Mental-health and addiction specialists convened in downtown Phoenix on Friday to present theories on the neuroscience of substance addiction and the legal and ethical issues found in substance-abuse cases.
About 300 people attended the conference, titled “Hooked: Legal and Ethical Implications of Recent Advances in Alcohol and Drug Addiction Research,” to hear national and local experts on science, law and ethics discuss new research developments on how biology and genetics contribute to drug addiction and alcoholism, and how these issues should be handled in the court system.
The free conference, held at the Sandra Day O’Connor Courthouse in Phoenix, was the third in a series sponsored by the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and the Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics.
The college hosts a conference every other year to discuss how the human brain relates to law. Speakers at “Hooked” addressed topics ranging from brain abnormalities in drug and alcohol addicts to ways to ethically use new substance-abuse treatments.
Research scientist and University of Texas at Austin pharmacology professor Carlton Erickson stressed the importance of distinguishing between drug abuse and chemical dependence. He defined drug abuse as when people have control over their drug use but still choose to take drugs. He also defined chemical dependence as a “brain disease” that should be handled with more formal medical treatment.
“Knowing the differentiation between these two [terms] helps us know how to punish [drug users], or if we treat, how to treat these people,” he said.
When asked about the use of brain-scanning treatments to confirm addiction in court cases, Erickson said the procedure could be a promising option in the future, but the technology needs to become more refined before being put to use in the criminal justice system.
University of California, San Diego distinguished psychiatry professor Marc Schuckit agreed that although most chemical dependence scientists want to see brain scanning used in court cases eventually, the process is currently not a foolproof option for judges.
“We would love to have some genetic brain imaging that could be used in diagnosis, [but] it’s a goal,” he said. “I’m hoping in the future [our methods] can get a bit more specific.”
Talking points at the conference focused on the legal implications of recent developments in substance-addiction research. Other speakers included University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Stephen Morse, an expert in mental-health law, who discussed the level of responsibility courts should give criminals with brain disorders, and ASU professors Gary Marchant and Michael Shafer.
Marchant, executive director for the Center of Law, Science and Technology at ASU, said the conference provided a necessary link between law ethics and the neuroscience of addiction. He said in an
e-mail that because most criminal defendants are drug or alcohol addicts, knowing how to use new scientific abilities can make the criminal justice system more fair and effective for both criminals and their victims.
“This conference focuses on […] the issue [of] whether recent advances in the genetics and neuroscience of addiction can better help us identify, treat, prevent and punish criminality associated with such addictions,” Marchant said.
Schuckit said after his lecture that like most other dependencies, risk for alcoholism is a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental influences, such as stress levels and peer groups. He suggested taking steps toward preventing alcoholism by determining a person’s “vulnerability toward heavy drinking” from these risk factors, rather than just addressing substance abuse once it has already become a problem.
“Genes and environment play pretty much equal roles [in developing alcoholism],” Schuckit said. “But once you get into a pattern of heavy drinking, if you continue, you’re just taking your life in your hands.”
Reach the reporter at trabens@asu.edu.
