This is an excellent question.  For me, the major ethical implication involves the concepts of moral responsibility and voluntary action.  As neurocriminology  becomes more sophisticated, neuroscientists will become more capable of identifying features of the brain, both organic, neuro-chemical, and genetic which are statistically associated with the commission of crime.  One implication of this development is bound to be strategies aimed at preventing crime before it is committed.

I can imagine strategies of this sort which would threaten the freedom and dignity of the individual.  The relationship between the brain and its functions and mind which is the realm of intention, consciousness and conscience is one of the most persistent philosophical problems.  One cannot be reduced to the other. Mind cannot be reduced to the psycho-physical, and the psycho-physical cannot be reduced to the mind and its features.

The relationship is, at the least, complex and sophisticated.  Any crime prevention strategies which seek to identify and/or engage those persons seen as potential offenders, before they offend, are a danger to the concept of the moral responsibility and the human capacity to choose our voluntary actions, as well as to the concept of free will, which is another important and persistent philosophical problem, which as such, is associated with what it means to be both human and a moral agent.  In short, I am concerned with the potential for developments in neurocriminology to arise with could threaten human freedom.

This is an excellent question.  For me, the major ethical implication involves the concepts of moral responsibility and voluntary action.  As neurocriminology  becomes more sophisticated, neuroscientists will become more capable of identifying features of the brain, both organic, neuro-chemical, and genetic which are statistically associated with the commission of crime.  One implication of this development is bound to be strategies aimed at preventing crime before it is committed.

I can imagine strategies of this sort which would threaten the freedom and dignity of the individual.  The relationship between the brain and its functions and mind which is the realm of intention, consciousness and conscience is one of the most persistent philosophical problems.  One cannot be reduced to the other. Mind cannot be reduced to the psycho-physical, and the psycho-physical cannot be reduced to the mind and its features.

The relationship is, at the least, complex and sophisticated.  Any crime prevention strategies which seek to identify and/or engage those persons seen as potential offenders, before they offend, are a danger to the concept of the moral responsibility and the human capacity to choose our voluntary actions, as well as to the concept of free will, which is another important and persistent philosophical problem, which as such, is associated with what it means to be both human and a moral agent.  In short, I am concerned with the potential for developments in neurocriminology to arise with could threaten human freedom.

Dear Bubba,

Could you be more specific in defining criminal behavior, at least in a particular society, such as the US?  The definition of what constitutes criminal behavior is determined by the laws in effect in a specific time and place.  Your statement that criminal behavior "erupts" from a paternal pheromone deficiency and can be easily remedied, strikes me as an overly simple explanation of a complex category of human behavior.  

Even if one accepts the reduction of criminal behavior to a problem of organic chemistry, which is controversial in itself, your claim that all such behavior (along with which you include homosexuality) is caused by one specific chemical deficiency is scientifically incredible.  

Certainly, not all people who suffer parental absence or "indifference" display criminality, and criminal behavior is often displayed by persons who have never suffered parental absence or indifference.  To claim that BPD and related mental health diagnoses can also be completely alleviated by pheromone administration is to blur the many important differences, both philosophic and scientific, between mental illness and criminality.  

If pheromone therapy is as extremely effective as you claim and your explanation of what you consider to be criminal behavior is correct, why has your approach not been more widely embraced by the medical and scientific community, as well as by all of us who are concerned by criminal behavior?

Dear Teodora,

The discussion of your question at this point has strayed quite far from the "ethical implications" of neurocriminology.  I would like to see the discussion address the important ethical issues and moral problems neurocriminology raises.  I hope you will help to guide future comments in the direction I assume you intended.  Perhaps, you could add some additional information or related questions.  Thank you.

David Risser

Neurocriminology quite a good study if further researches could be done but here's my humble contribution the word neuro could be attributed to the word neuronic adjective of neuron which means a cell that carries messages between the brain and other parts of the body that is the basic unit of the nervous system.Considering a normal person expose in a highly urbanized city which all his life exposed to different criminalities?>?>

Advances in cognitive, affective, and social neuroscience raise a host of new questions concerning the ways in which neuroscience can and should be used. These advances also challenge our intuitions about the nature of humans as moral and spiritual beings. Neuroethics is the new field that grapples with these issues.