News and analysis on the implications of brain science.

How Companies Learn Your Secrets

by Charles Duhigg

New York Times Magazine | February 16, 2012

Retailers study our individual shopping habits to better market their products.

A Meeting of the Minds on Brain and Law

by Judy Illes and Judy Robillard

Vancouver Sun | February 14, 2012

What to expect at the 2012 AAAS session on neuroscience and the law.

Videos from the 2011 International Neuroethics Society Annual Meeting

International Neuroethics Society | February 8, 2012

Videos of panel discussions and lectures from last November’s INS meeting in Washington, D.C. are now available for free online viewing. Topics include neuroscience and the law, neuroscience and national security, and novel treatments in psychiatry.

Brain Waves 3: Neuroscience, Conflict and Security

The Royal Society | February 7, 2012

The Royal Society has released this report which “considers some of the potential military and law enforcement applications arising from key advances in neuroscience.” The report is available for download in PDF, as well as in versions compatible with Kindle and e-readers (EPUB).

Why Cognitive Enhancement Is in Your Future (and Your Past)

by Ross Andersen

The Atlantic | February 6, 2012

Interview with ethicist Allen Buchanan on cognitive enhancement.

Ethical Questions Surround ‘Electrical Thinking Cap’ that Improves Mental Functions

by Gary Stix

Scientific American | February 6, 2012

Are these relatively simple electric shock treatments too good to be true?

Brain Shock Treatment for Academic Gain: The Potential Dangers

The Telegraph | January 26, 2012

Tiny electric shocks can boost the brain’s performance in healthy adults.

See also

The Business and Ethics of the Brain Fitness Boom — Part 2: The Ethics

by Alvaro Fernandez

SharpBrains | January 6, 2012

Sharp­Brains’ co-founder and Chief Exec­u­tive Offi­cer Alvaro Fernandez argues that “to improve the ethics of the brain fit­ness busi­ness and its appli­ca­tion (and empower con­sumers’ informed deci­sion mak­ing), there must first be agree­ment about a mean­ing­ful, appro­pri­ate way to ana­lyze and guide inno­va­tion.”

Neuroscience and the Law Series Continues to Draw Judges
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.

Webcasts
•    Hank Greely, Stanford University (11/2010, Neuroethics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA)
•    Judy Illes, University of British Columbia (11/2010, Neuroethics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA)
•    Paul Root Wolpe, Emory University (11/2010, Neuroethics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA)
•    Paul Zak, Claremont Graduate University (11/2010, Neuroethics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA)
•    Steve Hyman, Harvard University (11/2010, Neuroethics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA)
•    Molly Crockett, University of Cambridge (11/2010, Neuroethics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA)
•    Molly Crockett, University of Cambridge and Patricia Smith Churchland, UC San Diego (11/2010, Neuroethics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA)
•    Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, University of Southern California and Sarah Jayne Blakemore, University College London (11/2010, Neuroethics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA)
•    Mind and Matter: Ethical Challenges of Deep Brain Stimulation (11/13/2008, Dana Center in Washington, DC)