (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  49. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Leshner, A. (2005). It’s time to go public with neuroethics. American Journal of Bioethics, 5(2), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Levy, N. (2007). Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st century. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Maddox, J. (1999). Foreword. The politics of pure science. Revised edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. ix–xiv.Google Scholar
  54. Martens, W. H. J. (2002). Criminality and moral dysfunctions: Neurological, biochemical, and genetic dimensions. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 170–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Maruna, S., & Copes, H. (2004). Excuses, excuses: What have we learned from five decades of neutralization research? In M. Tonry (Ed.) Crime and Justice (Vol. 32, pp. 1–100). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  57. McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107(1), 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McCauley, R. N. (2001). Explanatory pluralism and the coevolution of theories in science. In W. Bechtel, P. Mandik, J. Mundale, & R. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Philosophy and the neurosciences (pp. 431–456). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. McCauley, R. N. (2009). Time is of the essence: Explanatory pluralism and accommodating theories about long-term processes. Philosophical Psychology, 22, 611–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mednick, S. A. (1985, March,). Crime in the family tree. Psychology Today (pp. 58–61).Google Scholar
  61. Mednick, S. A., Gabrielli, W. F., & Hutchings, B. (1987). Genetic factors in the etiology of criminal behavior. In S. A. Mednick, T. Moffitt, & S. Stack (Eds.), The causes of crime: New biological approaches (pp. 74–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mohamed, F. B., Faro, S. H., Gordon, N. J., Platek, S. M., Ahmad, H., & Williams, J. M. (2006). Brain mapping of deception and truth telling about an ecologically valid situation: Functional MR imaging and polygraph investigation—initial experience. Radiology, 264(2), 679–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Niehoff, D. (2002). The biology of violence: How understanding the brain, behavior and environment can break the vicious cycle of aggression. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  64. No Lie MRI. (2006). http://www.noliemri.com/. Accessed August 8, 2012.
  65. Park, D. C., & Huang, C.-M. (2010). Culture wires the brain. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Raine, A. (2002). Annotation: The role of prefrontal deficits, low autonomic arousal, and early health factors in the development of antisocial and aggressive behavior in children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 417–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Raine, A., Buchsbaum, M., & LaCasse, L. (1997). Brain abnormalities in murderers indicated by positron emission tomography. Biological Psychiatry, 42, 495–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Raine, A., Lencz, T., Bihrle, S., LaCasse, L., & Colletti, P. (2000). Reduced prefrontal gray matter volume and reduced autonomic activity in antisocial personality disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Raine, A., Meloy, J. R., Bihrle, S., Stoddard, J., LaCasse, L., & Buchsbaum, M. (1998). Reduced prefrontal and increased subcortical brain functioning assessed using positron emission tomography in predatory and affective murderers. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Raleigh, M. J., Brammer, G. L., & Yuwiler, A. (1980). Serotonergic influences on the social behavior of vervet monkies. Experimental Neurology, 68, 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Robinson, E. (2010, July 19). Brain scan lie detection. Policy Innovations. http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/briefings/data/000172. Accessed August 8, 2012.
  72. Robinson, M. B., & Beaver, K. M. (2009). Why crime: An interdisciplinary approach to explaining criminal behavior. Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  73. Rose, N. (2000). The biology of culpability: Pathological identity and crime control in a biological culture. Theoretical Criminology, 4, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Roskies, A. (2002). Neuroethics for the new millennium. Neuron, 35, 21–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Roskies, A. (2006). Neuroscientific challenges to free will and responsibility. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10(9), 419–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sarbin, T. R., & Miller, L. E. (1970). Demonism revisited: The XYY chromosome anomaly. Issues in Criminology, 5, 195–207.Google Scholar
  77. Schermer, M., Bolt, I., de Jongh, R., & Olivier, B. (2009). The future of psychopharmacological enhancements: Expectations and policies. Neuroethics, 2(2), 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sheldon, W. H., Hastl, E. M., & McDermott, E. (1949). Varieties of delinquent youth. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  79. Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Talbot, M. (2010, May 25). Brain scans on trial. The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/05/brain-scans.html. Accessed August 8, 2012.
  81. Telfer, M. A., Baker, D., & Clark, G. R. (1968). Incidence of gross chromosomal errors among tall criminal American males. Science, 159, 249–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Temple-Raston, D. (2007, October 30). Neuroscientist uses brain scan to see lies form Morning Edition, NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15744871. Accessed February 16, 2008.
  83. U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010. Washington DC: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates and Projections.http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2012.
  84. Van Erp, A. M. M., & Miczek, K. A. (1996). Prefrontal dopamine and serotonin: Microdialysis during aggression and alcohol self-administration in rats. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 22, 161.Google Scholar
  85. Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 470–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Willing, R. (2006, June 26). MRI tests offer glimpse at brains behind the lies. USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-26-mri-lie_x.htm. Accessed August 8, 2012.
  87. Wilson, J. Q., & Herrnstein, R. (1985). Crime and human nature. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  88. Wolpe, P. R., Foster, K. R., & Langleben, D. D. (2005). Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: Promises and perils. The American Journal of Bioethics, 5(2), 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Ethics Program, 0612University of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.School of Public AffairsSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations