Post by Mike Ben and Param on Apr 17, 2011 15:32:53 GMT -5
1) On page 244 Greely writes:
“At present, neuroscience-based testing, particularly through neuroimaging using existing (approved) devices, seems to be entirely unregulated except, to a very limited extent, by malpractice law, one important policy question should be whether to regulate such tests, through government action or by professional self-regulation.”
Based on this passage, in the future should it fall on the government or another entity to regulate neuroscience testing?
2) Greely consistently points out the importance of the accuracy of scientific tests, existing or future. What level of accuracy do you think is necessary for a test to be fair game in important situations (i.e. the hiring process or a court of law)? In order words, what constitutes beyond reasonable doubt?
3) Greely thoroughly analyzes the ways in which the advancements in neuroscience could affect domestic lawsuits in both criminal and civil cases. Consider the special case of trials or interrogations done by military courts or agencies like the CIA on criminals of war or captured terrorists. How could advances in neuroimaging and what Greely calls “truth testing” affect methods of trying or obtaining information from a war criminal that is not necessarily protected by the Fifth Amendment? How would the legal and ethical constraints of using this new technology in this situation differ from the constraints posed in domestic cases?
4) Greely astutely points out that advances in neuroimaging could potentially be used to uncover racial and social biases juries and even judges could potentially have toward defendants. How does this relate to Langdon Winner’s arguments in “Do Artifacts Have Politics?”
“At present, neuroscience-based testing, particularly through neuroimaging using existing (approved) devices, seems to be entirely unregulated except, to a very limited extent, by malpractice law, one important policy question should be whether to regulate such tests, through government action or by professional self-regulation.”
Based on this passage, in the future should it fall on the government or another entity to regulate neuroscience testing?
2) Greely consistently points out the importance of the accuracy of scientific tests, existing or future. What level of accuracy do you think is necessary for a test to be fair game in important situations (i.e. the hiring process or a court of law)? In order words, what constitutes beyond reasonable doubt?
3) Greely thoroughly analyzes the ways in which the advancements in neuroscience could affect domestic lawsuits in both criminal and civil cases. Consider the special case of trials or interrogations done by military courts or agencies like the CIA on criminals of war or captured terrorists. How could advances in neuroimaging and what Greely calls “truth testing” affect methods of trying or obtaining information from a war criminal that is not necessarily protected by the Fifth Amendment? How would the legal and ethical constraints of using this new technology in this situation differ from the constraints posed in domestic cases?
4) Greely astutely points out that advances in neuroimaging could potentially be used to uncover racial and social biases juries and even judges could potentially have toward defendants. How does this relate to Langdon Winner’s arguments in “Do Artifacts Have Politics?”