Skip to main content

Neuroscience and Converging Technologies in Italy: From Free Will Approach to Humans as Not Disconnected Entities

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Neurolaw

Abstract

In recent years, a vast literature has developed on how neuroimaging may increase our understanding of deception, moral and legal responsibility, behaviour prediction, and much more. Common approaches overlook the global reality of neuroscience and neurotechniques. This is the reason why (beyond controversial implications of neuroimaging techniques: i.e. lie detection, determination of mental impairment, or psychopathy) it is important to survey some technological applications of neuroscience on the human body (even beyond the field of criminal law), such as objective measurement of chronic pain, robots and artificial intelligence, brain–computer interfaces. The review focuses on Italian case law on the concept of “moral damage” and the opportunities that neurotechniques offer in order to have a more objective evaluation. In addition, it is considered the responsibility for robot’s actions (especially referring to learning robots) and the possible application of current Italian civil legislation (especially the responsibility of teachers). Conclusive remarks are on the law and the way basic concepts as human individual are affected by neuroscience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Glannon (2007).

  2. 2.

    To survey the actual and current, and likely use of neuroscientific, behavioural genetic and neurogenomic techniques before the European Courts and in investigative activities and to create and implement an archive of cases and materials on NeuroLaw are among the aims of the newborn European Association for Neuroscience and Law (EANL). More information at http://www.unipv-lawtech.eu/.

  3. 3.

    Nordmann A (Rapporteur) (2004). See also Roco and Bainbridge (2002).

  4. 4.

    In this paragraph, I take advantage of Camporesi and Bottalico (2011). I thank the authors for kindly giving me the opportunity to use the results of their research.

  5. 5.

    Tracey and Bushnell (2009).

  6. 6.

    Pain intensity scales used by researchers at the NIH Clinical Center to measure how intensely individuals are feeling pain and to monitor the effectiveness of treatments are at: http://painconsortium.nih.gov/pain_scales/index.html.

  7. 7.

    When a case is very controversial or precedents are conflicting each other, the Italian Corte di Cassazione (Supreme Court) decides as a unique chamber (Sezioni Unite): several judges are added to a chamber and a bigger chamber is created ad hoc with the purpose to have a more authoritative and binding decision.

  8. 8.

    Decreto Legislativo n. 209, 7 September 2005 (mainly art. 138).

  9. 9.

    Borsook et al. (2007); Borsook et al. (2010).

  10. 10.

    Goldacre (2010).

  11. 11.

    Kolber (2007).

  12. 12.

    Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, Supreme Court of Canada, October 3, 2003. See also http://onlinedb.lancasterhouse.com/index.asp?navid=37&sid=2792&layid=87&csid1=23&csid2=3467.

  13. 13.

    City of Philadelphia v. Shapiro, 206 A.2d 308, 311 (Pa. 1965).

  14. 14.

    See also, Madeira (2006–2007).

  15. 15.

    See for example the website http://www.thermographyclinic.ca/pain.html.

  16. 16.

    Turing (1950). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy outlines Alan Turing’s very controversial biography and his contribution to contemporary philosophy as follows: Alan Turing (1912–1954) never described himself as a philosopher, but his 1950 paper ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’ is one of the most frequently cited in modern philosophical literature. It gave a fresh approach to the traditional mind-body problem, by relating it to the mathematical concept of computability he himself had introduced in his 1936–7 paper ‘On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem.’ His work can be regarded as the foundation of computer science and of the artificial intelligence program.. […]Alan Turing's arrest in February 1952 for his sexual affair with a young Manchester man, and he was obliged, to escape imprisonment, to undergo the injection of oestrogen intended to negate his sexual drive. He was disqualified from continuing secret cryptological work. His general libertarian attitude was enhanced rather than suppressed by the criminal trial, and his intellectual individuality also remained as lively as ever. (in: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing/, accessed 7 Jan 2011).

  17. 17.

    Turing (1950), pp. 433–434.

  18. 18.

    Floridi (1999).

  19. 19.

    Thomas Hobbes deals with automata in the first lines of the Introduction of his book Leviathan: T. Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651.

  20. 20.

    In this paragraph I take advantage from a research in progress at the European Centre for Law, Science and New Technologies, University of Pavia (I). I am deeply in debt with Chiara Boscarato (Scholarship Fellow at the Centre) and thank her for giving me the opportunity to use her paper (draft) Boscarato (2011).

  21. 21.

    The word “robot” was used for the first time by Karel Čapek, a Czech writer, in his play Rossum’s Universal Robots, published in 1920, on the advice of his brother Josef who had previously used the word “automa” in his short story “Opilec” published in 1917 (http://capek.misto.cz/english/robot.html).

  22. 22.

    Consumer protection is regulated by EC Directive 1985/374, as amended by EC Directive 1999/34.

  23. 23.

    http://www.irobot.it/.

  24. 24.

    According to Italian legislation Art. 2052 of the Civil Code should be applied: “The owner of an animal or anyone using it for a certain period is liable for damage caused by the animal, whether the animal was in his custody, had disappeared or had fled, unless he can prove that a fortuitous event occurred”.

  25. 25.

    http://www.aibosite.com/sp/gen/home.html.

  26. 26.

    Production was discontinued on 2006 because of insufficient sales and high production costs (around 2.500 dollars).

  27. 27.

    http://www.robotcub.org/. This is an open source project funded by the European Commission and used by more than 20 laboratories worldwide.

  28. 28.

    Article 2048 Italian Civil Code: Il padre e la madre, o il tutore, sono responsabili del danno cagionato dal fatto illecito dei figli minori non emancipati o delle persone soggette alla tutela, che abitano con essi. La stessa disposizione si applica all'affiliante. I precettori e coloro che insegnano un mestiere o un'arte sono responsabili del danno cagionato dal fatto illecito dei loro allievi e apprendisti nel tempo in cui sono sotto la loro vigilanza. Le persone indicate dai commi precedenti sono liberate dalla responsabilità soltanto se provano di non avere potuto impedire il fatto.

  29. 29.

    This was developed by the French company Aldebaran Robotics http://www.aldebaran-robotics.com/eng/Nao.php.

  30. 30.

    Robocup is an international robotics competition founded in 1997. The aim is to develop autonomous soccer robots with the intention of promoting research and education in the field of artificial intelligence. The name RoboCup is a contraction of the competition’s full name, “Robot Soccer World Cup”, but there are many other stages of the competition such as “Search and Rescue” and “Robot Dancing”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoboCup.

  31. 31.

    Anderson and Anderson (2010).

  32. 32.

    Floridi (2008), p. 95.

  33. 33.

    Amedeo et al. (2007).

  34. 34.

    Parfit (1984).

  35. 35.

    This is the conclusion we reached in Santosuosso and Bottalico (2009), Art. 46.

References

  • Amedeo S, Valentina S, Pavone IR (2007) Drawing the boundary lines of humans: in whose Bailiwick? In: Derecho y Religiòn, vol. II, pp 11–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson M, Anderson SL (2010) Robot be good: a call for ethical autonomous machines. Scientific American, October 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Borsook D, Moulton EA, Schmidt KF et al (2007) Neuroimaging revolutionizes therapeutic approaches to chronic pain. Mol Pain 3:25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borsook D, Sava S, Becerra L (2010) The pain imaging revolution: advancing pain into the 21st century. Neuroscientist 16(2):171–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boscarato (2011) Who is responsible for robot’s actions? An initial examination of Italian law within a European perspective, paper submitted to “TILTing Perspectives 2011 – Technologies on the stand: Legal and ethical questions in neuroscience and robotics” Tilburg University, The Netherlands, April 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Camporesi and Bottalico (2011) Can we finally ‘see’ pain? Brain imaging techniques and implication for the law. J Conscious Stud (Forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Floridi L (1999) Philosophy and computing. An introduction. Routledge, London, pp 132–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Floridi L (ed) (2008) Philosophy of computing and information. 5 Questions. Automatic Press/VIP, Copenhagen, p 95

    Google Scholar 

  • Glannon W (2007) Defining right and wrong in brain science. Essential readings in neuroethics, Dana Foundation Series on Neuroethics. Dana Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldacre B (2010) Lost your libido? Let’s try a little neuro-realism, madam. The Guardian, Saturday 30 October, 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/30/ben-goldacre-bad-science-neuroscience. Accessed October 30 2010

  • Kolber AJ (2007) Pain detection and the privacy of subjective experience. American Journal of Law & Medicine 33:433–456

    Google Scholar 

  • Madeira JL (2006–2007) Regarding pained sympathy and sympathy pains: reason, morality, and empathy in the civil adjudication of pain. S C L Rev 58:415

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann A (Rapporteur) (2004) Converging technologies – shaping the future of European societies, Report 2004, reperibile in: http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2004/ntw/pdf/final_report_en.pdf

  • Parfit D (1984) Reasons and persons. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance. Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (National Science Foundation/DOC-sponsored report), June 2002, Arlington, Virginia

    Google Scholar 

  • Santosuosso A, Bottalico B (2009) Neuroscience,accountability and individual boundaries. In: Front Hum Neurosci 3:45

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracey I, Bushnell C (2009) How neuroimaging studies have challenged us to rethink: is chronic pain a disease? J Pain 10(11):1113–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turing AM (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59(236):433–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amedeo Santosuosso .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Santosuosso, A. (2012). Neuroscience and Converging Technologies in Italy: From Free Will Approach to Humans as Not Disconnected Entities . In: Spranger, T. (eds) International Neurolaw. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21541-4_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics