Law and neuroscience expert Francis X. Shen delivered Vanderbilt Law School’s Weaver Distinguished Lecture on March 4. Titled “How Neuroscience Can Revolutionize the Criminal Law,” the talk explored the intersection of neuroscience and the legal system, emphasizing the potential and current limitations of neuroscience in shaping criminal law.
Francis X. Shen is a distinguished professor of law and neuroscience at the University of Minnesota, where he directs the Shen Neural Law Laboratory. His work spans multiple institutions, including the Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Psychiatry and the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience. He has co-authored several books on law and neuroscience and actively contributes to policy development in the field.
Shen’s talk revolved around the idea that while neuroscience has not yet revolutionized the criminal justice system, it is poised to do so in the future. He emphasized the importance of differentiating between “never” and “not yet,” arguing that while current neuroscience cannot fully answer critical legal questions, future advancements will bridge the gap between brain science and law. “If neuroscience has nothing to say to law, then we should find a different talk,” he said. “But if the answer is ‘not yet,’ then we open up some really wonderful questions.”
Shen outlined two pillars that justify the integration of neuroscience into legal systems.
First, he emphasized that every mental process, from decision-making to emotions, is facilitated by “chemical and electrical communication between the 86 billion neurons and the other cells in our brain.” Understanding this interaction is key to assessing human behavior within legal contexts.
Second, he pointed out that legal principles, particularly in criminal law, revolve around concepts like intent, decision-making, and culpability. Given that neuroscience offers insights into how people process information, it has the potential to enhance legal decision-making. “The law cares about how we process information. (It asks) ‘why can’t you act in the way that we or you want to sometimes? How do we get emotional? How do we make decisions?’”
He acknowledged two significant hurdles in integrating neuroscience into the criminal justice system One is the individualization of neuroscience. While group-level neuroscience studies provide general insights into behavior, legal cases require individualized assessments. Current science struggles to accurately apply general neurological findings to specific individuals.
“The law needs individualized, precise, actionable knowledge. It’s not enough to just say, ‘Oh hey, we know something generally about the way that those with substance use disorder process information,’” he said.
Another major challenge is the complexity of the human brain. Understanding the brain’s full role in behavior and decision-making remains highly complex, making it difficult to draw definitive legal conclusions.
Despite these challenges, Shen pointed to real-world applications of neuroscience in the legal field. Supreme Court rulings have referenced neuroscience research to limit sentences for juveniles, citing their still-developing brains. “One of the things that neuroscience will offer law is similar to other fields—new knowledge to help the law. But it’s not just knowledge. It’s also going to give us new tools,” he explained. Cases such as Julie Eldred’s, in which neuroscience was used to argue against penalizing relapse in opioid addiction, highlight the potential role of brain science in shaping rehabilitation-focused policies.
Additionally, the development of portable MRI technology and AI-driven analysis could make brain assessments more accessible and legally relevant in the future. “We are now moving outside of the clinic—soon we will be able to bring brain scans directly to where they are needed,” he said.
Shen predicted that neuroscience will increasingly influence criminal law, particularly in sentencing, parole decisions, and forensic assessments. He emphasized the need for ethical guardrails to ensure that neuroscience applications do not reinforce biases or inequities in the justice system. “Even Nobel prize-winning science may not be ready for use in the courtroom,” he said.
He also stressed the importance of community engagement, noting that many marginalized communities distrust emerging neuro-technologies and called for interdisciplinary collaboration, bringing together legal scholars, neuroscientists, policymakers, and practitioners to develop responsible applications of neuroscience in law.
Shen concluded by urging legal professionals to stay informed about advancements in neurotechnology, as they are likely to reshape key legal doctrines and practices. “Neurolaw is coming, and maybe sooner than you think,” he said.
The Weaver Distinguished Lecture is sponsored by the Weaver Family Program in Law, Brain Sciences, and Behavior at Vanderbilt Law School, which is directed by Owen Jones, who holds the Glenn M. Weaver, M.D., and Mary Ellen Weaver Chair in Law, Brain and Behavior. The Weaver Program was established in 2023 with a $3.85 million endowment from the Glenn M. Weaver Foundation in honor of Dr. Weaver, a pioneer in the field of forensic psychiatry, his wife Mary Ellen Weaver, and the Weaver family.
Watch a recording of Shaw’s talk below or on the Vanderbilt Law YouTube Channel.
