Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Deliver us from evil? The temptation, realities, and neuroethico-legal issues of employing assessment neurotechnologies in public safety initiatives

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

… lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

—Matthew 6:13.

Abstract

In light of the recent events of terrorism and publicized cases of mass slayings and serial killings, there have been calls from the public and policy-makers alike for neuroscience and neurotechnology (neuroS/T) to be employed to intervene in ways that define and assess, if not prevent, such wanton acts of aggression and violence. Ongoing advancements in assessment neuroS/T have enabled heretofore unparalleled capabilities to evaluate the structure and function of the brain, yet each and all are constrained by certain technical and practical limitations. In this paper, we present an overview of the capabilities and constraints of current assessment neuroS/T, address neuro-ethical and legal issues fostered by the use and potential misuse of these approaches, and discuss how neuroethics may inform science and the law to guide right and sound applications of neuroS/T to “deliver us from evil” while not being led into temptations of ampliative claims and inapt use.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Here, the term profiling is not to be pejoratively construed; rather, it refers to the use of well-defined types and tiers of data and information to assemble and model a set of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral traits that would be characteristic of and/or present in particular types of individuals. The term—and more cavalier public practices of “social profiling”—have been appropriately scrutinized and criticized in light of the biased views upon which they are often based, and the stigmatizing influences such labels incur. For review of scientific approaches to psychological profiling, see [5]; for a discussion of criticisms of depreciative (mis)use of both the term and its practice, see [6].

  2. For a complete review, see [8].

  3. The “biologization” of the integrity and flourishing of the state and its polis and the “medicalization” of tools and techniques employed toward their maintenance are certainly not new concepts, and they have been recurrent motifs in public health and political rhetoric throughout the 20th century. Notable examples include views advocated in Germany under the Wilhelmine, Weimar, and Third Reich regimes and in the United Kingdom and United States during the early-to-mid 1900s; see [35–39]. The use of such biological ideology to define, shape, and justify employment of biomedical treatment to sustain the integrity of the state and protect its polis, and the leveraging of biological effect upon populations were termed “biopower” and “biopolitics” by the post-modern philosopher Michel Foucault [40]. For an explicit discussion of the use of neuroS/T in these ways, see [41].

  4. Jus ad bellum refers to justification to engage war (i.e., a “just” war); jus in bello refers to just (or sound) conduct of those acts engaged under the rubric of “just war.” While related, these concepts, and dimensions of the activities to which they refer, can be mutually exclusive. For an overview of ethical precepts of military conflict and warfare, see [51]; and for a more contemporary view, with direct implications for potential use of neuroS/T jus in bello as discussed herein, refer to [52, 53].

  5. This would necessitate addressing the ways that neuroS/T might be employed jus ad bellum/jus in bello within an agenda of national defense under assumptions of: (a) right authority; (b) right intention; (c) reasonable hope (of maintaining peace or reducing conflict); (d) proportionality (of use relative to incurred or potential effects suffered by assault or attack); and (e) means of last resort. Complete discussion of such use is beyond the scope of the present paper; for an overview, see [55].

References

  1. Giordano, James. 2012. Integrative convergence in neuroscience: Trajectories, problems and the need for a progressive neurobioethics. In Technological innovation in sensing and detecting chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear threats and ecological terrorism, ed. Ashok Vaseashta, Eric Braman, and Phillip Sussman, 115–130. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Benedikter, Roland, and James Giordano. 2011. The outer and inner transformation of the global sphere through technology: The state of two fields in transition. New Global Studies 5(2): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Benedikter, Roland, James Giordano, and Kevin Fitzgerald. 2010. The future of the (self-)image of the human being in the age of transhumanism, neurotechnology and global transition. Futures 42(10): 1102–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Giordano, James. 2010. The mechanistic paradox: The relationship of science, technology, ethics and policy. Synesis: A Journal of Science, Technology, Ethics, and Policy 1(1): G1–G4.

    Google Scholar 

  5. James, Stuart, Jon J. Nordby, and Suzanne Bell. 2009. Forensic science: An introduction to scientific and investigative techniques, 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hirschmann, Kris. 2006. Racial profiling. At Issue Series. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press.

  7. Wurzman, Rachel, and James Giordano. 2014. Neurotechnologies as weapons in national intelligence and defense: An overview. In Neurotechnology in national security: Practical considerations, neuroethical concerns, ed. James Giordano. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

  8. Fu, Cynthia H.Y., Carl Senior, Tamara Russell, Daniel R. Weinberger, and Robin Murray (eds.). 2003. Neuroimaging in Psychiatry. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kalender, Willi. 2006. X-ray computed tomography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 51(13): R29–R43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wahl, Richard L., and Robert S.B. Beanlands. 2008. Principles and practice of PET and PET/CT, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  11. van Heertum, Ronald L., Ronald S. Tikofsky, and Masanori Ichise. 2009. Functional cerebral SPECT and PET imaging, 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hashemi, Ray Hashman, William G. Bradley Jr, and Christopher J. Lisanti. 2010. MRI: The basics, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ulmer, Stephan, and Olav Jansen (eds.). 2013. fMRI: Basics and clinical applications, 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hoshi, Yoko. 2007. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy: Current status and future prospects. Journal of Biomedical Optics 12(6): 062106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mori, Susumu, and Jiangyang Zhang. 2006. Principles of diffusion tensor imaging and its applications to basic neuroscience research. Neuron 51(5): 527–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Niedermeyer, Ernst, and Lopes da Silva. 2004. Electroencephalography: Basic principles, clinical applications, and related fields, 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Huizenga, Hilde, Titia van Zuijen, Dirk J. Heslenfeld, and Peter C. Molenaar. 2001. Simultaneous MEG and EEG source analysis. Physics in Medicine and Biology 46(7): 1737–1751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Puranik, D.A., S.K. Joseph, B.B. Daundkar, and M.V. Garad. (2009). Brain signature profiling in India. Its status as an aid in investigation and as corroborative evidence—as seen from judgments. Proceedings of XX All India Forensic Science Conference, 815–822. http://www.axxonet.com/pdfs/BEOS_IN_CASES.pdf. Accessed Dec 30 2013.

  19. Harenski, Carla L., Robert D. Hare, and Kent A. Kiehl. 2010. Neuroimaging, genetics, and psychopathy: Implications for the legal system. In Responsibility and psychopathy: Interfacing law, psychiatry and philosophy, ed. Luca Malatesti, and John McMillan, 125–154. London: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Viding, Essie, James R. Blair, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Robert Plomin. 2005. Evidence for substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 46: 592–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Buckholtz, Joshua W., and Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg. 2008. MAOA and the neurogenetic architecture of human aggression. Trends in Neuroscience 31: 120–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mesulam, M.Marsel. 2000. Principles of behavioral and cognitive neurology, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ridley, Matt. 2003. Nature via nurture: Genes, experience and what makes us human. London: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wurzman, Rachel, and James Giordano. 2012. Differential susceptibility to plasticity: A ‘missing link’ between gene-culture co-evolution and neuropsychiatric spectrum disorders? BMC Medicine 10: 37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vaseashta, Ashok. 2012. The potential utility of advanced sciences convergence: Analytical methods to depict, assess, and forecast trends in neuroscience and neurotechnological developments and uses. In Neurotechnology: Premises, potential, and problems, ed. James Giordano, 15–36. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

  26. Arrigo, Bruce A., and Stacey Shipley. 2001. The confusion over psychopathy (I): Historical considerations. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45(3): 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hardcastle, Valerie Gray. 2013. It isn’t as simple as it seems: Understanding and treating psychopathy. American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 4(2): 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chalmers, David. 1996. The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Giordano, James, and Roland Benedikter. 2012. An early—and necessary—flight of the Owl of Minerva: Neuroscience, neurotechnology, human socio-cultural boundaries, and the importance of neuroethics. Journal of Evolution and Technology 22(1): 14–25.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kotsoni, Eleni, Dana Byrd, and B.J. Casey. 2006. Special considerations for functional magnetic resonance imaging of pediatric populations. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 23(6): 877–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Giordano, James. 2012. Neurotechnology as demiurgical force: Avoiding Icarus’ folly. In Neurotechnology: Premises, potential and problems, ed. James Giordano, 1–14. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Giordano, James, and Roland Benedikter. 2012. Neurotechnology, culture, and the need for a cosmopolitan neuroethics. In Neurotechnology: Premises, potential, and problems, ed. James Giordano, 233–240. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1988. Whose justice? Which rationality?. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lester, J.C. 2000. Escape from Leviathan: Liberty, welfare and anarchy reconciled. New York: Macmillan/St Martin’s Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Borgmann, Albert. 1984. Technology and the character of contemporary life: A philosophical inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Giordano, James. 2012. Public health: History, theory and modern practices and challenges. In Encyclopedia of global studies, ed. K. Anheier, and M. Juergensmeye, 1414–1419. Fairfield CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lowrance, William W. 1985. Modern science and human values. NY: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Proctor, Robert N. 1988. Racial hygiene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Thom, Achim, and Genadij Caregorodcev (eds.). 1989. Medizin unterm Hakenkreuz. Stuttgart: VEB Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Foucault, Michel. 1973. The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception. NY: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Thomsen, Kyle. 2014. Prison camp or “prison clinic”? Biopolitics, neuroethics, and national security. In Neurotechnology in national security: Practical considerations, neuroethical concerns, ed. James Giordano. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

  42. Giordano, James, Chris Forsythe, and James Olds. 2010. Neuroscience, neurotechnology and national security: The need for preparedness and an ethics of responsible action. American Journal of Bioethics—Neuroscience 1(2): 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Addington, Jean. 2003. The prodromal stage of psychotic illness: Observation, detection or intervention? Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience 28(2): 93–97.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Missouri v. McNeely, no. 11-1425, 569 U.S. (2013). http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/missouri-v-mcneely/. Accessed Dec 30 2013.

  45. Maryland v King, no. 12-207, 42 A. 3d 549 (Md. 2012). http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/maryland-v-king/. Accessed Dec 30 2013.

  46. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).

  47. Farwell, James. 2014. Issues of law raised by developments and use in neuroscience and neurotechnology in national security and defense. In Neurotechnology in national security: Practical considerations, neuroethical concerns, ed. James Giordano. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

  48. Gary James Smith v. State of Maryland. 2011. Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Criminal case no. 106589C. http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/maryland/court-of-appeals/10-11.pdf?ts=1323898022. Accessed 30 Dec 2013.

  49. Canli, Turhan, Susan Brandon, William Casebeer, Phillip J. Crowley, Don DuRousseau, Henry T. Greely, and Alvaro Pascual-Leones. 2007. Neuroethics and national security. American Journal of Bioethics 7(5): 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002).

  51. Ramsey, Paul. 1969. The just war. New York: Scribner’s.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Steinhoff, Uwe. 2007. On the ethics of war and terrorism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. O’Donovan, Oliver. 2003. The just war revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. Giordano, James. 2014. Neuroethics in national security and defense: Toward a prudent parentalism and a stance of preparedness. In Neurotechnology in national security: Practical considerations, neuroethical concerns. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

  55. Giordano, James, ed. 2014. Neurotechnology in national security: practical considerations, neuroethical concerns. Boca Raton: CRC.

  56. Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. New York: Belknap.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Shook, John, and James Giordano. 2014. A principled and cosmopolitan neuroethics: Considerations for international relevance. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 9: 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Lanzilao, Elisabetta, John R. Shook, Roland Benedikter, and James Giordano. 2014. Advancing neuroscience on the 21st century world stage: The need for—and proposed structure of—an internationally-relevant neuroethics. Ethics in Biology, Engineering and Medicine 5.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by The William H. and Ruth Crane Schaefer Endowment, J.W. Fulbright Foundation, Clark Foundation Faculty Fellowship, and the Edmund D. Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics and Division of Integrative Physiology and Graduate Liberal Studies Program of Georgetown University. The authors thank Danielle DeBacker for contributions to an initial version of this work, and are grateful to Sherry Loveless for assistance in preparing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Neuroethics Studies Program, Edmund D. Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics and Division of Integrative Physiology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

    James Giordano

  2. Human Science Center, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität, Munich, Germany

    James Giordano

  3. McGill University, Montreal, Canada

    Anvita Kulkarni

  4. Canada Centre for Global Security Studies, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    James Farwell

Authors
  1. James Giordano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anvita Kulkarni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James Farwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Giordano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Giordano, J., Kulkarni, A. & Farwell, J. Deliver us from evil? The temptation, realities, and neuroethico-legal issues of employing assessment neurotechnologies in public safety initiatives. Theor Med Bioeth 35, 73–89 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-014-9278-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-014-9278-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation