Brain Science for Lawyers, Judges, and Policymakers is a 139-page book, meant to be a primer on neuroscience and the law. It accomplishes this goal: it eloquently and succinctly details the contours of neuroscience and how it is relevant to the American legal system. Despite the book’s brevity, the authors manage to provide a rapid review course on brain science while explaining why legal professionals must use caution when linking seemingly objective neurological data to psychiatric impairments.
The book’s authors are academics and researchers, with prestigious credentials and backgrounds in law and neuroscience, from across North America. They include the director and four members of the MacArthur Foundation’s Research Network on Law and Neuroscience.
The book spans 10 chapters, each short in length and on distinct topics that can be easily referenced. Topics range from the cerebral cortex to functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Each chapter starts with a legal case or concept that allows the reader to see the sometimes esoteric link between neuroscientific concepts and the legal system. Despite its brevity, the authors do justice to the subject matter complexity by providing accurate and brief explanations akin to what a stellar testifying expert would give on the stand. Each topic also has suggested reading lists with more nuanced foundational knowledge.
Chapter One outlines the existing ways that neuroscience is used in the law, including in civil law (torts, contracts, constitutional law, health law, family law, and probate), criminal law, and administrative law. The authors remain intentionally superficial in their discussion, highlighting a wide array of legal concepts with neuroscientific relevance. For example, the authors make note of the explosion of legal cases citing electroencephalograms (EEGs), increasing from eight cases in the 1940s to over 1,300 cases between 2020 and 2023. They also describe the increasing use and relevance of neuroimaging in tort cases involving alleged brain injury and in administrative cases, such as those involving Social Security benefits.
Chapter Two takes an anatomical approach, focusing on the nervous system and the brain itself, providing an orientation similar to that given to beginning anatomy students (e.g., how to use terms like rostral, caudal, dorsal, and ventral). In Chapter Three, after briefly introducing the neuron and its structure, the authors discuss the cerebral cortex, defining relevant structures and their roles. Chapter Four introduces readers to internal brain structures, their functions, and the relevance of their impact on legally salient topics, such as emotion, memory, and hormonal signaling. Chapter Five delves further into the physiological realm, describing how neurons work and the relevance of key neurotransmitters: dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine, and oxytocin.
Chapters Six and Seven shift from basic anatomy and physiology to technology, including the relevance and potential importance of technology (e.g., neuroimaging) in legal cases. Each modality is categorized as either a measure of structure or function. Chapter Six is dedicated to the assessment of structure (x-ray, computed tomography (CT), MRI, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)) and Chapter Seven to function (EEG, positron emission tomography (PET), functional MRI (fMRI)). These lay the groundwork for a transition into Chapter Eight, which details various types of “brain changes,” such as those caused by a brain injury, psychoactive drug effects, surgery, deep brain stimulation, or transcranial magnetic stimulation.
Chapter Nine, titled “Limitations and Cautions,” is perhaps the most important chapter for forensic psychiatrists to read. It eloquently details, in a manner that echoes conversations often had with prospective retaining attorneys, the limitations of neuroscience and areas of caution when using neuroscientific evidence in court. The authors emphasize that the field, at least in its present form, is not yet able to fully understand or explain the complexities of the human mind. They highlight how each form of neuroscientific evidence must be carefully considered as to reliability, as well as probative value. The authors warn readers to be cautious when neuroscientific legal evidence is presented as conclusive, as opposed to “probabilistic.” They also highlight the importance of remembering that “correlation is not causation” (p 107).
The book closes with the chapter, “Where We Might be Headed.” It details five areas where the authors see the potential for neuroscientific advancements to particularly affect the legal system: chronic pain, diagnostic clarity, culpability, subjective reasonableness, and lie detection. In so doing, the authors maintain their previous caution, describing the chapter as “educated guesses.”
Overall, this text provides a primer on neuroscience that is compartmentalized into medical and legal concepts; it is content-heavy yet an easy read. It is aptly titled and an appropriate addition to any legal professional’s bookshelf. As is appropriate, it does not delve beyond the content of what an average medical student would keep in their class outline. It is not intended to replace expert consultation but nonetheless provides a great starting point for attorneys. Pertinently for our purposes, the way the text conveys information also makes it a great read for forensic psychiatrists, as it can be used as a guide for how to converse with retaining attorneys, including salient points of caution.
Footnotes
Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None.
- © 2025 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
