Copyright (c) 2011 Walter F. George School of Law, Mercer University
Mercer Law Review
ARTICLE: Avoiding Irrational NeuroLaw Exuberance: A Plea for Neuromodesty
Mercer Law Review
62 Mercer L. Rev. 837
by Stephen J. Morse*
In a 2002 editorial published in The Economist, the following warning was given: "Genetics may yet threaten privacy, kill autonomy, make society homogeneous and gut the concept of human nature. But neuroscience could do all of these things first." 1 The genome was fully sequenced in 2001, and there has not been one resulting major advance in therapeutic medicine since. Thus, even in its most natural applied domain-medicine-genetics has not had the far-reaching consequences that were envisioned. 2 The same has been true for various other sciences that were predicted to revolutionize the law, including behavioral psychology, sociology, psychodynamic psychology, and others. This will also be true of neuroscience, which is simply the newest science on the block. Neuroscience is not going to do the terrible things The Economist fears, at least not for the foreseeable future. Neuroscience has many things to say but not nearly as much as people would hope, especially in relation to law. At most, in the near to intermediate term, neuroscience may make modest contributions to legal policy and case adjudication. Nonetheless, there has been irrational exuberance about the potential contribution of neuroscience, an issue I have addressed previously and referred to as "Brain Overclaim Syndrome." 3
I first consider the law's motivation and the motivation of some advocates to turn to science to solve the very hard normative problems that law addresses. Part III discusses the law's psychology and its concepts of the person and responsibility. The ...
If you are interested in obtaining a lexis.com® ID and Password, please contact us at 1-(800)-227-4908 or visit us at http://www.lexisnexis.com/.