News and analysis on the implications of brain science.

Ethical Issues in Neuroscience

AAAS and the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies | May 21, 2013

A daylong seminar: Tuesday, 23 July 2013 - 8:00am to 7:00pm.

Could Neurodoping Enhance Sporting Performance?

by Moheb Costandi

The Dana Foundation | May 20, 2013

Research suggests that non-invasive techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation might enhance sporting performance. This has not been confirmed yet, however, and even if it is, it would probably be considered as unacceptable as taking performance-enhancing drugs.

Live Chat: Does 'Psychiatry's Bible' Need to Be Rewritten?

Science Live | May 20, 2013

Join Science Live on Thursday, 23 May, at 3 p.m. EDT for a live Google Hangout to chat with experts about the fate of the DSM. Moderated by Emily Underwood, a neuroscience writer for Science Magazine.

Manimal Rights

by Daniel Engber

Slate | May 13, 2013

How far should science go in making human-animal chimeras?

Event

Brains on Trial: Neuroscience and Law

World Science Festival

At this June 1 World Science Festival event in New York City, a distinguished group of neuroscientists and legal experts will debate how and if neuroscience should inform our laws and how we treat criminals.

Video

The Law to Neuroscience: Hold Up

May 7, 2013

Much of what we “know” from neuroscience research is not ready—yet—for use in the courtroom, argued panelists during a forum April 25 in Washington, DC. A webcast from the Neuroscience and Law series, sponsored by the Dana Foundation, AAAS, The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, and the International Neuroethics Society.

See also

Psychiatry’s Guide Is Out of Touch With Science, Experts Say

by Pam Belluck and Benedict Carey

The New York Times | May 6, 2013

Just weeks before the long-awaited publication of a new edition of the so-called bible of mental disorders, the federal government’s most prominent psychiatric expert has said the book suffers from a scientific “lack of validity.” Dr. Thomas R. Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, said his goal was to reshape the direction of psychiatric research to focus on biology, genetics and neuroscience so that scientists can define disorders by their causes, rather than their symptoms.

See also

Sound the Alarm: Fraud in Neuroscience

by Stephen G. Lisberger, Ph.D.

Cerebrum | May 2, 2013

By all accounts, scientific misconduct over the last decade is on the rise, especially in the area of journal retractions. In neuroscience, our author—both a leading academic and an experienced neuroscience journal editor—believes the field is detecting “only the tip of the fraud iceberg.” His story addresses the nature, detection, and incentives for fraud, and suggests reforms.

Neuroscience and the Law Series
Since 2007, the Dana Foundation has supported a grant to the AAAS to hold seminars for state and federal judges on emerging issues in neuroscience, as part of the Foundation’s Neuroscience and Law series. The seminars are designed to provide judges with a better understanding of the role that advances in neuroscience may play in making legal determinations.

Since its inception, the series has gained a national prominence, with waiting lists of judges wanting to attend. In 2009, the American Bar Association’s Judicial Education Award was given to the AAAS for the series. It was the first time the award was offered to a non-judicial group.