Considering Convergence: A Policy Dialogue About Behavioral Genetics, Neuroscience, and Law

Q2 Social Sciences
B. Garland, M. Frankel
{"title":"Considering Convergence: A Policy Dialogue About Behavioral Genetics, Neuroscience, and Law","authors":"B. Garland, M. Frankel","doi":"10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195340525.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I INTRODUCTION As the poet Mark Strand said, \"The future is always beginning now.\" (1) When considering the social impact that neuroscience and behavioral genetics will have on the criminal justice system, scientists, lawyers, courts, and policymakers might do well to keep Strand's words in mind. Too often it is assumed that for developments in science and technology, there is time to start the policy dialogue in \"the future.\" Those who would address the issues later typically assert that the science in question is too immature, that it is too early, that the discussion is too speculative. While such objections sometimes have merit, it seems society is most often too slow in promoting a public dialogue. Open public dialogue is an important tool in considering and weighing public reaction, in informing the public and policymakers, and in building public consensus about appropriate and responsible uses of science and technology. Scientific advancements can result in strong, negative public reactions, as with nuclear power in the United States, genetically modified food crops in the European Union, and human research cloning in a variety of nations. This negative backlash can in turn influence scientists and science policy and slow the progress of socially valuable research. When the social risks are great, it may be prudent to slow the pace of research. However, when the risks are minimal, and the negative reaction is based on incomplete or inaccurate information about the science, then restraints on research serve little purpose. Now is the time to call on scientists, lawyers, courts, and lawmakers to begin a sustained dialogue focused on the impact that scientific discoveries and technological advances might have on the criminal law. The dialogue should focus on developing appropriate policies to address the legal and social issues raised by such advances. Such a dialogue is necessary, in particular, concerning the focus of this essay: the impact of neuroscience and behavioral genetics on criminal law. This article first briefly considers some of the commonalities and differences between behavioral genetics and neuroscience as they relate to the criminal law, including topics addressed by both fields, as well as how each field might be applied in criminal proceedings. The article then focuses on a common concern raised by both fields in this context--the possible misuse of science in the criminal law. It concludes with a proposal to address the need for a continuing policy dialogue about the law and scientific developments in neuroscience and behavioral genetics. II A POLICY PERSPECTIVE The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (2) has sought to advance the public and policy dialogues in both behavioral genetics and neuroscience in the past few years. (3) It is reasonable to ask why anyone would consider the effect on the criminal law of two broad scientific fields, rather than deal with each separately. It seems increasingly clear, though, that when describing, predicting, and understanding human behavior, numerous scientific discussions may be considered part of one larger discussion: various scientific fields converge in their exploration and explanation of human actions. It makes some scientific sense to talk about neuroscience and behavioral genetics together; indeed, the disciplines overlap and interact--for example, a person's genes affect how his brain develops. (4) It similarly makes legal sense to consider a larger behavioral biology, and it makes sense to consider the two fields together from a policy perspective. Moreover, public dialogues at AAAS and elsewhere on behavioral genetics and neuroscience suggest that both disciplines are ripe for further discussion about their nexus with criminal law and policy. III COMMON ISSUES OF INTEREST Behavioral genetics and neuroscience converge on a number of scientific, legal, social, and ethical issues--in particular, on two areas of interest to the criminal justice system: the prediction of behavior and the use of behavioral information in the preliminary stages of criminal processes. …","PeriodicalId":39484,"journal":{"name":"Law and Contemporary Problems","volume":"22 1","pages":"101-114"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Contemporary Problems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195340525.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

I INTRODUCTION As the poet Mark Strand said, "The future is always beginning now." (1) When considering the social impact that neuroscience and behavioral genetics will have on the criminal justice system, scientists, lawyers, courts, and policymakers might do well to keep Strand's words in mind. Too often it is assumed that for developments in science and technology, there is time to start the policy dialogue in "the future." Those who would address the issues later typically assert that the science in question is too immature, that it is too early, that the discussion is too speculative. While such objections sometimes have merit, it seems society is most often too slow in promoting a public dialogue. Open public dialogue is an important tool in considering and weighing public reaction, in informing the public and policymakers, and in building public consensus about appropriate and responsible uses of science and technology. Scientific advancements can result in strong, negative public reactions, as with nuclear power in the United States, genetically modified food crops in the European Union, and human research cloning in a variety of nations. This negative backlash can in turn influence scientists and science policy and slow the progress of socially valuable research. When the social risks are great, it may be prudent to slow the pace of research. However, when the risks are minimal, and the negative reaction is based on incomplete or inaccurate information about the science, then restraints on research serve little purpose. Now is the time to call on scientists, lawyers, courts, and lawmakers to begin a sustained dialogue focused on the impact that scientific discoveries and technological advances might have on the criminal law. The dialogue should focus on developing appropriate policies to address the legal and social issues raised by such advances. Such a dialogue is necessary, in particular, concerning the focus of this essay: the impact of neuroscience and behavioral genetics on criminal law. This article first briefly considers some of the commonalities and differences between behavioral genetics and neuroscience as they relate to the criminal law, including topics addressed by both fields, as well as how each field might be applied in criminal proceedings. The article then focuses on a common concern raised by both fields in this context--the possible misuse of science in the criminal law. It concludes with a proposal to address the need for a continuing policy dialogue about the law and scientific developments in neuroscience and behavioral genetics. II A POLICY PERSPECTIVE The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (2) has sought to advance the public and policy dialogues in both behavioral genetics and neuroscience in the past few years. (3) It is reasonable to ask why anyone would consider the effect on the criminal law of two broad scientific fields, rather than deal with each separately. It seems increasingly clear, though, that when describing, predicting, and understanding human behavior, numerous scientific discussions may be considered part of one larger discussion: various scientific fields converge in their exploration and explanation of human actions. It makes some scientific sense to talk about neuroscience and behavioral genetics together; indeed, the disciplines overlap and interact--for example, a person's genes affect how his brain develops. (4) It similarly makes legal sense to consider a larger behavioral biology, and it makes sense to consider the two fields together from a policy perspective. Moreover, public dialogues at AAAS and elsewhere on behavioral genetics and neuroscience suggest that both disciplines are ripe for further discussion about their nexus with criminal law and policy. III COMMON ISSUES OF INTEREST Behavioral genetics and neuroscience converge on a number of scientific, legal, social, and ethical issues--in particular, on two areas of interest to the criminal justice system: the prediction of behavior and the use of behavioral information in the preliminary stages of criminal processes. …
考虑趋同:关于行为遗传学、神经科学和法律的政策对话
正如诗人马克·斯特兰德所说:“未来总是从现在开始。”(1)在考虑神经科学和行为遗传学将对刑事司法系统产生的社会影响时,科学家、律师、法院和政策制定者或许应该牢记斯特兰德的话。人们常常认为,为了科学技术的发展,有时间在“未来”开始政策对话。那些稍后才讨论这些问题的人通常会断言,有问题的科学太不成熟,为时过早,讨论太投机。虽然这样的反对意见有时是有道理的,但似乎社会在推动公众对话方面往往过于缓慢。公开的公众对话是考虑和权衡公众反应、向公众和决策者通报情况以及就科学技术的适当和负责任使用建立公众共识的重要工具。科学的进步会导致强烈的、负面的公众反应,如美国的核能,欧盟的转基因粮食作物,以及许多国家的人类克隆研究。这种负面的反弹反过来会影响科学家和科学政策,并减缓具有社会价值的研究的进展。当社会风险很大时,放慢研究的步伐可能是明智的。然而,如果风险很小,而且负面反应是基于有关科学的不完整或不准确的信息,那么对研究的限制就没有什么意义了。现在是时候呼吁科学家、律师、法院和立法者开始持续对话,重点关注科学发现和技术进步可能对刑法产生的影响。对话应侧重于制定适当的政策,以解决这种进步所引起的法律和社会问题。这样的对话是必要的,特别是关于这篇文章的焦点:神经科学和行为遗传学对刑法的影响。本文首先简要地考虑了与刑法相关的行为遗传学和神经科学之间的一些共同点和差异,包括这两个领域所涉及的主题,以及每个领域如何在刑事诉讼中应用。在此背景下,本文着重讨论了两个领域共同关注的问题——刑法中可能存在的科学滥用问题。报告最后提出了一项建议,即需要就神经科学和行为遗传学的法律和科学发展进行持续的政策对话。在过去的几年中,美国科学促进会(AAAS)(2)一直在努力推动行为遗传学和神经科学领域的公众和政策对话。(3)我们有理由提出这样的问题:为什么有人会考虑两大科学领域对刑法的影响,而不是分别研究它们。然而,似乎越来越清楚的是,当描述、预测和理解人类行为时,许多科学讨论可能被认为是一个更大讨论的一部分:不同的科学领域在探索和解释人类行为时汇聚在一起。把神经科学和行为遗传学放在一起讨论是有一定科学意义的;事实上,这些学科相互重叠,相互作用——例如,一个人的基因会影响他的大脑发育。(4)同样,考虑一个更大的行为生物学在法律上是有意义的,从政策的角度考虑这两个领域也是有意义的。此外,美国科学促进会和其他地方关于行为遗传学和神经科学的公开对话表明,这两个学科与刑法和政策之间的关系已经成熟,可以进行进一步的讨论。行为遗传学和神经科学集中在许多科学、法律、社会和伦理问题上,特别是在刑事司法系统感兴趣的两个领域:行为的预测和在犯罪过程的初步阶段使用行为信息。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Law and Contemporary Problems
Law and Contemporary Problems Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Law and Contemporary Problems was founded in 1933 and is the oldest journal published at Duke Law School. It is a quarterly, interdisciplinary, faculty-edited publication of Duke Law School. L&CP recognizes that many fields in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities can enhance the development and understanding of law. It is our purpose to seek out these areas of overlap and to publish balanced symposia that enlighten not just legal readers, but readers from these other disciplines as well. L&CP uses a symposium format, generally publishing one symposium per issue on a topic of contemporary concern. Authors and articles are selected to ensure that each issue collectively creates a unified presentation of the contemporary problem under consideration. L&CP hosts an annual conference at Duke Law School featuring the authors of one of the year’s four symposia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信