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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Since 2008 the field has had its own journal Neuroethics. This growth is particularly acute for the use of fMRI in neuroscience. See, for example, the special issue of The American Journal of Bioethics in 2005, especially articles by Leshner (2005) and Illes and Racine (2005). As one indicator of this growth Illes and Racine report that research studies using fMRI grew from 15 in 1991 to 2,224 in 2003 or 56 % per year (2005).

  2. 2.

    See, for example, the work of Bruno Latour and Stephen Woolgar (Latour 1987; Latour and Woolgar 1979).

  3. 3.

    See for example, Henry Greely's article “Prediction, litigation, privacy, and property: Some possible legal and social implications of advances in neuroscience” (2004) for an extensive review of legal issues of neuroscience and neuroimaging.

  4. 4.

    Ultimately this research showed that the XYY chromosome pattern was more prevalent among prison guards than among prisoners (Sarbin and Miller 1970; Fox 1971).

  5. 5.

    For an approach that integrates these different levels of crime causation see the work of Robinson and Beaver (2009).

  6. 6.

    See, for example, Biosocial theories of crime by Beaver and Walsh (2010) who argue that most are sociologists without any biological education or training.

  7. 7.

    An interesting article by Hackman et al. presents findings which “provide a unique opportunity for understanding how environmental factors can lead to individual differences in brain development, and for improving the programs and policies that are designed to alleviate SES[socio-economic status]-related disparities in mental health and academic achievement” (2010, p. 651).

  8. 8.

    Fishbein (2006) also provides an integrative perspective.

  9. 9.

    While neuroscientists generally recognize the difficulty of designing experiments to target those cognitive aspects with correlated brain areas, this does not seem to extend to criminologists advocating policy based on their research.

  10. 10.

    This is established from victimization surveys of the general population. The reported rate of crime victimization is found to vary by offense and is higher when injury or high value property is involved such as auto theft (92 % reported), compared with robbery (61 % reported), burglary (45 % reported), or low value personal larceny (15 % reported) (Lanier and Henry 2004).

  11. 11.

    The studies referred to here are based on a sample of 41, 39 men and 2 women (Raine et al. 1997).

  12. 12.

    The reasons for referral included: “schizophrenia (6 cases), history of head injury or organic brain damage (23), history of psychoactive substance abuse (3), affective disorder (2), epilepsy (2), history of hyperactivity and learning disability (3), and passive aggressive or paranoid personality disorder (2)” (Raine et al. 1997, p. 496).

  13. 13.

    While this would be difficult research to conduct, it might be possible to look at the neuropsychology of those convicted of murder, and then found to be innocent, although that adds the complication of the effects of imprisonment on their brain functioning.

  14. 14.

    This is the process of being socialized into prison life and culture and how this affects subsequent relationships once released.

  15. 15.

    This story has been covered by USA Today (Willing 2006), NPR (Temple-Raston 2007), San Francisco Chronicle (Haddock 2006), Newsweek (Begley 2008), and The New Yorker (Talbot 2010), among others.

  16. 16.

    See also the work of Robinson (2010). A critical and balanced discussion is provided by Wolpe et al. (2005).

  17. 17.

    fMRI currently has not been admitted as evidence since the evidence for research of its effectiveness has to be accepted by the scientific community and so far it has been ruled not to meet the Daubert standard; see the Lorne Semrau fraud case in which the court threw out the fMRI evidence in spite of expert testimony from Steven Laken, the C.E.O. of Cephos and researcher Andrew Kozel. For a summary see Discover Magazine (2010).

  18. 18.

    While it is possible that deception can produce different patterns of brain activity than simply showing an increase in one or more areas compared to truth telling, the evidence so far (Langleben et al. 2006; Mohamed et al. 2006) suggests only an increase in brain activity in certain areas is correlated with deception. So the potential for deception being associated with a decrease in some areas and an increase in others, makes it less easy to distinguish from truth telling. The same variable pattern would also be likely in truth tellers. Indeed, as indicated, those who genuinely believe in the truth of their deception would likely be indistinguishable from truth tellers, regardless of whether the deceivers’ brain activity went up in some areas and down in others.

  19. 19.

    Arnett (2008) and Henrich et al. (2010) have demonstrated evidence of socio-cultural bias in behavioral and brain sciences.

  20. 20.

    The U.S. population as of 2010 comprised 16.3 % Hispanic, 12.6 % African American (US Census Bureau 2011). In contrast African Americans accounted for 39.4 % of the prison and jail population in 2009 and Hispanics accounted for 15.9 % of all those incarcerated (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2010). These data indicate that African Americans are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system.

  21. 21.

    White collar offenders may be more representative of the subjects in the fMRI studies.

  22. 22.

    In fact, “No Lie MRI” is pitched toward corporate interests by suggesting that subjecting financial officers and Chief-Executive-Officers to testing in making earnings statements would improve investor trust, lower a company’s risk and increase its value: “Investors discount future cash flows, resulting in lower perceived net present values of possible investments due to the potential of deception from unverifiable claims made by corporate officers of potential investment. These corporate officers could receive higher valuation of the potential investment by lowering the risk to the potential investors. No lie MRI increases value by reducing risk through mental verification.” (No Lie MRI 2006). Similarly, the detection technology is also pitched at employers to improve employee dishonesty and fraud through effective honesty and drug use screening, arguing that there is no law against this practice, unlike the use of lie detector tests.

  23. 23.

    The authors included Steven Laken of Cephos whose corporation also helped to fund the study.

  24. 24.

    In addition, Greely and Illes (2007) call for regulations restricting use of neuroimaging lie detection technology outside of the research setting until it has proven to be safe and effective.

  25. 25.

    Research has shown that “neuroscientific evidence has an unusual persuasive power… that inspires a level of trust that is not warranted by the actual data behind it” (Robinson 2010) and that this effect is more persuasive on those least informed about the science (McCabe and Castel 2008; Robinson 2010; Weisberg et al. 2008).

  26. 26.

    For an overview of neutralization theory see “Excuses, excuses: What have we learned from five decades of neutralization research?” by Maruna and Copes (2004).

  27. 27.

    This relates to the wider debate in neuroscience about how long-standing cultural values and practices can shape and structure neural processes, including those involved in moral decision making, “perhaps leading not just to functional differences but to truly constitutional brain differences between cultures” (Keestra 2012, p. 238), groups, and subgroups. See also Park and Huang (2010); Han and Northoff (2008).

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dale, R., Dietrich, E., & Chemeroc, A. (2009). Explanatory pluralism in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 33, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (92–102), 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. De Vries, R. (2005). Framing neuroethics: A sociological assessment of the neuroethical imagination. The American Journal of Bioethics, 5(2), 25–27.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fox, R. G. (1971). The XYY offender: A modern myth. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 62, 59–73.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Levy, N. (2007). Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st century. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. Maddox, J. (1999). Foreword. The politics of pure science. Revised edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. ix–xiv.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Mednick, S. A. (1985, March,). Crime in the family tree. Psychology Today (pp. 58–61).

  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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Raine, A., Buchsbaum, M., & LaCasse, L. (1997). Brain abnormalities in murderers indicated by positron emission tomography. Biological Psychiatry, 42, 495–508.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Roskies, A. (2002). Neuroethics for the new millennium. Neuron, 35, 21–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Roskies, A. (2006). Neuroscientific challenges to free will and responsibility. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10(9), 419–423.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dena Plemmons.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Henry, S., Plemmons, D. Neuroscience, Neuropolitics and Neuroethics: The Complex Case of Crime, Deception and fMRI. Sci Eng Ethics 18, 573–591 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9393-4

Download citation

Keywords

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