I recently eye-rolled how annoyed I was with the chatter that has for years been leading up to this book, as I found most of it to be incorrect, ill-informed and on the chicken little side…when in fact, it’s good for business since it’s been fodder for most of my posts. This short interview with Satel, Marcus and Eagleman, shares much needed clarifications on the misinterpretations (or perhaps, critiques of a poorly written book) and the backlash it set off. Lot’s of good neurolaw bits and I’m particularly glad the Daubert Standard was mentioned regarding using scans to “get people off the hook”, as people get unjustifiably concerned about this.
Couple things to keep in mind: this is about much more than brain scans, culpability and free will. And, linguistically the brain/mind issue is begging to be trouble for cross disciplines. The take away is to be a critical connoisseur of science research in general without dismissing the tools we have to work with now.
So, allow me to slightly adjust my tone from annoyed to grateful. Due to either the greatness or terribleness of this book and many, many… many articles and law reviews, I’m actually pleased when any clarification can be shared about how neuroscience can be applied to the law or when I answer questions and talk about it to others. Also, I’m available for talks at a pub near you, like it or not.