The publisher (Royal Society) has made this paper on "Cognitive neuroscience in forensic science: understanding and utilizing the human element" *free*, but only for one week.
If you are interested, you can access and download the paper for free, within the next week (until the 29th of June), please go to:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 5.full.pdf
Hope you find it interesting.
Thank you,
Itiel
Cognitive neuroscience in forensic science: understanding...
-
Dr. Dror
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:40 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
- Contact:
-
Boyd Baumgartner
- Posts: 567
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 11:03 am
Re: Cognitive neuroscience in forensic science: understandin
While I agree there certainly is a need for discipline specific research, the paper appears to be lacking recognition that this type of research is already underway.
Neurolaw is already something that's established and directly addresses what's discussed in the paper. Historically this represents is a shift from psychology as a science of mere Behavioral Studies relegated to yesteryear ($10 to anyone who can photoshop Pat in a Skinner Box), to the current thinking that there is a discoverable neurological basis of intention, perception and action(read behavior). If we dig deep, we can see that PET scan's were attempting to be used in court as early as 1992.
Vanderbilt's MacArthur Foundation is rapidly approaching it's 10 year mark and it seems you can't walk without tripping over a David Eagleman segment on your favorite science podcast/tv show. I would offer up two considerations with regards to the paper. 1) The methods and application of the methods to the forensic discipline will themselves be challenged via Frye and Daubert and 2) No one expects such research to be a magic bullet (right click -> open in new tab). Arguably, there is a real possibility that this opens up more holes with more challenges that will have to be defensible by analysts and will actually muddy the testimony to the lay person(the opposite of the intent of the research). Additionally, the paper seemingly flies in the face of the recommendations of the Human Factors report which only mentions cognitive abilities with regards to being a prerequisite of training, not a basis for effecting conclusions.
Do you think that NIST's recommendations were off base or short sighted?
Neurolaw is already something that's established and directly addresses what's discussed in the paper. Historically this represents is a shift from psychology as a science of mere Behavioral Studies relegated to yesteryear ($10 to anyone who can photoshop Pat in a Skinner Box), to the current thinking that there is a discoverable neurological basis of intention, perception and action(read behavior). If we dig deep, we can see that PET scan's were attempting to be used in court as early as 1992.
Vanderbilt's MacArthur Foundation is rapidly approaching it's 10 year mark and it seems you can't walk without tripping over a David Eagleman segment on your favorite science podcast/tv show. I would offer up two considerations with regards to the paper. 1) The methods and application of the methods to the forensic discipline will themselves be challenged via Frye and Daubert and 2) No one expects such research to be a magic bullet (right click -> open in new tab). Arguably, there is a real possibility that this opens up more holes with more challenges that will have to be defensible by analysts and will actually muddy the testimony to the lay person(the opposite of the intent of the research). Additionally, the paper seemingly flies in the face of the recommendations of the Human Factors report which only mentions cognitive abilities with regards to being a prerequisite of training, not a basis for effecting conclusions.
Do you think that NIST's recommendations were off base or short sighted?