Neuroscience in the Real World: Do Scientists and Lawyers See Eye to Eye?

By Ella Lesher

Bridges of understanding between science and law permit responsible and effective application of neuroscience in the real world.

Neuroscience isn’t just for the lab; the results of scientific inquiry can be used in a range of ethical frameworks that can have their day in court.

Neuroethics primarily addresses the ethical, philosophical, and social issues arising from neuroscience research and its applications, such as questions of privacy, consent, and the impact of brain interventions on personal identity and autonomy.

Neurolaw, on the other hand, focuses on how neuroscience informs and challenges legal concepts, procedures, and policies, such as criminal responsibility, competency, and the admissibility of neuroscientific evidence in court.

Neuroethics and neurolaw often overlap and interact, especially when ethical issues in neuroscience have direct legal consequences or when legal decisions hinge on ethical considerations about brain science. Concerns about reductionism, oversimplifying and generalizing neuroscience information in ways that are not scientifically legitimate, or the balance between scientific and normative judgments, arise in both areas. These fields are deeply interconnected, addressing parallel challenges at the intersection of neuroscience, ethics, and law.

Scientific and Legal Evidence

Lawyers operate within an adversarial system where evidence is a tool for persuasion, while scientists operate within a collaborative, self-correcting system aiming for objective truth. This difference impacts everything from how evidence is sought and evaluated to how it’s presented. Let’s take a look at some key distinctions between scientific and legal evidence.

Purpose

Lawyers use evidence to support or challenge a legal case. Their primary goal is to advocate for their client’s position, whether it’s proving guilt, establishing innocence, or demonstrating damages. Evidence serves as a means to construct a compelling narrative that aligns with legal statutes and precedents, ultimately aiming for a favorable legal outcome.

Scientists seek to objectively test hypotheses and build knowledge through reproducible, peer-reviewed research. Their purpose is to understand the natural world, uncover universal truths, and contribute to a body of knowledge that is constantly refined. Evidence in science is a tool for discovery and validation, not purely persuasion.

Approach

Lawyers start with a case or argument and then look for evidence to support or refute it. For instance, if a lawyer is defending a client accused of a crime, they might seek neuroscientific evidence that could suggest diminished capacity, specifically looking for data that bolsters their defense. This search for evidence is also constrained by constitutional rights, such as the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” In neuro law, this raises questions about the legality of compelling individuals to undergo brain scans or provide neural data without proper warrants or probable cause.

Scientists start with evidence and let it guide conclusions, following the scientific method. They formulate hypotheses based on existing observations, design experiments to collect new data, and then draw conclusions based on the empirical findings, even if those findings challenge their initial assumptions. The process is iterative, with findings often leading to new questions and further research.

Standards

For lawyers, admissibility is determined by legal rules, focusing on relevance and reliability as understood by the court. Consider the Daubert standard, a key legal benchmark in the United States, which guides judges on the admissibility of expert scientific testimony. Under Daubert, judges act as gatekeepers, assessing whether scientific evidence is based on valid reasoning and methodology, and if it’s generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. This standard aims to ensure only “good science” influences legal outcomes.  To learn more, read about the Daubert standard on our blog! However, applying Daubert to cutting-edge neuroscience can be challenging. For example, the use of functional MRI-based lie detection has faced significant scrutiny. While some studies suggest fMRI can identify neural correlates of deception with up to 90% accuracy, its reliability and general acceptance for courtroom use remain highly debated. Courts have largely been hesitant to admit such evidence, citing concerns about its foundational validity and the potential for prejudice. 

For scientists, evidence is evaluated by rigorous scientific criteria: validity, reproducibility, and peer consensus. Scientific validity refers to whether a study accurately measures what it intends to measure. Reproducibility means that other researchers, using the same methods, should be able to achieve similar results. Peer consensus, achieved through the peer-review process and subsequent replication studies, is crucial for scientific findings to be accepted as established knowledge.

Time frame

Lawyers must make decisions quickly, often with the “science of the day” and under time constraints imposed by court schedules and legal deadlines. They must work with the best available scientific understanding at the moment of trial, even if that understanding is still evolving. This can be particularly challenging in neurolaw, where new discoveries are constantly emerging.

Scientists’ conclusions evolve over time, with ongoing studies and revisions as new data emerge. The scientific process is inherently slow and methodical, building knowledge incrementally. What is considered a groundbreaking finding today might be refined or even overturned by future research.

Audience

Lawyers present evidence to judges and juries, who are often laypeople without scientific training. They often rely on experts to translate complex scientific concepts into understandable terms, simplifying intricate details without misrepresenting them. The challenge here lies in making neuroscientific concepts, such as brain activity patterns or genetic predispositions, comprehensible and persuasive to such an audience.

Scientists present findings to the scientific community, expecting peer review and critique from other experts. Their presentations and publications are filled with technical jargon, detailed methodologies, and statistical analyses, assuming a high level of specialized knowledge from their audience. This audience is equipped to evaluate the nuances of the research, identify potential flaws, and contribute to the collective scientific understanding.

Bias

Lawyers may selectively present or challenge evidence to benefit their client or case; the process is inherently adversarial. While ethical rules govern their conduct, the very nature of an adversarial system means that each side aims to present the most favorable interpretation of the evidence, potentially highlighting data that supports their argument while downplaying or challenging data that does not. This process is balanced by fundamental protections like the Fifth Amendment, which states that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” In the context of neuroscientific evidence, such as brain activity patterns, we must ask whether it should be considered testimonial and thus protected under the right against self-incrimination.

Scientists strive for objectivity, though bias can exist; the process is ideally collaborative and self-correcting. While individual scientists may have biases, the scientific method, with its emphasis on transparency, peer review, and replication, is designed to minimize and correct for such biases over time. The collaborative nature of scientific inquiry means that findings are continually scrutinized and validated by the broader research community.

Cooperation or Conflict?

The tension between these two critical fields highlights a profound challenge: how can the nuanced, evolving truths of brain science effectively inform a justice system that demands definitive answers and operates on established legal frameworks? By fostering greater understanding of each other’s methodologies and limitations, both scientists and lawyers can work towards a future where neuroscientific advancements are used responsibly and ethically in legal contexts, ultimately enhancing fairness and informed decision-making. Some groups, such as the MGH Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior, are already making significant strides in this space. The goal is not necessarily to make lawyers scientists, or scientists lawyers, but to build bridges of understanding that allow for the responsible and effective application of neuroscience in the real world.