Graduate studies at Western
American Journal of Bioethics 5 (2):39-49 (2005)
|Abstract||Detection of deception and confirmation of truth telling with conventional polygraphy raised a host of technical and ethical issues. Recently, newer methods of recording electromagnetic signals from the brain show promise in permitting the detection of deception or truth telling. Some are even being promoted as more accurate than conventional polygraphy. While the new technologies raise issues of personal privacy, acceptable forensic application, and other social issues, the focus of this paper is the technical limitations of the developing technology. Those limitations include the measurement validity of the new technologies, which remains largely unknown. Another set of questions pertains to the psychological paradigms used to model or constrain the target behavior. Finally, there is little standardization in the field, and the vulnerability of the techniques to countermeasures is unknown. Premature application of these technologies outside of research settings should be resisted, and the social conversation about the appropriate parameters of its civil, forensic, and security use should begin|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Steven E. Hyman (2010). Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-Detection: Where Are We Now? An Appraisal of Wolpe, Foster and Langleben's “Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-Detection: Promise and Perils” Five Years Later. American Journal of Bioethics 10 (10):49-50.
Daniel D. Langleben, Kenneth R. Foster & Paul Root Wolpe (2010). Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-Detection: Promises and Perils. American Journal of Bioethics 10 (10):40-48.
Paul Root Wolpe, Kenneth R. Foster & Daniel D. Langleben (2005). Response to Commentators on "Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-Detection: Promises and Perils?". American Journal of Bioethics 5 (2):W5.
Rebecca Dresser (2010). Brain Imaging and Courtroom Deception. Hastings Center Report 40 (6):7-8.
Daniel V. Meegan (2008). Neuroimaging Techniques for Memory Detection: Scientific, Ethical, and Legal Issues. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (1):9 – 20.
Amy E. White (2010). The Lie of Fmri: An Examination of the Ethics of a Market in Lie Detection Using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. [REVIEW] HEC Forum 22 (3):253-266.
Federica Lucivero, Tsjalling Swierstra & Marianne Boenink (2011). Assessing Expectations: Towards a Toolbox for an Ethics of Emerging Technologies. [REVIEW] Nanoethics 5 (2):129-141.
Thomas Nadelhoffer & Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (2012). Neurolaw and Neuroprediction: Potential Promises and Perils. Philosophy Compass 7 (9):631-642.
Ineke Malsch (2013). Governing Nanotechnology in a Multi-Stakeholder World. Nanoethics 7 (2):161-172.
William G. Iacono (2008). The Forensic Application of "Brain Fingerprinting:" Why Scientists Should Encourage the Use of P300 Memory Detection Methods. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (1):30 – 32.
Trond Åm (2011). Trust in Nanotechnology? On Trust as Analytical Tool in Social Research on Emerging Technologies. Nanoethics 5 (1):15-28.
Trond Ã…M. (2011). Trust in Nanotechnology? On Trust as Analytical Tool in Social Research on Emerging Technologies. Nanoethics 5 (1):15-28.
Colin Gavaghan (2010). A Whole New... You? 'Personal Identity', Emerging Technologies and the Law. Identity in the Information Society 3 (3):423-434.
Giles Oatley, Brian Ewart & John Zeleznikow (2006). Decision Support Systems for Police: Lessons From the Application of Data Mining Techniques to “Soft” Forensic Evidence. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (1-2):35-100.
Added to index2010-09-14
Total downloads7 ( #142,473 of 739,396 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?