The Yale Law Journal's Betsy Cooper wrote an essay examining our favorite Jeopardy! champion (and new medical diagnoser) robot Watson, but from a new angle: Could Watson help judges make legal decisions?
Scientists who research natural hazards walk a precarious line when it comes to predicting disasters. They're often criticized for over-hyping the situation and disrupting residents' lives. But if they fail to predict a catastrophic event, they're accused of failing to give the public adequate warning. It's a classic case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't."
"Damned if you don't" is the situation that seven of Italy's top seismologists now find themselves in -- the scientists face manslaughter charges for failing to predict the April 2009 earthquake that struck the town of L'Aquila in central Italy.
Caution has prevailed in a Brooklyn judge's ruling that refused to admit brain scan evidence in an employer-retaliation case. But advocates of using brain scans as high-tech lie detectors will get another shot in an upcoming federal case in Tennessee, Wired reports.
Brain scans may become accepted evidence in a civil trial for the first time, if a Brooklyn lawyer gets his way, Wired reports.The case could set a legal precedent for allowing brain scans as evidence to determine whether or not a person is telling the truth.
In a move that could significantly alter the future of genetic medicine and the industry around it, a US District Court judge invalidated seven patents for human genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer, on the grounds that genes are discovered, not created. The ruling opens up challenges against the patents held by numerous companies on thousands of human genes, and jeopardizes an industry business model based on exclusive rights to gene treatment.
Two companies say their brain-scanning technology can find the truth in criminal cases
By Justin McLachlanPosted 02.24.2010 at 10:37 am 1 Comment
It was a courtroom first. Late last year, an Illinois judge allowed functional magnetic-resonance imaging (fMRI) as evidence during the sentencing phase of a murder trial. Defense attorneys argued that the scan showed signs of mental illness and hoped it would convince the jury to show mercy. It didn't. They sentenced Brian Dugan to death for killing a 10-year-old girl.
As Doctor Hibert so eloquently put, "only one in two million people has what we call the "evil gene". Hitler had it, Walt Disney had it, and Freddy Quimby has it." And while we understand that line as a joke, it seems that an Italian court has taken the idea far more seriously.
After listening to a week of testimony, the House Judiciary Committee has crafted two bills that seek to deal with the problem of cyber-bullying. One bill is a nuanced attempt to create a conversation between children, parents and school administrators about the proper use of technology, and the other is, well, not.
In what was no doubt the first ever 140-character legal document, the British High Court has served an anonymous web-pest an injunction via Twitter. This is the first time the microblogging service has been used to execute a court order.
In an attempt to head off new emissions standards, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is threatening to sue the Environmental Protection Agency. The Chamber is calling it the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st Century, and wants to put the evidence supporting global warming on trial in a court of law.