Yey and to continue..
Center are able to scramble the moral center of the brain, making it more difficult for people to separate innocent intentions from harmful outcomes.
This is what i found ,that could explain a bit more what was done :
Young and her colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging to locate an area of the brain known as the right temporo-parietal junction (RTPJ) which other studies had previously related to moral judgments.
While muscle movement, language and even memory are found in the same place in each individual, the RTPJ, located behind and above the ear, resides in a slightly different location in each person.
For their experiment, the scientists had 20 subjects read several dozen different stories about people with good or bad intentions that resulted in a variety of outcomes.
One typical story was about a boyfriend who leads his girlfriend across a bridge.
In some versions, the boyfriend harmlessly walked his girlfriend across the bridge with no ill effect.
In other cases, the boyfriend intentionally led the girlfriend along so she would break her ankle.
The subjects used a seven point scale -- one being forbidden and seven completely permissible -- to record whether they through the situation was morally acceptable or not.
While the subjects read the story, the scientists applied a magnetic field using a method known as transcranial magnetic stimulation.
The magnetic fields created confusion in the neurons that make up the RTPJ, said Young, causing them to fire off electrical pulses chaotically.
The confusion in the brain made it harder for subjects to interpret the boyfriend's intent, said Young, and instead made the subjects focus solely on the situation's outcome.
The effect was temporary and safe.
The scientists didn't permanently remove the subjects moral sensibilities.
On the scientists' seven point scale, the difference was about one point and averaged out to about a 15 percent change.
The research could have powerful implications not just for neuroscientists, but for lawyers as well.
Everyday jurors are asked to weigh a person's actions against their intentions.
This new study won't transform the legal field, said Owen Jones, a professor of law and biology at Vanderbilt University, but it could "enable sophisticated judgments about responsibility, harm and appropriate punishment."
"This study, and other recent studies like it, are enabling us to peer into the very brain activity that underlies and enables legal judgments," said Jones. "Understanding how legal decisions actually work is a potentially important step toward helping decisions be as fair, just and effective as they can be."
What the new research won't do is allow a jury, or even an individual, to unwittingly manipulated to favor prosecutors or defendants.
Because it was so obvious that the magnets were turned on, it is unlikely that a person or a group, like a jury, could be swayed to consider a criminal outcome instead of intent, said Young.
