Quelle épistémologie pour les neurosciences en psychiatrie ? L'exemple du spectre schizophrénique

L'approche neuroscientifique des troubles mentaux s'appuie presque exclusivement sur une conception objectiviste de la psychiatrie, une conception qui n'accorde de l'importance qu'à ce qui peut être observé (directement ou indirectement) des difficultés du patient, au détriment du « comment » ces difficultés sont vécues. Nous suggérons, en prenant pour exemple la schizophrénie et la vulnérabilité à cette pathologie, qu'une épistémologie qui prenne en considération la structure de la subjectivité humaine, et ce que l'on sait de son ontogenèse chez le petit enfant, peut être plus fructueuse.

Les neurosciences au Tribunal : de la responsabilité à la dangerosité, enjeux éthiques soulevés par la nouvelle loi française

AIM: In the past few years, spectacular progress in neuroscience has led to the emergence of a new interdisciplinary field, the so-called "neurolaw" whose goal is to explore the effects of neuroscientific discoveries on legal proceedings and legal rules and standards. In the United States, a number of neuroscientific researches are designed specifically to explore legally relevant topics and a case-law has already been developed. In Europe, neuroscientific evidence is increasingly being used in criminal courtrooms, as part of psychiatric testimony, nourishing the debate about the legal implications of brain research in psychiatric-legal settings. Though largely debated, up to now the use of neuroscience in legal contexts had not specifically been regulated by any legislation. In 2011, with the new bioethics law, France has become the first country to admit by law the use of brain imaging in judicial expertise. According to the new law, brain imaging techniques can be used only for medical purposes, or scientific research, or in the context of judicial expertise. This study aims to give an overview of the current state of the neurolaw in the US and Europe, and to investigate the ethical issues raised by this new law and its potential impact on the rights and civil liberties of the offenders. METHOD: An overview of the emergence and development of "neurolaw" in the United States and Europe is given. Then, the new French law is examined in the light of the relevant debates in the French parliament. Consequently, we outline the current tendencies in Neurolaw literature to focus on assessments of responsibility, rather than dangerousness. This tendency is analysed notably in relation to the legal context relevant to criminal policies in France, where recent changes in the legislation and practice of forensic psychiatry show that dangerousness assessments have become paramount in the process of judicial decision. Finally, the potential interpretations of neuroscientific data introduced into psychiatric testimonies by judges are explored. RESULTS: The examination of parliamentary debates showed that the new French law allowing neuroimaging techniques in judicial expertise was introduced in the aim to provide a legal framework that would protect the subject against potential misuses of neuroscience. The underlying fear above all, was that this technology be used as a lie detector, or as a means to predict the subject's behaviour. However, the possibility of such misuse remains open. Contrary to the legislator's wish, the defendant is not fully guaranteed against uses of neuroimaging techniques in criminal courts that would go against their interests and rights. In fact, the examination of the recently adopted legislation in France shows that assessments of dangerousness and of risk of recidivism have become central elements of the criminal policy, which makes it possible, if not likely that neuroimaging techniques be used for the evaluation of the dangerousness of the defendant. This could entail risks for the latter, as judges could perceive neuroscientific data as hard evidence, more scientific and reliable than the soft data of traditional psychiatry. If such neuroscientific data are interpreted as signs of potential dangerousness of a subject rather than as signs of criminal responsibility, defendants may become subjected to longer penalties or measures aiming to ensure public safety in the detriment of their freedom. CONCLUSION: In the current context of accentuated societal need for security, the judge and the expert-psychiatrist are increasingly asked to evaluate the dangerousness of a subject, regardless of their responsibility. Influenced by this policy model, the judge might tend to use neuroscientific data introduced by an expert as signs of dangerousness. Such uses, especially when they subjugate an individual's interest to those of society, might entail serious threats to an individual's freedom and civil liberties.

Les Neurosciences au Tribunal: de la responsabilité à la dangerosité

In recent years, an explosion of interest in neuroscience has led to the development of "Neuro-law," a new multidisciplinary field of knowledge whose aim is to examine the impact and role of neuroscientific findings in legal proceedings. Neuroscientific evidence is increasingly being used in US and European courts in criminal trials, as part of psychiatric testimony, nourishing the debate about the legal implications of brain research in psychiatric-legal settings. During these proceedings, the role of forensic psychiatrists is crucial. In most criminal justice systems, their mission consists in accomplishing two basic tasks: assessing the degree of responsibility of the offender and evaluating their future dangerousness. In the first part of our research, we aim to examine the impact of Neuroscientific evidence in the assessment of criminal responsibility, a key concept of law. An initial jurisprudential research leads to conclude that there are significant difficulties and limitations in using neuroscience for the assessment of criminal responsibility. In the current socio-legal context, responsibility assessments are progressively being weakened, whereas dangerousness assessments gain increasing importance in the field of forensic psychiatry. In the second part of our research we concentrate on the impact of using neuroscience for the assessment of dangerousness. We argue that in the current policy era of zero tolerance, judges, confronted with the pressure to ensure public security, may tend to interpret neuroscientific knowledge and data as an objective and reliable way of evaluating one's dangerousness and risk of reoffending, rather than their responsibility. This tendency could be encouraged by a utilitarian approach to punishment, advanced by some recent neuroscientific research which puts into question the existence of free will and responsibility and argues for a rejection of the retributive theory of punishment. Although this shift away from punishment aimed at retribution in favor of a consequentialist approach to criminal law is advanced by some authors as a more progressive and humane approach, we believe that it could lead to the instrumentalisation of neuroscience in the interest of public safety, which can run against the proper exercise of justice and civil liberties of the offenders. By advancing a criminal law regime animated by the consequentialist aim of avoiding social harms through rehabilitation, neuroscience promotes a return to a therapeutical approach to crime which can have serious impact on the kind and the length of sentences imposed on the offenders; if neuroscientific data are interpreted as evidence of dangerousness, rather than responsibility, it is highly likely that judges impose heavier sentences, or/and security measures (in civil law systems), which can be indeterminate in length. Errors and epistemic traps of past criminological movements trying to explain the manifestation of a violent and deviant behavior on a biological and deterministic basis stress the need for caution concerning the use of modern neuroscientific methods in criminal proceedings.

La "fabrique du cerveau" en tensions entre sciences sociales et neurosciences

Cet article esquisse la situation actuelle des relations entre les sciences sociales et les neurosciences, dans une perspective épistémologique, historique et critique. Il aborde dans un premier temps les conditions d'émergence, le succès et les effets contrastés de la cérébralisation du sujet dans les sciences humaines et sociales, partagées entre neuro-scepticisme et neuro-optimisme. Dans un second temps, les auteurs proposent de déplacer le point de vue de la question classique du déterminisme biologique vers celle de la performativité sociale des sciences du cerveau. Ils analysent notamment la construction expérimentale et parfois problématique des inférences neuro-sociales qui sont au coeur des explications cérébralistes des comportements des sujets sociaux. L'article conclut sur une discussion de l'éventuelle complémentarité entre neurosciences et sciences sociales et humaines.

Imaging bilinguals: When the neurosciences meet the languange sciences

The starting point of our investigation was the longstanding notion that bilingual individuals need effective mechanisms to prevent interference from one language while processing material in the other (e.g. Penfield and Roberts, 1959). To demonstrate how the prevention of interference is implemented in the brain we employed event-related brain potentials (ERPs; see Munte, Urbach, ¨ Duzel and Kutas, 2000, for an introductory review) ¨ and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) techniques, thus pursuing a combined temporal and spatial imaging approach. In contrast to previous investigations using neuroimaging techniques in bilinguals, which had been mainly concerned with the localization of the primary and secondary languages (e.g. Perani, Paulesu, Galles, Dupoux, Dehaene, Bettinardi, Cappa, Fazio and Mehler, 1998; Chee, Caplan, Soon, Sriram, Tan, Thiel and Weekes, 1999), our study addressed the dynamic aspects of bilingual language processing.

Les neurosciences cognitives du langage, de l'autisme et des styles cognitifs

VERSION ANGLAISE DISPONIBLE AU DÉPARTEMENT; THÈSE RÉALISÉE CONJOINTEMENT AVEC L'ÉCOLE DES SCIENCES DE LA COMMUNICATION DE L'UNIVERSITÉ MCGILL (DRS. K. STEINHAUER ET J.E. DRURY).

Le débat démocratique en neurosciences : possible et nécessaire

Commentaire / Commentary

Le concept de double-usage de la recherche : un outil diagnostique de l’analyse éthique des risques associés aux usages neuroamélioratifs de la recherche en neurosciences

Les technologies de stimulations transcrâniennes – tel que la tDCS ou la TMS – présentent à l’heure actuelle d’intéressantes perspectives thérapeutiques, tout comme diverses améliorations cognitives chez le sujet « non-malade » dont découlent des applications neuroamélioratives, plus ou moins imminentes, en dehors du cadre clinique ou investigatoire. Est proposé ici d’analyser les risques associés à ces applications, détournées des objectifs premiers de recherche, et aux préoccupations éthiques qui les accompagnent (autonomie, justice, intégrité physique), via un concept généralement associé aux recherches avec des perspectives de sécurité nationale et associées à un niveau de risque élevé. Révisant la trivialité d’une définition dichotomique aux usages « bons » et « mauvais », est proposé d’étendre le concept de « double-usage » pour l’appliquer à la neuroamélioration comme un mésusage de la recherche en neurosciences. Faisant référence au conflit entre, d’une part, le respect de la liberté académique et, d’autre part, la protection de la sécurité et de la santé publique, ce concept s’avère être un outil diagnostique pertinent pour l’évaluation des risques associés à l’usage mélioratif desdites technologies, et plus particulièrement de la tDCS, afin d’alimenter la réflexion sur la régulation de ces dispositifs en amont de leur utilisation, selon un principe de précaution inhérent au double-usage de la recherche. Ce concept permet ainsi de réfléchir à la mise en place d’une gouvernance proactive et contextualisée impliquant une responsabilité partagée d’un large panel d’acteurs, nécessaire au vu des avancées rapides du domaine des neurosciences et de l’imminence de l’arrivée sur le marché de ces dispositifs.

Adolescents, neurosciences et prise de décisions médicales: devrions-nous revoir certaines dispositions du Code civil du Québec?

Article

Behavioral neurosciences in Latin-American psychology journals

Behavioral neurosciences have evolved from other disciplines such as psychology, psychiatry and neurology, becoming a prominent area within general neuroscience. In mainstream psychology, neurosciences currently have an important role. In this paper we documented articles published in four Latin-American psychology journals and we classified these papers as empirical or theoretical. We analyzed the main topics covered in the behavioral neurosciences. Most of reported research used humans and rats as study subjects, although other species have also been used as models. Data suggest behavioral neurosciences currently play a growing and prominent role in Latin American psychology.