Posted on by

First Debate-Style Meeting TONIGHT!

The NeuroLaw Group is having its first meeting using the standard debate format TONIGHT at 7:00pm! Our topic covers brain machine interfaces (BMI) and how they might pose a benefit to our society.

With the new format, we expect it might take a moment to figure out the logistics, but we appreciate you joining us for the ride!

After the meeting, be on the lookout for a survey. We hope to receive feedback from you in order to make adjustments and the format enjoyable for everyone!

Posted on by

Upcoming Meeting February 9th!

The next NeuroLaw meeting is coming up this Tuesday, February 9th at 7pm!

We will discuss how social media impacts cognition by looking at the issue through a few different perspectives. We will also discuss how much regulation should be imposed on social media sites and if government intervention is appropriate.

Click on the Important Dates tab for the Zoom link.

We look forward to seeing all of you and hearing your thoughts!

Posted on by

General Meeting: Opioids and Responsibility

September 17, 2019: The Opioid Epidemic and Corporate Responsibility

Summary:

  • 400,000+ people have lost their lives to opioid overdose in the past twenty years, and the financial cost according to the CDC has been estimated at $78.5 billion per year.
  • Opioid manufacturers paid physicians; the more opioid scripts written, the higher the kickback.
  • Johnson & Johnson was found to have contributed to the opioid crisis in Oklahoma.
  • Purdue Pharma and lawyers representing local governments are interested in continued negotiations related to opioid epidemic lawsuits.
  • Some are seeking lawsuits against individual members of the family who owns Purdue Pharma.
  • The American Pain society pushed pain as the fifth vital sign, but there is no device which can objectively measure pain; it is the first and only vital sign which is entirely subjective.
  • Fewer than 20% of opioid addicts are receiving what could be life-saving treatment.

Discussion Questions:

  • Is pain truly a “fifth vital sign,” as the American Pain Society lobbied for it to be?
  • Is pain management an issue of patients’ rights? Is patient satisfaction related to quality of care?
  • How culpable are physicians and hospital administrations for the over-prescription of opioids?
  • Can the family who owns Purdue Pharma be held responsible for the opioid crisis?
  • Do situations like this mandate future regulation of marketing campaigns for drugs? If so, all drugs, or just opioids?
  • How do we define when enough has been paid/done?

Resources:

Posted on by

New Executive Board Selected

The Executive Board has selected their replacements from a talented pool of applicants. After receiving approval from the Advisory Board, we would like to congratulate President-Elect Mark Fongheiser, Vice President-Elect Sebastian Bejarano, and Treasurer-Elect Jen Smith.

The above will serve in a training capacity for Autumn 2019 and will assume full responsibility for the organization in January 2020.

Posted on by

General Meeting 8: NeuroPolitics

February 12, 2019: Neuroscience and Politics

Summary

  • Genetic variation can help explain variation in political behavior. Could the brain have adapted to solve political social problems?
  • Associations between voter turnout and monoamine oxidase A gene have been established and between voter turnout and a dopamine receptor gene, mediated by significant association between that gene and the tendency to affiliate with a political party.
  • Psychologists identified a motivational basis for the stable core of conservative ideology, claiming that it is adopted in part to establish a variety of psychological needs.
  • Politics may be a form of social cognition similar to playground cognition that is cognizant of social hierarchy and that engages in coalitional cognition.
  • Brain areas can be implicated in emotion-based decision-making, but the same areas are activated in subjects from both major American political parties.
  • fMRI trials with greater belief resistance showed increased response in dmPFC and decreased activity in OFC, where participants who changed their minds showed less BOLD signal in the insula and amygdala while considering counter evidence.
  • Facial coding, biofeedback, and brain imaging are being used in marketing and campaigning, though many neuroscientists are critical.

Discussion

  • Do we agree that we should recognize that “genes are institutions of the human body?”
    • Genes are instructions. Institutions are large conglomerates that have distinct, direct, and established laws that only often have smaller, surface-level changes. Genes could be seen through this lens.
    • Author seems to be trying to establish a sense of permanence.
  • What is the significance of neuropolitics research? Why might we do it and what are its potential impacts?
    • Neuropolitics can influence voters and tailor messages to voters. A branch of voter research.
    • Voters are constantly being manipulated.
    • The methods being used only show correlational data. Same patterns of activation can occur for disparate opinions.
  • Neuromarketing
    • We can gauge the value spectrum (mOFC).
    • Targeted marketing.
  • Is behavioral micro-targeting ethical? Could it contribute to the echo chamber effect?
    • Campaigning off of principles and ideals rather than actions.
  • What are the benefits?
    • A better idea of what voters value?

Resources

Posted on by

General Meeting 7: Media & Youth

January 15, 2019: Media and Youth Development

Summary:

  • Children’s brains are more open to learning and shaping by external factors than adult brains.
  • The frontal lobe is one of the last areas to fully develop and can be affected by exposure to media, including functions like impulse control, judgment, problem solving, attention, and decision-making.
  • Children who spend more time on any media are more likely to be obese.
  • Media-related activities comprise 6-9 hours of American youths’ time each day.
  • Changes in adolescent brain matter volume are most pronounced in regions important for social understanding.
  • Social influences, which can occur through media, are likely particularly potent from age 12-13. Social rejection or acceptance online can be experienced similarly as face-to-face.
  • Late development of dlPFC may make adolescents more susceptible to emotional influence by media content which may blur the border between fact and fiction.
  • Adolescents with internet addiction may have lower grey matter and other structural changes in the brain.

Discussion:

  • Does a responsibility exist in society to protect minors from hazards associated with media consumption?
    • Media has become a tool for education as well as for entertainment and communication. Limiting it may limit information access, which is unjust.
    • Access to the Internet does not imply educational use.
  • Who is responsible for what young people consume?
    • Parents/Guardians: household rules and helping young people set boundaries. Parental controls, kids’ mode, etc.
    • Schools block websites and put restrictions on access. Note: some people don’t receive tech education in school. Teachers are more or less savvy.
    • Kids can get access to information they want access to regardless of filters.
  • What can education do to improve how students are interacting with information online?
    • Students need 21st Century Skills. Information literacy education should also include training on how to use media healthily.

Resources:

  • Brown, Hapern, L’Engle (2005) Mass media as a sexual super peer for early maturing girls. Journal of Adolescent Health.
  • Center on Media and Child Health. Brain Development.
  • Choudhury & McKinney (2013) Digital media, the developing brain, and the interpretive plasticity of neuroplasticity. Transcultural Psychiatry.
  • Crone & Konjin (2018) Media use and brain development during adolescence. Nature Communications.
  • Doward (2017) Revealed: the more time that children chat on social media, the less happy they feel. The Guardian.
  • Giedd (2012) The Digital Revolution and Adolescent Brain Evolution. Journal of Adolescent Health. 
  • Rios (2016) Positive and Negative Effects of Media on Children’s Health.
  • Tang, Darlington, Ma, & Hanes (2018) Mothers’ and fathers’ media parenting practices associated with young children’s screen-time: a cross-sectional study. BMC Obesity 5(37).
  • Thompson & Nelson (2001) Developmental science and the media: Early brain development. American Psychologist.
Posted on by

General Meeting 6: CTE & Football

November 15, 2018: CTE & Football – Policy & Protection

Summary:

  • Before passing away, Mike Webster suffered from severe memory issues.
  • Post-career, Webster behaved strangely, had unusual nervous symptoms, and psychological symptoms like mood swings and suicide attempts.
  • There are both tangible and intangible costs associated with CTE (lost income, loss of functioning, low quality of life).
  • CTE can occur in even early career football players, not just professionals.
  • Concussions aren’t prerequisite to development of CTE; sub-concussive hits are adequate.
  • Omalu argues that the game can’t be made safer. Allowing children to play has a 100% risk exposure. Others argue that it would be “child abuse” to not allow them to play.

Discussion:

  • Whose responsibility is it to protect youth?
    • Initial responsibility could fall on parents to not put their kids in a situation where they could get brain damage.
    • Policy-makers/governing bodies could implement anti-football.
    • Currently illegal sports: cockfighting, dogfighting, street racing… all illegal because of the danger involved.
    • Some blame could fall on coaches and program directors who teach players to block with their heads and play more aggressively than necessary.
    • NFL players are responsible, as they don’t say something or intentionally make the sport about animosity/destruction.
  • Is allowing a child to play football child abuse (per Dr. Bennett Omalu)?
    • Seems we need more information to form a definite opinion. Data should come in future years.
    • There is a difference between allowing a child to participate and forcing a child to.
    • Data does suggest that players who began playing before age 13 had symptoms onset on average 2.4 years earlier than those who started playing after.
    • Still no definite link between youth football and CTE, and there could be confounding variables, like other sports, drug abuse, family history, genetics, etc. Our sample is far from random and is likely not representative.
  • How can football players be protected at various stages of their careers?
    • USA Hockey outlawed bodychecking until age 12. Similar rules exist in soccer, women’s lacross, softball.
    • It’s difficult to fight a giant like the NFL.
    • Could youth leagues shift to flag football until high school?
    • Spreading information about the health outcomes of football players is important. Boxing lost a fair amount of popularity when Ali got dementia pugilistica.
    • Leagues need external whistleblowers who aren’t susceptible to team loyalty/reverence.
    • If we reduce padding, maybe people won’t weaponize their heads so much.
  • What needs to happen before we can made moves?
    • Football culture promotes a lot of dangerous practices and needs to be addressed.
    • Football is so tied up in money, making it difficult to change.
    • We need more informaiton about CTE and football’s role in it.

Resources:

Posted on by

General Meeting 5: Brain-Computer Interfacing

October 18, 2018: Brain-Computer Interfacing

Summary:

  • A venture by Elon Musk, Neuralink, will implant electrodes into the brain for direct computer interfacing with the goal of keeping humans economically viable in the digital age.
  • These technologies would directly tap the brain to “read out” thoughts, improve memory, and help with decision-making. Sharing “full sensory and emotional experiences” online may be the next big thing in social networking.
  • Prosthesis devices to replace damaged brain regions may become available.
  • Currently available are external devices which use a combination of EEG and clever algorithms to provide a “mouse” for the brain (Neurable) and medical implants which allow the deaf to hear and the paralyzed to move.

Discussion:

  • What are some major ethical concerns related to BCI?
    • How do you test without putting people’s brains at risk?
      • Animal studies.
    • Weaponization of BCI.
      • DARPA: technological innovations in the US military.
    • If used as a steroid, who would benefit?
      • Transhumanist ventures: if it gets to the point where, in order to be competitive, humans need these devices to keep up, will every person have access to these things, or just the wealthy?
    • Could “dehumanize” us.
      • Inability to learn form mistakes? If people are improving too much on their inefficiencies, they could lose their humanity. (Counter: are our inefficiencies our humanity?)
      • Where does individuality go? Shortcomings as well as strengths make us individual. If everyone can do everything…
    • Targeted advertising.
      • Social credit.
      • Decisions/behavior compiled as data –> push toward more extreme social credit systems. GPS tracking, privacy violations, manipulation.
    • Vetting informaiton accessible through it.
    • Security risks.
  • Are we in control of the ethical ramifications of BCI technologies?
    • Could we opt-out or unplug? Is this a “forever” change, equivalent to an evolution?
    • Not in control of ramifications.
    • Important to consider extreme circumstances early to prevent future messes.
  • Do humans need to become “cyborgs” in order to be relevant in the age of AI?
    • Could we ever compete with something that has infinite capacity to learn, and to do so more quickly than us?
  • Does making BCI optional alleviate moral and ethical concerns related to BCI?

Resources:

Posted on by

General Meeting 4: Addiction & Public Policy

September 13, 2018: Addiction, Public Policy, & Personal Responsibility

Summary

  • Consumption of addictive substances affects every nation, socioeconomic status, race, and gender.
  • Social costs of addiction: healthcare expenditures, loss of life, impaired productivity, motor vehicle accidents, crime & law enforcement.
  • Substance use is the result of decision-making malfunctions. Use among addicts is sometimes a mistake and is also sometimes rational. Addicts understand their susceptibility to triggering cues and may try to manage the process.
  • Popular economic theory: what is good/bad for society should be rooted in notions of good/bad held by affected individuals. Each person is the best judge of if a policy helps or hurts him, and their choices reveal their idea of good/bad.
  • “Theory of rational addiction:” addictive substances are distinguished only by a pattern of benefits/costs they deliver, else they’d be like other goods.
  • We don’t outlaw activities because they’re dangerous. We let individuals decide if the risks are worth the benefits.
  • Revealed preference is attractive because it protects individual sovereignty. Once we relax this doctrine, we potentially legitimize government condemnation of any chosen lifestyle on the grounds that it is contrary to an individual’s “true” interests.
  • Consumers are better served by policies that help avert mistakes while preserving their decision to choose.
  • One important role of government is to moderate the consequences of uninsurable risks.
  • Potential policy approaches to addiction substances: criminalization, education, taxation, harm reduction, selective legalization & controlled distribution, restrictions on advertising/market, provision of counter-cues, regulation of use.

Discussion

  • What might we hope to accomplish through public policies regarding addictive substances?
    • Can anyone become an addict? What role does predisposition play?
    • Different substances have different risk factors, and different individuals are more prone to using certain substances, especially in the face of underlying medical issues.
    • Is it possible to have policy be on a drug-by-drug basis, or according to amount?
    • Decriminalization might have the potential to expose more people to substances, but criminalization decreases regulation on them and makes them more dangerous.
  • What would rehabilitation for sufferers look like?
    • Rehabilitation is preferable to punitive solutions. Problems aren’t solved in prisons.
    • Addiction is a health equity problem and relapse is often environmentally triggered.
    • Harm reduction is not enough.
  • Under what conditions should policy makers recognize that voluntary actions may be ill-considered?
    • You can’t force a person to seek treatment. We can’t trample on autonomy.
    • Do people have the right to self-harm?
    • Competency standards. Could a professional revoke one’s competency to make their own medical decisions on the basis of addiction?
  • How do we distinguish between good and bad policy outcomes?
  • Can we really classify drug use as a mistake?
    • Mistake: an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong.
    • Are we paying attention to the opioid epidemic because of the demographic of people it is affecting?

Resources

Posted on by

General Meeting 3: Neurotechnology

April 11, 2018: Neuroscience Technologies and the Law

Summary:

  • In 2010, the USA saw the first hearing on fMRI lie-detection evidence, the first admission of EEG data used for sentences reduction, and a Supreme Court ruling citing brain development research.
  • Neuroimaging data has been used in disability, constitutional, contract, and criminal cases.
  • The use of fMRI data relies on interpretation which may or may not be accurate, especially when that interpretation is ignorant of the limitations of the experimental design.

Discussion:

  • Dead fish study: we can get results in an fMRI that aren’t necessarily meaningful. A lot of fMRI studies come from aggregate data, which is not useful on an individual level.
  • Is it responsible for neuroscientists to “dumb down” fMRI and other technologies so that legal practitioners can understand use data in the courtroom?
    • Legal practitioners need to be educated on neuroscience, either through higher education or continuing education (CE) credits.
    • Expert witnesses should be present to validate the use of the evidence.
  • Knowing that scientific imagery, especially brain images, have the ability to persuade readers, regardless of the integrity of the data, is it responsible to use them in court case?
    • The data isn’t 100% reliable. We know that there is error in fMRI interpretation, and we have evidence that it’s not the accurate diagnostic tool, especially regarding consciousness.
  • What are smart limitations to put on when brain images should or should not be used? Should they be treated similar to other scientific evidence, or should we treat them as something new and different?
    • Is this even admissible evidence? Not sure that the case can be made that this is good evidence.
    • How would the juror be seeing this data? Regardless of its explanation, jurors will still be considering it, which is an issue with a lot of scientific evidence in the courtroom.
    • Debate will shift to whether or not the data is correct, and, if it is correct, if it’s meaningful in context. Regressive for cases in terms of allowing it for evidence in that it can detract from actual argumentation.
    • Limitations on admissibility need to be standardized. Is it viable to use the same standards as used in polygraphs?
    • Not a black and white issue: there are instances where having brain data (eg. disability) can be helpful, but elsewhere lots of risk of misinterpretation or a violation of privacy.
  • Some jurisdictions give physicians the right to withdraw artificial life support form patients with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, but not minimally conscious patients. Given what we know about diagnostic reliability of neuroscience technology, should policy change?
    • Proxy decision-making for minimally conscious people.
    • If medical professionals cannot get people to respond, is it right to “pull the plug?”
    • Lots of other factors: family, religion.
    • Medical anomalies shouldn’t influence the standard.

Resources: