↓ Skip to main content

Neuroscience, Neuropolitics and Neuroethics: The Complex Case of Crime, Deception and fMRI

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Neuroscience, Neuropolitics and Neuroethics: The Complex Case of Crime, Deception and fMRI
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11948-012-9393-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stuart Henry, Dena Plemmons

Abstract

Scientific developments take place in a socio-political context but scientists often ignore the ways their innovations will be both interpreted by the media and used by policy makers. In the rush to neuroscientific discovery important questions are overlooked, such as the ways: (1) the brain, environment and behavior are related; (2) biological changes are mediated by social organization; (3) institutional bias in the application of technical procedures ignores race, class and gender dimensions of society; (4) knowledge is used to the advantage of the powerful; and (5) its applications may reinforce existing structures of power that pose ethical questions about distributive justice. The case of crime, deception and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) shows the complexity, and the political and ethical challenges that confront those who seek to use neuroscience to explain the etiology of crime, and who base policy on its findings. An ethically grounded neuroscience needs to take account of existing structures of power and difference, and to develop a public neuropolitical consciousness that ensures that those subject to risk by the application of science and technology are participants in the decision-making processes involving the implementation of policies that affect them.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 91 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Researcher 10 11%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 22%
Neuroscience 13 14%
Social Sciences 12 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 16 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,215,073
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#186
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,795
of 174,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 174,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.