مرور اجمالی محدودیتهای فنی کاربرد روش دروغسنج fMRI در حقوق عصبشناختی
Akhlāq-i zīstī,
Vol. 9 No. 34 (1398),
19 Ordibehesht 2020
,
Page 95-107
https://doi.org/10.22037/bioeth.v9i34.27119
Abstract
زمینه و هدف: دانش حقوق عصبشناختی یا عصب-حقوق، همچون سایر علوم انسانی و تجربی دارای چالشهای نظری و فنی است. این مطالعه به مرور اجمالی محدودیتهای فنی کاربرد روش دروغسنج تصویرسازی تشدید مغناطیسی کارکردی (fMRI) در حقوق عصبشناختی پرداخته است.
مواد و روشها: در این مرور روایتی محدودیتهای فنی کنونی دانش حقوق عصبشناسی مورد بحث و تحلیل قرار میگیرد تا علاوه بر شناخت فرصتها و چالشهای موجود، شمای کلی اعتباری این علم ترسیم شود.
یافتهها: برخی از محدودیتهای فنی که عصب-حقوق با آن مواجه است به نقایص موجود در تکنیکهای کنونی علوم اعصاب و کاربست شواهد عصبشناختی در دادرسی قضایی باز میگردد. پیچیدگی مغز انسان از یکسو و محدودیتها و خطاهای ابزارهای علوم اعصاب از سوی دیگر موجب شده که امروزه در بهرهگیری از یافتههای عصبشناسی در حقوق، با محافظهکاری خاصی، به امارات متقن و فرضیههای اثباتشده آن اکتفا شود. بهنظر میرسد که عمده محدودیتهای عصب-حقوق از اشکالات موجود در روش fMRI منتج میشوند. با توجه به برخی اشکالات عمده در تحقیقات fMRI، ارزیابیهای عصبشناختی تجربههای ذهنی، به سه دلیل نزد دادرسان بعضاً اعتبار قضایی نیافتهاند: امکان نقصان یافتهها؛ آمیختگی تجربههای ذهنی دیگر در بررسی حقوقی رخدادها؛ وضعیتهای غیر معمول روحی-روانی افراد در رویدادهای حقوقی.
نتیجه گیری: بهرغم کاربست مفید شواهد fMRI در حقوق، بهدلایل مورد اشاره، از اینگونه امارات هماکنون در کنار سایر ادله موجود در دادرسیهای قضایی استفاده میشود (ادله انضمامی اثبات دعوی) و هنوز شواهد دروغسنجی به این طریق نیز به عنوان اماره در دادگاهها پذیرفته نیستند.
- حقوق عصبشناختی؛ محدودیتهای فنی؛ شواهد عصبشناختی؛ fMRI؛ EEG
How to Cite
References
Petoft A. Neurolaw: A brief introduction. Iranian Journal of Neurology 2015; 14(1): 55-58.
Petoft A, Momeni-Rad A. Toward Human Behavior Sciences from the Perspective of Neurolaw. International Journal of Public Mental Health and Neuroscience 2015; 2(2): 29-33.
Erickson Steven K. The Limits of Neurolaw. Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy 2012; 11(1): 1-12.
Picozza Eugenio. Neuro Law: Validity and Limits of a Neuroscientific Approach to Problems Relating to Law and Justice. In: Elisabetta Sirgiovanni. The Neurocognitive Turn in Law and its Epistemological Aspects - Foreword. Rome: Sapienza University; 2016. p.21-40.
Vos Jan De, Pluth ED. Neuroscience and Critique: Exploring the Limits of the Neurological Turn. Routledge: Cambridge; 2016. p.11-21.
Petoft A. Controversial Brain Imaging as a Terrorism Emergency Measure in Neurolaw Discourse. Neurother 2017; 2(2): 1-20. 000118
Petoft A, Abbasi M. Current Limits of Neurolaw: A Brief Overview. Médecine & Droit 2020; 2(161): 29 -34
Petoft A, Abbasi M. A Historical Overview of Law and Neuroscience: From the Emergence of Medico-Legal Discourses to Developed Neurolaw. Archivio Penale 2019; 1(1): 1-48.
Petoft A, Abassi M. Fundamentals of Neurolaw. Tehran: Medical Ethics and Law Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences; 2019. [Persian]
Morse SJ. NeuroEthics: Neuro Law. Oxford Handbooks Online. 2017. Available at: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935314-e-45.
Marcello I, Andorno R. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 2017; 13(5): 1-27.
Kraft Calvin J, Giordano J. Integrating Brain Science and Law: Neuroscientific Evidence and Legal Perspectives on Protecting Individual Liberties. Front Neurosci 2017; 11(8): 621-643.
Shen Francis X. Law and Neuroscience. Arizona State Law Journal 2017; 48(1043): 1-44.
Shen Francis X. Neuroscientific evidence as instant replay. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2016; 3(2): 343-349.
Slotnick Scott. Controversies in Cognitive Neuroscience. London: Macmillan International Higher Education; 2012. p.213-215.
Hughes Brian M. Psychology in Crisis. London: Macmillan International Higher Education; 2018. p.9-31.
Jarrett Christian. Great Myths of the Brain. Wiley: Oxford; 2015. p.1-35.
Harrison BJ, Pantelis C. Cognitive Subtraction. In: Stolerman I.P. Encyclopedia of Psychopharmacology. Springer: Berlin; 2010.
Petersen SE, Fox PT, Posner MI, Mintun M, Raichle ME. Positron emission tomographic studies of the cortical anatomy of single-word processing. Nature 1988; 331(6157): 585-589.
Friston KJ, Price CJ, Fletcher P, Moore C, Frackowiak RS, Dolan RJ. The Trouble with Cognitive Subtraction. Neuroimage 1996; 4(2): 97-104.
Sartori G, Umilta C. How to Avoid the Fallacies of Cognitive Subtraction in Brain Imaging. Brain and Language 2000; 74(??): 191-212.
Constable RT. Challenges in fMRI and Its Limitations. In: Scott H, FaroFeroze B. Mohamed. Functional MRI. Berlin: Springer Nature; 2016. p.75-98
Schiffer F. The physical nature of subjective experience and its interaction with the brain. Medical Hypotheses 2019; 125(12): 57-69.
Thyreau B, Yannick S, Thirion B. Very large fMRI study using the IMAGEN database: Sensitivity specificity and population effect modeling in relation to the underlying anatomy. NeuroImage 2012; 61(1): 295-303.
Thyreau B, Schwartz Y, Thirion B, Frouin V, Loth E, Vollstädt-Klein S, et al. Whole-brain, time-locked activation with simple tasks revealed using massive averaging and model-free analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2012; 109(14): 5487-5492.
Carandini M. From circuits to behavior: A bridge too far? Nature Neuroscience 2012; 15(1): 507-509.
Bigenwald A, Chambon V. Criminal Responsibility and Neuroscience: No Revolution Yet. Frontiers in Psychology 2019; 10(2): 1406-1430.
Choi OS. What Neuroscience Can and Cannot Answer. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 2017; 45(3): 278-285.
Vincent NA. Neuroimaging and responsibility assessments. Neuroethics 2011; 4(3): 35-49.
Bowins B. Repetitive maladaptive behavior: beyond repetition compulsion. American Journal of Psychoanalysis 2010; 70(5): 282-298.
Jiang J, Dai B, Peng D, Zhu C, Liu L, Lu C. Neural Synchronization During Face-to-Face Communication. Journal of Neuroscience 2012; 32(45): 160-164.
Hoskin R. Can a Neuroscientist Read Your Mind? Science Brainwaves 2012; 2(7): 20-31.
Poldrack RA. Inferring Mental States from Neuroimaging Data: From Reverse Inference to Large-Scale Decoding. Neuron 2011; 72(5): 692-97.
Gracely RH, Petzke F, Wolf JM, Clauw DJ. Functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence of augmented pain processing in fibromyalgia. Arthritis & Rheumatism 2002; 46(5): 1333-1343.
Angst MS, Tingle M, Phillips NG, Carvalho B. Determining heat and mechanical pain threshold in inflamed skin of human subjects. Journal of Visualized Experiments 2009; 14(23): 1092-1112.
Wager TD, Hernandez L, Jonides J, Lindquist M. Elements of Functional Neuroimaging. In: Gary G. Berntson John T. Cacioppo (Eds.). Handbook of psychophysiology. 3rd ed. Berlin: Wiley; 2007. p.34.
McKeag DB, Kutcher JS. Kutcher. Concussion Consensus: Raising the Bar and Filling in the Gaps. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine 2009; 19(13): 344-345.
Teitcher A. Weaving Functional Brain Imaging Into the Tapestry of Evidence: A Case for Functional Neuroimaging in Federal Criminal Courts. Fordham law Review 2011; 80(12): 393-394.
Greely HT. Neuroscience, Mindreading and the Courts: The Example of Pain. Journal of Health Care Law and Policy 2015; 18(11): 171-193.
Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ES, et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Review Neuroscience 2013; 14(5): 365-376.
Ioannidis JP. An Epidemic of False Claims Competition and conflicts of interest distort too many medical findings. Scientific American 2011; 304(6): 16-32.
Joseph TF. Rethinking Disorders of Consciousness: New Research and Its Implications. Hastings Center Report 2005; 35(12): 22-43.
Gosseries O, Vanhaudenhuyse A, Bruno MA, Demertzi A, Schnakers C, Boly MM, et al. Disorders of consciousness: coma, vegetative and minimally conscious states. InStates of consciousness. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p.29.
Pustilnik AC. Pain as Fact and Heuristic: How Pain Neuroimaging Illuminates Moral Dimensions of Law. Cornell Law Review 2012; 97(2): 805-832.
Monti MM, Vanhaudenhuyse A, Coleman MR, Boly M, Pickard JD, Tshibanda L, et al. Willful modulation of brain activity in disorders of consciousness. The New England Journal of Medicine 2010; 362(1): 579-589.
Naci L, Rhodri C, Adrian M. Owen. The brain's silent messenger: Using selective attention to decode human thought for brain-based communication. Journal of Neuroscience 2013; 33(22): 9385-9393.
Laureys S, Owen AM, Schiff ND. Brain Function in Coma, Vegetative State and Related Disorders. Lancet Neurology 2004; 3(1): 537-543.
Rissman J, Greely HT, Wagner AD. Detecting Individual Memories through the Neural Decoding of Memory States and Past Experience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2010; 107(5): 9849-9850.
Anthony D, Wagner, Richard J. Bonnie, BJ Casey, Andre Davis, David L. Faigman, Morris B. Hoffman, et al. fMRI and Lie Detection. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience. Vanderbilt Law Research Paper 2016; No: 17-10.
Zanzotto Zanzotto FM, Croce D. Comparing EEG/ERP-like and fMRI-like techniques for reading machine thoughts. InInternational Conference on Brain Informatics 2010 Aug 28 (pp. 133-144). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Abootalebi V, Moradi MH, Khalilzadeh MA. A comparison of Methods for ERP Assessment in a P300- Based GKT. International journal of Psychophysiology 2006; 62(2): 310-320.
Rosenfeld JP. Brain Fingerprinting: A Critical Analysis. Scientific Review Mental Health Practices 2005; 4(7): 20-43.
Meixner JB, Rosenfeld P. A Mock Terrorism Application of the P300-Based Concealed Information Test. Psychophysiology 2010; 48(12): 149-163.
Uri H, Christopher JH. Future Trends in Neuroimaging: Neural Processes as Expressed Within Real-life Contexts. Neuroimage 2012; 62(11): 1272-1286.
Ganis G, Kosslyn SM, Stose S, Thompson WL, Yurgelun-Todd DA. Neural correlates of different types of deception: an fMRI investigation. Cerebral Cortex 2003; 13(8): 830-836.
Murphy ER, Greely HT. What Will Be the Limits of Neuroscience-Based Mindreading in the Law? In: Illes J, Sahakian B. The oxford handbook of neuroethics. Oxford: OUP; 2011. p.403.
Jensen Pamela J. Frye versus Daubert: Practically the Same? Minnesota Law Review 2003; 87(7): 1579-1620.
White Amy E. The Lie of fMRI: An Examination of the Ethics of a Market in Lie Detection Using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Healthcare Ethics Committee Forum 2010; 22(10): 253-267.
U.S. v. Semrau. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee; 2010. No.07-10074.
- Abstract Viewed: 283 times
- PDF (فارسی) Downloaded: 238 times