Law & Neuroscience: An Interesting Concept (with funding provided by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and viewers like you)

Studying the messy notions of nonprofit performance and effectiveness are interesting. The associated dialogue to advance the public good is synergistic and heartening, as demonstrated by practitioners’ and academics’ desire to enhance the sector and society. In contemplating potential implementable strategies and approaches, knowledge is imperative. Those of us in PAFF 526 (Managing Information and Technology) have learned that knowledge is actionable. As the world becomes more interactive, we are empowered to communicate with those from other fields to progress our mutual goals. After all, we all belong to the community of people, as society is an organization bearing some resemblance to a nonprofit. Thus, we ought to share knowledge (as suggested by Crutchfield and McLeod Grant in Chapter 6 of our guiding text) and promote further learning and improvement.

The provision of rights and liberties are at the core of our society, informing all of our institutions (not merely our legal system). To say the least, fundamental modifications to our system of laws would drastically change the nature of our society. We derive laws from normative assumptions and understandings of the human experience. As reflected by changes in our laws (ex. the eradication of slavery, universal suffrage, the moderation of de facto segregation, the provision of disability rights, etc.), norms change somewhat regularly. Likewise, cognitive and behavioral sciences have influenced these norms and standards. However, further advances in such knowledge about the mind may very likely encourage subsequent social transitions on an even greater scale.

Consider the Law and Neuroscience Project (http://www.lawneuro.org/), a current research network supported by the MacArthur Foundation. Skimming the organization’s mission and initiatives (http://www.lawneuro.org/About-Us/History/History-Mission.aspx) reveal an effort to share knowledge between the fields of neuroscience and law, with a goal of improving our legal system commensurate with advances in our understanding of the human brain. It appears that the project’s funders and staff find this endeavor worthwhile due to the startling progress in neuroscience:

“Neuroscience is a young field, but it has already produced many profound and beguiling discoveries about how the human brain works. While distant developments are hard to predict, it is expected from research that is already underway or being planned that our knowledge of brain functions will expand rapidly during the next few decades.”

The entire referenced page (http://www.lawneuro.org/About-Us/History/History-Mission.aspx) is really worth reading. It provides a practical perspective of exploring necessary considerations and potential applications of cutting-edge scientific knowledge with the hope of improving society. Remember, today’s great scientific and technological developments are not limited to social media or consumer products, though not as to diminish the importance or the sudden manifestations of Twitter, Facebook, 3-D gaming, smartphones, or the thinnest televisions you’ve ever seen (http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN55C9000ZFXZA 0.31” thick. Incredible. If I were monarch of the world, everyone would have one. Even the blind, as I do not discriminate).

Of course, Charity Navigator’s system utilizes some of these developments, albeit to a limited degree. Unfortunately, much of the nonprofit sector seems to lag in this area of modernization, possibly due to individual agencies’ limited scopes (i.e. refined missions) and limited funding.

With current turmoil, social complexities, and heated ideological disputes, do you believe that society should embrace and apply this surging knowledge? (To better appreciate this knowledge, I’ve found an accessible source in http://www.popsci.com/, the website for Popular Science, which is a monthly magazine founded in 1872. No, it’s not a nonprofit, and no, it’s not the devil either. As its name implies, it’s intelligible and intended for the broad public. Many articles are distilled, though they include links to primary sources, some of which are nonprofits.) Do you find this compelling? Is it rubbish? Do these topics warrant greater social attention? Have you read this long, drawn out post without nodding off even once? If so, you’ve earned a complementary handshake.