Looking inside your head can tell us things about who you are and who you are likely to become. This is cool, but it’s also pretty creepy in a Big-Brother-is-watching kinda way. Not to be fatalistic or technophobic or anything, but here are some ways the information previously hidden inside your head can be used against you:
• Criminal justice: Everyone deserves a second chance, right? What about the first-time sex offender who can be neurologically shown to have a predisposition for future crimes? For example, there’s been research into the role of the brain protein monoamine oxidase A in criminality. Or, through the 1960s and ’70s it was believed that men with XYY chromosomes were prone to increased violence (actually, they’re prone to slightly decreased intelligence and have longer arrest records for petty crimes). Should criminals who are neurologically shown to have criminal minds be given longer sentences? More counseling? Shorter sentences because they can’t be held accountable for their actions?
Wild Kingdom: Revenge!
Remember our fuzzy little feel-good macaques? Well, it turns out that forgiveness is only the rosy side of the postconflict spectrum. The other side of that spectrum is revenge. But if you’re a wussy macaque who’s been beat up by a dominant macaque, you certainly can’t exact revenge on the dominant macaque directly.
Instead, you go after his family. In fact, if you’re a Japanese macaque who’s been beat up by the dominant male, there’s a 29 percent chance that you’ll attack a younger, weaker member of his family within the hour. And you’ll do it right in front of him. That way, he’ll know that beating you up results in injury to his family (hyenas do the same).
• Schools: The ACT has replaced the SAT with many college admissions boards. But what about the FCBS (Friggin’ Cool Brain Scan)? Traditionally, school entrance exams measure ability with a side order of aptitude (mostly what we’ve shown we can do, with only a little about what we’re likely to be able to do). What if a quick brain scan became a required component of the Harvard application? How smart are you really? And should your innate intelligence even matter if you’ve been able to compensate by study and hard work? What about neurological tests of personality? Should gifted and talented programs, private schools, and colleges be able to cherry pick students based on agreeableness?
• Business: Should insurers and employers be allowed to practice neuroscientific discrimination? Should employers be allowed to monitor employees’ attention during the workday (and automatically administer electrical shocks when workers’ attention lags)? Should neoromarketers be allowed to monitor brain preferences while people shop (maybe similar to TV’s Nielsen ratings)?
• Litigation: Lie detection and truth serum have been the holy grails of criminal trials since time immemorial. And what about jury selection? Should we discover the stereotypes in jurors’ brains? Augmenting witnesses’ memories of and confidence in the truth could aid trials too. Should juries in a personal-injury case be able to look inside a plaintiff’s brain to see the extent of his chronic pain? Should juries know the neurology of a parent’s competency in a custody case? Should juries know the neurological extent of a defendant’s drug addiction?