Now that the neuroscientific instruments to affect aggressive behaviour directly via the brain are no longer sci-fi, the legal and ethical discussions on the (coerced) use of such instruments become more urgent.

Localizing functions in the brain has been difficult/problematic in many areas of neuroscience, breakthrough developments like these justify caution when pointing at the PFC to localize 'aggression'. What networks are discovered next?

In explaining the criminal law concept 'actus reus' to medical and business students, I referred them to books containing lists and lists of 'acts' that can inspire them: national penal codes. Here is to hoping they're inspired in the right way.

Age old criminal law discussions in a new scientific jacket: if the brain is physiologically ‘matured’ around 21-23, why do we hold adolescents criminally responsible? Or let them buy alcohol, drive cars, enlist in the military… Descriptive science is only part of the full story

Or, science is practicing more humility.

Agressie bij criminelen aanpakken met hersenstimulatie, moeten we dat willen? En zoja, wanneer wel en wanneer niet? Lees hier mijn interview met Ruben Knehans over zijn waanzinnig interessante onderzoek. newscientist.nl/premium/blinde…

Always interesting to see findings such as these, particularly also the inverse: the 40% with supposedly ordinary brains who seem to commit crimes not out of illness but out of their own wills.

This also justifies caution when interpreting animal models of behaviour. Completely different networks may underlie similar behaviour. Very cool!

Replacing 'brain' with 'full-body' doesn't resolve the problems of the brain-in-a-vat experiment: a full-body in a vacuum is just as (un)conscious as a brain. Conceptually, consciousness is meaningless without an environment to be conscious of/in.

Radio interview about brain stimulation and aggression on the Saturday morning! Listen to the (Dutch) fragment here: nporadio1.nl/fragmenten/nie…

Today meeting of @MaastrichtU Science in Court 🧪👩‍⚖️ with Henry Otgaar Maastricht Uni FPN Hans Nelen Law in Maastricht and @mauricezeegers CAPHRI and Jan-Willem van Prooijen Law in Maastricht presenting on Conspiracy thinking. Great start of new series of talks on Science in Court.

Most brain-imaging studies make 3 questionable assumptions: mental events are localizable, map uniquely to dedicated #brain circuitry, & are independent of larger context. These 19th-century views need an update. New #OpenAccess paper in Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 1/ cell.com/trends/cogniti…

When I cross a one way road, I still look both sides. Just in case, there are any women driving.