Human Enhancement for the Common Good—Using Neurotechnologies to Improve Eyewitness Memory

Vedder, Anton; Klaming, Laura

doi:10.1080/21507740.2010.483996

Cited by 29 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is because the LET creates a systematic and unifying framework for deter- 60 Meixner, J. and Rosenfeld, J.P. (2010) 61 Schauer (2012) 62 Danaher, J. (2013) 63 Vedder and Klaming (2010) discuss privacy problems in relation to another possible reform of the legal epistemic system: eyewitness enhancement; I respond to their arguments at length in Danaher, J. (2013) mining the responsible use of novel forensic technologies, and provides guidelines for the responsible innovation of social epistemic systems like the legal trial.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible Innovation in Social Epistemic Systems: The P300 Memory Detection Test and the Legal Trial

Danaher

2015

Responsible Innovation 2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Memory Detection Tests (MDTs) are a general class of psychophysi--ological tests that can be used to determine whether someone remembers a particular fact or datum. The P300 MDT is a type of MDT that relies on a presumed correlation between a detectable neural signal (the P300 "brainwave") in a test subject, and the recognition of those facts in the subject's mind. The P300 MDT belongs to a class of brain--based forensic technologies which have proved popular and controversial in recent years. With such tests increasingly being proffered for use in the court--room - to either support or call into question testimony - it would be--hoove the legal system to have some systematic framework for ensuring that they are used responsibly. In this paper, I defend one such frame--work for ensuring that this is the case: the legitimacy enhancing test. Ac--cording to this test, it is appropriate to make use of technologies such as the P300 MDT whenever doing so would (probably) enhance the legiti--macy of the trial. I argue that this test addresses tensions between scien--tific and legal norms of evidence, and exhibits a number of additional vir--tues including unification, simplicity and flexibility.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible Innovation in Social Epistemic Systems: The P300 Memory Detection Test and the Legal Trial

Danaher

2015

Responsible Innovation 2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If this were possible, would there be a moral obligation to preserve certain memories? There are clear reasons why society may impose such an obligation (eg, for eyewitness testimony), but many scholars have argued for limits on this ‘duty to remember’ 12 17 18. These considerations were previously largely speculative, but the example of MMM provides a clearer case study to illustrate variations on such a duty.…”

Section: Ethical Perspectives On Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Autobiographical errors are common but often difficult to detect and can seriously undermine the accuracy of recollections. For this reason, Vedder and Klaming18 argue that society should consider using memory enhancement interventions to improve eyewitness testimony. Although we might not fault a potential witness for forgetting or committing memory errors, using technology to alter memory might be enticing in light of the fallibility of memory.…”

Section: Perspectives On MMMmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethics of molecular memory modification

Hui

Fisher

2014

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Novel molecular interventions have recently shown the potential to erase, enhance and alter specific long-term memories. Unique features of this form of memory modification call for a close examination of its possible applications. While there have been discussions of the ethics of memory modification in the literature, molecular memory modification (MMM) can provide special insights. Previously raised ethical concerns regarding memory enhancement, such as safety issues, the 'duty to remember', selfhood and personal identity, require re-evaluation in light of MMM. As a technology that exploits the brain's updating processes, MMM helps correct the common misconception that memory is a static entity by demonstrating how memory is plastic and subject to revision even in the absence of external manipulation. Furthermore, while putatively safer than other speculative technologies because of its high specificity, MMM raises notable safety issues, including potential insidious effects on the agent's emotions and personal identity. Nonetheless, MMM possesses characteristics of a more permissible form of modification, not only because it is theoretically safer, but because its unique mechanism of action requires a heightened level of cooperation from the agent. Discussions of memory modification must consider the specific mechanisms of action, which can alter the weight and relevance of various ethical concerns. MMM also highlights the need for conceptual accuracy regarding the term 'enhancement'; this umbrella term will have to be differentiated as new technologies are applied to a widening array of purposes.

show abstract

“…However, what has roused interest from neurolaw researchers is the possibility that DBIs might be developed for use not just in a clinical setting, but to provide (e.g.) treatments for brain-based causes of (mental disorders correlated with) criminal and disfavoured behaviour (Bomann-Larsen 2011;Greely 2008), ways of disabling witnesses' ability to lie and deceive (Coukell 2006;Rosen 2007), drugs that enhance witness memory (Vedder and Klaming 2010), and a range of other cognitive enhancing drugs which raise numerous political and legal issues (Farah et al 2004;Glannon 2008Glannon , 2011Vincent forthcoming).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurolaw and Direct Brain Interventions

Vincent

2012

Criminal Law, Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This issue of Criminal Law and Philosophy contains three papers on a topic of increasing importance within the field of ''neurolaw''-namely, the implications for criminal law of direct brain intervention based mind altering techniques (DBI's). To locate these papers' topic within a broader context, I begin with an overview of some prominent topics in the field of neurolaw, where possible providing some references to relevant literature. The specific questions asked by the three authors, as well as their answers and central claims, are then sketched out, and I end with a brief comment to explain why this particular topic can be expected to gain more prominence in coming years.Keywords Neurolaw Á Overview Á Direct brain interventions Neurowhat?In terms of its history, neurolaw is a relatively recent field. Although discussion of many of the issues still at the heart of current debates dates back to the early 1990s (Martell 1992), much of the activity in this field has taken place during the past decade. In this respect this field's youthfulness reflects the relatively-recent advances made within the field of cognitive neuroscience, in large degree made possible by the development of powerful new diagnostic neuroimaging techniques-ones with fancy acronyms like CAT, PET, SPECT, MRI, fMRI and DTI, etc. (Jones et al. 2009)-that made it possible to study the structure and function of living brains in situ, with hitherto-unprecedented detail, without ever having to reach for cranial saws, drills and scalpels. In terms of content, I find it useful to categorize the topics discussed in this field under four headings-scientific discoveries, diagnostic techniques, intervention techniques, and legal procedure-though this categorization is by no means conventional nor prescriptive (for other categorizations see e.g.

show abstract

Human Enhancement for the Common Good—Using Neurotechnologies to Improve Eyewitness Memory

Cited by 29 publications

References 69 publications

Responsible Innovation in Social Epistemic Systems: The P300 Memory Detection Test and the Legal Trial

Responsible Innovation in Social Epistemic Systems: The P300 Memory Detection Test and the Legal Trial

The ethics of molecular memory modification

Neurolaw and Direct Brain Interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About