Brain Science and Law (BraSciL)

Recent years have seen enormous advances in scientific and theoretical understanding of the brain.

These advances provide new insights into how the law influences behaviour.

At the same time, legal theorists have suggested that jurisprudence and legal theory should take a 'naturalistic turn' to be more informed by brain sciences.

Academics within the Law School are examining the use of research from cognitive science, neuroscience, psychiatry, psychology, and associated brain sciences within law and the justice system.

Some of the academics in our research cluster have dual qualifications in cognitive science, psychology, and philosophy. They conduct empirical research, analyse statistics, and engage in programming. They are collaborating with neuroscientists, psychologists and psychiatrists to understand the reliability of scientific claims, and working with lawyers worldwide to understand how science is being used in different jurisdictions and to recommend best practice.

Some of the many fascinating and important questions for the law that are being raised by developments in the brain sciences include:

Why do 'extra-legal' influences such as character and politics affect outcomes in legal cases?
Do human 'metaphysics of the stone age' limit law's ability to exploit advances in brain sciences?
Can brain sciences such as neuroimaging reveal whether a person is in pain or is lying, and if so, should such techniques be used?
Is research suggesting that genotype and childhood mistreatment are linked with higher rates of violent offending relevant to criminal justice?
Given that the brain develops over time, should this affect attributions of criminal responsibility?
What circumstances affect the reliability of memory and how can this inform legal procedure?
Is neuro-enhancement fair, and how should it be regulated?
Should we use brain science to assess the risk someone poses to society even before they have been found responsible for any wrongdoing by a court?
Could we use algorithms to help determine legal cases in a more transparent way?
Can advances in brain sciences illuminate more orthodox legal methodologies such as conceptual analysis in jurisprudence and legal theory?

Our place in developing the law

old law new law image

The Open University Law School is the leading UK centre for the study of the legal implications of advances in the brain sciences. Members of the Law School have been active in discussing the types of issues raised above with academics, practitioners, and judges in academic and practical contexts.

Lisa Claydon was a member of the Royal Society working group examining the legal applications of neuroscience. She was also a member of the International Neuroethics Society’s Programme Committee.

Paul Catley and Lisa jointly founded the European Association for Neuroscience and Law and have taught annually on its International Postgraduate School. Lisa and Paul have undertaken comparative studies into the use of neuroscience in criminal courts with colleagues from Canada, the Netherlands, Singapore, and the USA.

Lisa is particularly interested in how brain sciences can impact on legal understanding of agency and responsibility and, together with Patrick Haggard of UCL's Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, was awarded a £200,000 Arts and Humanities Research Council grant to study this topic.

Paul Troop, Paul Catley, and Lisa have been examining how brain sciences can inform our understanding of defences and mitigation based on genetics, mistreatment, and health.

Stephanie Pywell and Paul Catley have considered the legal implications of using neuroimaging to communicate with those in minimally conscious states, work that overlaps with Lisa's research into the use of brain-computer interfaces in end-of-life decisions.