Collective Cognitive Capital

This Article calls for a new project for law and neuroscience. It outlines a structural, not individual, application of brain and behavioral science that is aligned with the general goal of basic science research: improving the lives of citizens with a better understanding of the human experience. It asks brain and behavioral science to move explicitly into public policy territory, and specifically onto ground more traditionally occupied by economists—but in ways the project of “behavioral economics” has not yet ventured. Put simply, policy analysts should focus on brains—“collective cognitive capital”—with the same intensity with which they focus on money, rights, or other policy metrics. To that end, this Article introduces and explores the novel framework of “collective cognitive capital”: a way of thinking of brain health and brain function as an aggregated resource. Collective cognitive capital is a conceptual framework for synthesizing brain and behavioral data and using it to assess the impacts of policy choices. The core thesis for this future of “law and neuroscience” is simple: we can and should use brain and behavioral science to evaluate public policy decisions by how they affect the brain functioning of the people. Normatively, policies should seek to maximize “collective cognitive capital” because it is inherently valuable. Cognitive and emotional functioning, and overall brain health, subserve and maximize individual agency and freedom

Through a Scanner Darkly: The Use of FMRI as Evidence of Mens Rea

Tonight we are pleased to host an event exploring fMRI and its legal significance. Although [neuroimaging] is still an emerging technology, it has proven to be very consequential in at least one situation. In September 2008, the New York Times reported that a court in India allowed the use of brain scan images in a criminal case, which ultimately led to the conviction of an Indian woman accused of poisoning her fiance. To this day, the Indian woman maintains her innocence. Hank Greely, a bioethicist at Stanford Law School and a colleague of our speakers, commented on the verdict, [characterizing it as] both interesting and disturbing. He also wrote in the American Journal of Law and Medicine the following: If brain scans are widely adopted, the legal issues alone are enormous, implicating at least the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. At the same time, the potential benefits to society of such a technology, if used well, could be at least equally large. Tonight, our speakers who are, as I said, Mr. Greely\u27s colleagues, will present on this topic, but it will be more focused [on] evidentiary issues

Through a Scanner Darkly: The Use of FMRI as Evidence of Mens Rea

Tonight we are pleased to host an event exploring fMRI and its legal significance. Although [neuroimaging] is still an emerging technology, it has proven to be very consequential in at least one situation. In September 2008, the New York Times reported that a court in India allowed the use of brain scan images in a criminal case, which ultimately led to the conviction of an Indian woman accused of poisoning her fiance. To this day, the Indian woman maintains her innocence. Hank Greely, a bioethicist at Stanford Law School and a colleague of our speakers, commented on the verdict, [characterizing it as] both interesting and disturbing. He also wrote in the American Journal of Law and Medicine the following: If brain scans are widely adopted, the legal issues alone are enormous, implicating at least the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. At the same time, the potential benefits to society of such a technology, if used well, could be at least equally large. Tonight, our speakers who are, as I said, Mr. Greely\u27s colleagues, will present on this topic, but it will be more focused [on] evidentiary issues

If I don't like it then I can choose what I want’: Welsh school children's accounts of preference for and control over food choice

The paper draws on qualitative data collected in focus groups with primary school pupils in years three and five (ages 7–11 years), carried out as part of a wider study evaluating the Primary School Free Breakfast Initiative in Wales. A total of 16 focus groups were carried out across eight schools to examine pupil's perceptions of food and food related behaviour. A key finding was the way in which control over choice of food and access to healthy/unhealthy food options differed between younger and older pupils across home, school and eating out settings. While older participants experienced and valued high levels of control over food choice in all three settings, this was not the case for younger participants. Pupils in year three had little choice, particularly at home and school, with other factors (such as security, structure and mealtime companionship) being more important to them than ability to choose what they ate. All participants in the study expressed a general preference for unhealthy as opposed to healthy food items, even when acknowledging health consequences and engaging in some compensatory strategies. The authors suggest that interventions should aim to educate and encourage food providers, such as parents/carers, schools, and food outlets, to produce a range of healthy options, and encourage informed food choice among children at a younger age