On the viability and potential value of current and emerging neuroscience and technologies to the practice of forensic science

Main Article Content

Nathan Skinner Monica A. Leyva James Giordano

Abstract

As developments in neuroscience and its technologies (neuroS/T) advance, the criminal justice system’s consideration of, and interest in the applications of such methods and tools to forensics and legal proceedings are also increasing. In light of these advances, considerations, and interest, it becomes essential to address the pragmatic validity, viability and potential value of neuroS/T to forensics and law. This essay describes ways that implementation of neuroS/T can directly benefit the forensic science community; identifies limitations of, and concerns about forensic use of neuroS/T; and posits the value of an implementation science framework to identify and analyze extant gaps (in both neuroS/T and forensic sciences and law) and offer ways that such gaps can - and arguably should - be compensated, closed or prevented in order to promote ethical interdisciplinary and systemic utility, effectiveness, and efficiency. Based upon these arguments, we propose the following recommendations that may be useful when considering and/or implementing neuroS/T in forensic contexts:


  1. NeuroS/T under consideration should be evaluated for its actual capabilities, and constraints/limitations as specific to the needs and charge(s) of the forensic process within legal contexts.

  2. NeuroS/T should be determined by consensus of a representative community of neuroscientists, to validly and reliably obtain defined results as relevant and applicable to the process(es) and policies of the forensic community.

  3. NeuroS/T should corroboratively be determined by consensus of a representative community of forensic professionals, to validly and reliably obtain the aforementioned results as relevant and applicable to of the process(es) and policies of the forensic community

  4. The extent of consensus should be necessary and sufficient to sate current standards of the Code of Federal Evidence (e.g.- Daubert) or other codification as applicable to the (national) jurisdiction in which these approaches will be utilized.

  5. The use of neuroS/T in these ways should be supportive, but not substitutive of, other ratified, accepted methods of forensic investigation and analyses, and relative weighting of neuroS/T-based information should be determined in proportion to the specificity and precision of the technique(s) in comparison to other methods.

Keywords: neuroscience, neurotechnology, forensic science, law, implementation science, neuroethics

Article Details

How to Cite
SKINNER, Nathan; LEYVA, Monica A.; GIORDANO, James. On the viability and potential value of current and emerging neuroscience and technologies to the practice of forensic science. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 11, n. 7.2, aug. 2023. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/3976>. Date accessed: 20 july 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v11i7.2.3976.
Section
Research Articles

References

1. Giordano J. (ed.) Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense: Practical Considerations; Neuroethical Concerns. Boca Raton: CRC-Routledge; 2015.

2. Aono D, Yaffe G, Kober H. Neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom: a review. Cognitive Research Principles and Implications. 2019;4(1):40. Published 2019 Oct 22. doi:10.1186/s41235-019-0179-y

3. Jones, O.D., Jones, O.D., Shen, F.X. International Neurolaw: Law and Neuroscience in the United States. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2012.

4. Kraft CJ, Giordano J. Integrating brain science and law: Neuroscientific evidence and legal perspectives on protecting individual liberties. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2017;11. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00621

5. Cornet LJ, de Kogel CH, Nijman HL, Raine A, van der Laan PH. Neurobiological changes after intervention in individuals with anti-social behaviour: A literature review. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. 2015;25(1):10-27. doi:10.1002/cbm.1915

6. Berryessa CM, Raine A. Neurocriminology. In: Brisman A, Carrabine E, South N, eds. The Routledge Companion to Criminological Theory and Concepts. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2017:78-82.

7. National Research Council. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Washington, D.C; National Academies Press;2009:328. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html

8. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509, 579 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Court 1993).

9. Shats K, Brindley T, Giordano J. Don't ask a neuroscientist about phases of the moon. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2016;25(4):712-725. doi:10.1017/S0963180116000438

10. Edwards T, Edwards J. The Daubert expert standard: A primer for Florida judges and lawyers. The Florida Bar Journal. 2022. Accessed January 11, 2023. https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-daubert-expert-standard-a-primer-for-florid a-judges-and-lawyers/ .

11. Ward T, Wilshire CE. Explanation in forensic neuroscience. In: Beech A, Carter, A, Mann, Rotshtein R, eds. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Forensic Neuroscience. NY: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2018:chap 35:937-946. Accessed January 11, 2023. doi:10.1002/9781118650868

12. Freedman D, Zaami S. Neuroscience and mental state issues in forensic assessment. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 2019;65:101437. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.03.006

13. El-Shenawy OE. Traditional psychological tests usage in forensic assessment. Forensic, Legal & Investigative Sciences. 2017;3:1-5. doi:10.24966/flis-733x/100020

14. Barnes JC, Raine A, Farrington DP. The interaction of biopsychological and socio-environmental influences on criminological outcomes. Justice Quarterly. 2022;39(1):26-50. doi:10.1080/07418825.2020.1730425

15. United States v Hinckley, 525 F. Supp. 1342 (United States District Court 1982)

16. State v. Harrington, 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa District Court 2003)

17. Roper v Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (Supreme Court of Missouri 2005)

18. Glenn AL, Raine A. Neurocriminology: Implications for the punishment, Prediction and prevention of criminal behaviour. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2014;15(1):54-63. doi:10.1038/nrn3640

19. Poldrack RA, Monahan J, Imrey PB, et al. Predicting violent behavior: What can neuroscience add? Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2018;22(2):111-123. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.003

20. 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. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2014;35(1):73-89. doi:10.1007/s11017-014-9278-4

21. Roldán M, Kyriacou PA. Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Sensors. 2021;21(5):1586. doi:10.3390/s21051586

22. Calhoun, V. D, Arbabshirani M. Neuroimaging-based automatic classification of schizophrenia bioprediction. In: Singh I, Sinnott-Armstrong W, Savulescu J, eds. Bioprediction, Biomarkers, and Bad Behavior: Scientific, Legal, and Ethical Challenges Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013:206-230.

23. Baum M, Savulescu J. Behavioral biomarkers: What are they good for? In: Singh I, Sinnott-Armstrong W, Savulescu J, eds. Bioprediction, Biomarkers, and Bad Behavior: Scientific, Legal, and Ethical Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013:12-41.

24. Saladino V, Lin H, Zamparelli E, Verrastro V. Neuroscience, Empathy, and Violent Crime in an Incarcerated Population: A Narrative Review. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021; 12:694212. Published 2021 Jul 28. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.694212

25. Angus DJ, Schutter DJ, Terburg D, Van Honk J, Harom-Jones E. A review of social neuroscience research on anger and aggression. In: Harmon-Jones E, Inzlicht M, eds. Social Neuroscience. London: Routledge; 2016:223-246.

26. Sandi C, Haller J. Stress and the social brain: Behavioural effects and neurobiological mechanisms. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2015;16(5):290-304. doi:10.1038/nrn3918

27. Moghissi A.A., Swetman M., Love B.R., and Straja S.R. Best Available Science: Fundamental Metrics for Evaluating Scientific Claims. Ballston: Potomac Institute Press; 2010.

28. Chalmers, D.J. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness. 1995;2(3), 200-219.

29. Giordano J., Kohls N.B. Self, suffering and spirituality: The neuroscience of pain and spiritual experiences and practices. Mind and Matter 2008;6:179-192.

30. Wurzman R, Giordano J. Explanation, explanandum, causality and complexity: A consideration of mind, matter, neuroscience, and physics. NeuroQuantology. 2009;7(3). doi:10.14704/nq.2009.7.3.239

31. Giordano J, Benedikter R. 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 Technolology 2012;22(1): 14-25.

32. McRae L. Forensic neuropsychology in the Criminal Court. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Forensic Neuroscience. NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2018:889-916.

33. Testimony by Expert Witness. Federal Rules of Evidence, Article VII; Rule 702 (2011).

34. Farahany NA. The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology. NY: St. Martin’s Press; 2023.

35. Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2011.

36. Farwell LA. Brain fingerprinting: A comprehensive tutorial review of detection of concealed information with event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Neurodynamics. 2012; 6(2):115-154. doi:10.1007/s11571-012-9192-2

37. Benanti P, Giordano J. Between neuroskepticism and neurogullibility: The key role of neuroethics in the regulation and mitigation of Neurotechnology in national security and defense. In: Giordano, J., ed. Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense: Practical Considerations, Neuroethical Concerns. Boca Raton: CRC-Routledge, 2015:259-278.

38. Solymosi T, Shook J. Neuropragmatism: A neurophilosophical manifesto. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy. 2013;V(1). doi:10.4000/ejpap.671

39. Giordano J. A preparatory neuroethical approach to assessing developments in neurotechnology. AMA Journal of Ethics. 2015;17(1):56-61. doi:10.1001/virtualmentor.2015.17.1.msoc1-1501

40. Giordano J. Toward an operational neuroethical risk analysis and mitigation paradigm for emerging neuroscience and technology (neuroS/T). Experimental Neurology. 2017;287 (4):492-495. doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2016.07.016

41. Tractenberg RE, FitzGerald KT, Giordano J. Engaging neuroethical issues generated by the use of neurotechnology in national security and defense: Toward process, methods, and paradigm. In: Giordano, J., ed. Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense: Practical Considerations, Neuroethical Concerns. Boca Raton: CRC-Routledge, 2015:259-278.

42. Giordano J. Neurotechnology, Global Relations, and national security: Shifting contexts and neuroethical demands. In: Giordano, J., ed. Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense: Practical Considerations, Neuroethical Concerns. Boca Raton: CRC-Routledge, 2015:259-278.

43. Cheung N, Howell J. Tribute to George Heilmeier, inventor of liquid crystal display, former DARPA director, and industry technology leader. IEEE Communications Magazine. 2014;52(6):12-13. doi:10.1109/mcom.2014.6829938

44. Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science. 2006;1(1). doi:10.1186/1748-5908-1-1

45. Kitson A, Harvey G. Facilitating an evidence-based innovation into practice. Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Healthcare. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2015:85-104.

46. Harvey G, Kitson A. PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implementation Science. 2016; 11:33. doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0398-2

47. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and Frameworks. Implementation Science. 2015;10(1). doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0

48. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovation. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.

49. Laycock A, Harvey G, Percival N, et al. Application of the i-PARIHS framework for enhancing understanding of interactive dissemination to achieve wide-scale improvement in Indigenous primary healthcare. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2018;16(1):117. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0392-z