I thought the following exchange from the Yahoo Evol-Psych list
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/) was
relevant to us. Developmental neuropsychiatrist Steve Zelenski
responds to a post of mine regarding neuroscientist Michael
Gazzaniga, who for no good reason opposes the insanity defense.

Tom


This concept of believing that a "determined brain" can be totally
overwhelmed by a "free" person when making critical decisions is one
of the most mean-spirited, backward-dragging intellectual arrogances
that I have encountered in my work. My patient population consists
primarily of individuals with profound and severe mental retardation
and developmental disability. These individuals also frequently have
severe neuromuscular and sensory impairments. The societal insult to
these individuals occurs when, frequently at the behest of government
advocacy or regulatory groups a behavioral psychologist appears and
indignantly declares that medication (antidepressants, anxiolytics
etc.), environmental safety adjustments (ie locking a door behind
which poisonous chemicals are kept) are all unnecessary because the
individual can be "trained" to function without these aids. Notice
the operational word here is "totally." Of course, there is a
potential in any damaged brain, in any "determined" brain to learn
and grow and we still don't know how to fully assess that potential.

Steve Zelenski, D.O., Ph.D.
Developmental Neuropsychiatrist
Central Wisconsin Center
University of Wisconsin Medical School
Madison, WI

On 8/15/05, Tom Clark <twc@...> wrote:
> I have a serious bone to pick with Gazzaniga, since he somehow
> twists findings from neuroscience to suggest that we shouldn't take
> neural defects into account when assessing responsibility and
> culpability. This leads him to reject the insanity defense in the
> interview linked below. This may help explain why he's welcome on
> the president's bioethics commission.
>
> I've analyzed Gazzaniga's position at
> http://www.naturalism.org/criminal.htm#brain , and I'm not alone in
> my assessment. In her review of the Ethical Brain at
>
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/asseti
> d/44445;jsessionid=baa6S5z-1EUlg4 , Patricia Churchland says
> that "Gazzaniga sums up his solution to the problem of free will by
> saying that 'the brain is determined, but the person is free.' The
> logic of this brain/person duality is not particularly compelling,
> or even coherent...". Indeed.
>
> Tom Clark
> Center for Naturalism
> www.naturalism.org
>
>
> --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Malloy"
> <jmalloy@n...> wrote:
> > "When Dr. Michael Gazzaniga calls in for an interview, while
> > vacationing in California, he apologizes for having "12 things
> > going on at once." The repairman is coming, dogs are barking in
> > the background, and the hustle-bustle is evident even on the
> > other end of the line. This environment is not new to Gazzaniga.
> > A founder of the field of cognitive neuroscience, he still runs a
> > busy lab at Dartmouth College and sits on the president's
> > Council on Bioethics. In addition to several textbooks, he has
> > written four books for popular audiences, including his latest,
> > The Ethical Brain, one of the first to examine what the field of
> > neuroscience has to say about modern ethical dilemmas."
> >
> > http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/050803/3book.htm
>
>