Judiciary professional

Neuroscience is increasingly entering the courtroom, raising important questions about how emerging science should inform legal decisions. From questions of criminal responsibility and competency to memory reliability and the effects of brain injury, neuroscience is being introduced in ways that can shape outcomes in both civil and criminal cases. As neuroscience evolves, it’s critical that judicial professionals are equipped through education and training to accurately and responsibly incorporate what we know about the brain into their work .

Neuroscience offers insights into human behavior, but it also has limitations. Judges must weigh complex expert testimony, assess the relevance and admissibility of scientific claims, and safeguard against misuse or overstatement of findings. The role of the judiciary is not to become expert in neuroscience, but to ask the right questions, understand what the science can and cannot say, and ensure that its use in the courtroom supports—not undermines—justice.

Recognizing this need, over 700 judges from federal, state, tribal, and administrative courts participated in neuroscience education seminars between 2006 and 2024, convened by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) with support from the Dana Foundation. These programs underscored the importance of ongoing judicial education to keep pace with scientific developments and to maintain public trust in the legal system’s capacity to evaluate complex evidence fairly and thoughtfully.