1. a) Reliability, validity, from group data to the individual Do we know enough about individuals and their actual behavioural traits to interpret brain imaging evidence of behavioural traits back to the individual? Sinnot-Armstrong How reliable are neuro-imaging patterns of behavioural characteristics? In other words should an otherwise normal individual be worried if following participation in a functional imaging experiment, they are told that they have anti-social behavioural disorder tendencies? How reliable are neuroimaging markers of memory, emotion and psychopathy? Are there any circumstances in which group results from neuroimaging can or should be applied to individuals? EMAIL QUESTIONS TO edinburgh.neuroscience@ed.ac.uk

2. b) Privacy and Data Protection What are the likely capabilities that brain imaging will achieve in the next 10 years that would impact on privacy and society? Is widespread use of neuro-imaging by commercial marketing companies and Governments and acceptable invasion of privacy? Is neuro-imaging an acceptable invasion of privacy in any circumstances? Should, or can, neuro-imaging data acquired outside research or medical environments, be subject to the same data protection practices as data acquired in research/medical environments? Sinnot-Armstrong Thursday am

3. a) Forensic uses of imaging Should functional MRI be available to courts of law for use in lie detection? Should functional MRI be available to Courts of Law to ascertain whether the accused is familiar with a crime scene? Should neuroimaging be used to detect when someone is lying? Kessler Under what circumstances, if any, might/would it be appropriate to use neuroimaging results in support of prosecuting/defending a criminal action? Thursday pm

4. b) Science, Law and Society What are the implications, for vulnerable individuals, for more widespread use of functional imaging techniques in society as a whole? Should neuroimaging be available to determine what someone’s true preferences are as opposed to their verbally expressed preferences? Is it acceptable to apply a different standard of proof for neuroimaging used in science as to neuroimaging used in law? Does the standard of proof required for neuroimaging when used in science invalidate the use of neuroimaging in law? Kessler Thursday pm

5. a) Science, Business, Profit, Financial Conflict and Government Regulation of Commerce Neuro-marketing – what is it and should use of imaging be encouraged as part of it? Neuroimaging – when should a tool designed for use in science stray into use in commerce? Is it morally acceptable for information on personal preferences to be used in marketing for economic gain (eg banning of subliminal “flash” adverts of refreshments in cinemas many years ago). Does the standard of proof required for neuroimaging when used in science invalidate the use of neuroimaging to inform marketing strategies for economic gain? Friday am

6. b) Protecting the Wider World from Dangerous Individuals Is structural or functional imaging of sufficient sensitivity or specificity to be used as evidence of behavioural characteristics in a Court of Law? Should functional MRI be used in the prison service to assess inmates’ readiness for release to reduce the risk of releasing persistently, potentially dangerous individuals? Should governments regulate now for future anticipated neuro-imaging capabilities? Should brain imaging be used in counter-terrorism, for example in airport scanners to map gyral patterns for recognising individuals (to overcome effects of plastic surgery), or to identify personality traits that predict terrorist behaviours with fMRI? Friday am