Abstract
Neurosciences study the relations between the human brain and human behaviour. Recent developments of these sciences are granting us an increasing possibility to control, or influence, mental processes. In this chapter, I analyse how this possibility is becoming a concrete ability to control socially undesirable behaviour, which is the reason why I choose to investigate the relationship between Neurosciences and the Law. Firstly, with this in mind, I show the new role of the neuroscientists in Courts. Secondly, I analyse new neuro-paradigms in public debates about the structure of Society and the Law. Moreover, I study the so-called reductive neurolaw, which is the gradual replacement of traditional sources of law with new neuro-scientific standards. Finally, I provide a definition of Cognitive Liberty (a new form of safeguard) able to be collected in a “Declaration of Human Neuro-rights”. Indeed, Cognitive Liberty may be used as a new conceptual tool, in order to protect personal human rights against reductive neuro-paradigms.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“‘Neuroscience’ refers to the multiple disciplines that carry out scientific research on the nervous system to understand the biological basis for behaviour. […] The term ‘neuroscience’ was introduced in the mid-1960s, signaling the start of an era when these disciplines would work together cooperatively, sharing a common language, common concepts, and a common goal: to understand the structure and function of the normal and abnormal brain. Neuroscience today spans a wide range of research endeavors, from the molecular biology of nerve cells, which contain the genes that command production of the proteins needed for nervous system function, to the biological bases of normal and disordered behavior, emotion, and cognition, including the mental properties of individuals as they interact with each other and with their environments” (Committee on Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications, Board on Army Science and Technology, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council of the National Academies. Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press 2009). See Binder et al. (2009) and the Nobel Prize Kandel (1981).
- 2.
http://neuroethics.upenn.edu/index.php/penn-neuroethics-briefing/responsibility-a-brain-function. Accessed 22 June 2018.
- 3.
Wrye Sententia and Richard Glen Boire are the founders of the Centre for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics (CCLE).
- 4.
Cf. Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethic CCLE, http://www.cognitiveliberty.org. Accessed 04/23/2021.
- 5.
A possible protection is provided by the European Convention on Human Rights in Article 8, which recognizes the right to respect family life, domicile and correspondence and co. 2 states: “There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
- 6.
However, it is necessary to recognize that the rights of the Charter apply only to the institutions, agencies and bodies of the Union respecting the principle of subsidiarity as well as to Member States in the implementation of Union law, as stated in art. 51.
References
Beitz CR (2011) The idea of human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Binder MD et al (2009) Encyclopedia of neuroscience. Springer, Dordrecht
Bostrom N (2003) Human genetic enhancements: a transhumanist perspective. J Value Inq 37(4):493–506
Bostrom N, Sandberg A (2009) Cognitive enhancement: methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Springer, London
Bowart W (1978) Operation mind control. Collins Sons & Co., Ltd, Glasgow
Bublitz JC (2013) My mind is mine!? Cognitive liberty as a legal concept. In: Hildt E, Francke A (eds) Cognitive enhancement. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 233–264
Cacioppo JT (2002) Foundations in social neuroscience. MIT Press, Cambridge
Eagleman DM, Isgur Flores S (2012) Defining a neurocompatibility index for criminal justice system: a framework to align social policy with modern brain science. In: Muller S et al (eds) The law of the future and the future of the law, vol II. Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, The Hague
Farah M (2004) Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 5:1123–1130
Franks DD (2010) Neurosociology. The nexus between neuroscience and social psychology. Springer, Dordrecht
Gazzaniga MS, Steven MS (2004) Free will in the twenty-first century. In: Garland B (ed) Neuroscience and the law: brain, mind and the scales of justice. Dana, New York
Giordano JJ (2010) Neuroethical issues in neurogenetic and neuro-transplantation technology: the need for pragmatism and preparedness in practice and policy. Stud Ethics Law Technol 4(3), Article 4
Greely HT (2008) Neuroscience and criminal justice: not responsibility but treatment. Univ Kansas City Law Rev 56:1103–1138
Greely HT (2012) Direct Brain interventions to “Treat” disfavoured human behaviours: ethical and social issues. Clin Pharmacol Ther 91:163–165
Greene J, Cohen J (2004) For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359:1775–1785
Ienca M, Andorno R (2017) Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sci Soc Policy 13:1–27
Jones OD et al (2013) Neuroscientists in court. Nature 14:730–736
Jotterand F, Giordano J (2011) Transcranial magnetic stimulation, deep brain stimulation and personal identity: ethical questions, and neuroethical approaches for medical practice. Int Rev Psychiatr 23(5):476–485
Kandel ER (1981) Principles of neural science. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Kolber A (2014) Will there be a neurolaw revolution? Indiana Law J 89:807–845
Larriviere D et al (2010) Neuroenhancement: wisdom of the masses or false phronesis? Clin Pharmacol Ther 88(4):459–461
Lynch G et al (2011) The likelihood of cognitive enhancement. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 99(2):116–129
Markowitsch HJ, Seifer W (2007) Tatort Gehirn. Auf der Suche nach dem Ursprung des Verbrechens. Campus, Frankfurt am Main
Maslen H et al (2014) The regulation of cognitive enhancement devices: extending the medical model. J Law Biosci 1(1):88–93
Meynen G (2013) A neurolaw perspective on psychiatric assessments of criminal responsibility: decision-making, mental disorder, and the brain. Int J Law Psychiatry 36:93–99
Morse SJ (2011) The status of neurolaw: a plea for current modesty and future cautious optimism. J Psychiatry Law 39:595–626
Morse SJ (2011) Mental disorder and criminal law. J Crim Law Criminol 101:885–968
Morse SJ (2013) Compatibilist criminal law. In: Nadelhoffer T (ed) The future of punishment. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Nagera H (2013) Reflections on psychoanalysis and neuroscience: normality and pathology in development, brain stimulation, programming and maturation. Neuropsychoanalysis 3:179–191
Nickel J (2014) Human rights. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/rights-human. Accessed 22 June 2018
O’Connor C et al (2012) Neuroscience in the public sphere. Neuron 74:220–226
Opderbeck DW (2013) The problem with neurolaw. Saint Louis Univ Law J 58:497–540
Pardo M, Patterson D (2013) Neuroscience, normativity and retributivism. In: Nadelhoffer T (ed) The future of punishment. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Raine A, Yang Y (2006) Neural foundations to moral reasoning and antisocial behaviour. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 1:203–213
Roskies A (2002) Neuroethics for the new millennium. Neuron 35:21–23
Sententia W (2004) Neuroethical considerations: cognitive liberty and converging technologies. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1013:223
Sententia W (2013) Freedom by design: transhumanist values and cognitive liberty. In: More M, Vita-More N (eds) The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology and philosophy of the human future. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 356–357
Sepulveda M et al (2004) Human rights reference handbook. University for Peace, Costa Rica
Singh I, Sinnott-Armstrong WP, Savulescu J (2013) Bioprediction, biomarkers and bad behavior. Scientific, legal and ethical challenges. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Sommaggio P (2014) Neurocivilizzazione. Ethics Politics XVI(2):130–168
Sommaggio P (2016) Neuro-civilization: a new form of social enhancement. In: ATINER’S conference paper series, SOS2016-2106, pp 3–18
Sommaggio P et al (2017) Cognitive liberty. A first step towards a human neuro-rights declaration. BioLaw J 5:27–45
Sommaggio P, Mazzocca M (2020) Cognitive liberty and human rights. In: Aloia AD, D’Arrigo MC (eds) Neuroscience and law. Springer, London
Tamanaha BZ (2006) Law as a means to an end. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Tamanaha BZ (2007) How an instrumental view of law corrodes the rule of law. De Paul Law Rev 56:1–52
Taylor K (2004) Brainwashing. The science of thought control. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Vincent N (2010) On the relevance of neuroscience to criminal responsibility. Crim Law Philos 4:77–98
Vincent NA (2013) Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sommaggio, P. (2022). Neuroscience, Neurolaw, and Neurorights. In: López-Silva, P., Valera, L. (eds) Protecting the Mind. Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment, vol 49. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94032-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94032-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-94031-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-94032-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)