News and analysis on the implications of brain science.

Ethical Questions Surround ‘Electrical Thinking Cap’ that Improves Mental Functions

by Gary Stix

Scientific American | February 6, 2012

Are these relatively simple electric shock treatments too good to be true?

Brain Shock Treatment for Academic Gain: The Potential Dangers

The Telegraph | January 26, 2012

Tiny electric shocks can boost the brain’s performance in healthy adults.

See also

The Business and Ethics of the Brain Fitness Boom — Part 2: The Ethics

by Alvaro Fernandez

SharpBrains | January 6, 2012

Sharp­Brains’ co-founder and Chief Exec­u­tive Offi­cer Alvaro Fernandez argues that “to improve the ethics of the brain fit­ness busi­ness and its appli­ca­tion (and empower con­sumers’ informed deci­sion mak­ing), there must first be agree­ment about a mean­ing­ful, appro­pri­ate way to ana­lyze and guide inno­va­tion.”

Brain Waves 4: Neuroscience and the law

The Royal Society | December 13, 2011

The Royal Society has released a report on the growing relationship between neuroscience research and the legal system. The report is available for download in PDF, as well as in versions compatible with Kindle and e-readers (EPUB).

The Brain on Trial

Kavli Foundation | December 2011

Alan Leshner, Martha Farah, and Jay Giedd "discuss the rising influence of neuroscience in the courtroom, how advances in neuroscience are posing new challenges for the judicial system, and the use of therapeutic solutions for reforming criminals.”

Neuromarketing: Prove Thyself & Protect Consumers

by Ann Parson

December 19, 2011

Neuromarketing, the practice of using neuroscience to try to determine a person’s unconscious biological reactions to a product, is here to stay, but whether it works is much harder to prove.

Brain scan isn't crime predictor, study says

by Maria Cheng

Associated Press | December 18, 2011

Noting that brain imaging is increasingly being used in U.S. trials, a study from the Royal Society in England reports that "it's too soon for the law to be swayed by scientists' understanding of the brain.”

The Ethics of Altering Memory Get a Bit Ahead of the Science. But Just a Bit

by Gary Stix

Scientific American | December 14, 2011

Scientific American reports from the SUNY Downstate symposium on neuroethics and memory.

Neuroscience and the Law Series Continues to Draw Judges
Since 2007, the Dana Foundation has supported a grant to the AAAS to hold seminars for state and federal judges on emerging issues in neuroscience, as part of the Foundation’s Neuroscience and Law series. The seminars are designed to provide judges with a better understanding of the role that advances in neuroscience may play in making legal determinations.

Since its inception, the series has gained a national prominence, with waiting lists of judges wanting to attend. In 2009, the American Bar Association’s Judicial Education Award was given to the AAAS for the series. It was the first time the award was offered to a non-judicial group.

Webcasts
•    Hank Greely, Stanford University (11/2010, Neuroethics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA)
•    Judy Illes, University of British Columbia (11/2010, Neuroethics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA)
•    Paul Root Wolpe, Emory University (11/2010, Neuroethics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA)
•    Paul Zak, Claremont Graduate University (11/2010, Neuroethics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA)
•    Steve Hyman, Harvard University (11/2010, Neuroethics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA)
•    Molly Crockett, University of Cambridge (11/2010, Neuroethics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA)
•    Molly Crockett, University of Cambridge and Patricia Smith Churchland, UC San Diego (11/2010, Neuroethics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA)
•    Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, University of Southern California and Sarah Jayne Blakemore, University College London (11/2010, Neuroethics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA)
•    Mind and Matter: Ethical Challenges of Deep Brain Stimulation (11/13/2008, Dana Center in Washington, DC)