The Promise of Neurolaw in Global Justice: An Interview with Dr. Pragya Mishra

Abstract

In an ongoing series of interviews, Challenges Advisory Board member and Nova Institute for Health Fellow Alan C. Logan meets with thought leaders, scientists, scholars, healthcare professionals, artisans, and visionaries concerned about health at the scale of individuals, communities, and the planet. Here, Dr. Pragya Mishra responds to a set of questions posed by Challenges. Dr. Mishra, a legal academician and one of the few global scholars with a PhD specifically in neurolaw, is at the forefront of research examining the intersection of law and brain sciences. As a concept and developing field, the promise of neurolaw is that it will lead to a more equitable and less punitive justice system, one based on objective science rather than prescientific assumptions of blameworthiness and willpower. Here, Dr. Mishra reflects on the promises and pitfalls of neurolaw, the growing challenges to the free will assumptions held by the courts, and her work in a field that epitomizes a transdisciplinary effort. She discusses the place of contemplative practices within neurolaw, with special emphasis on the hope of rehabilitation. Dr. Mishra describes neurolaw through a holistic lens, one that embraces future possibilities and the shaping of evidence-based policy changes. While planetary health embraces justice as a broad term, it has paid little attention to the criminal justice system. Discussions of neurolaw are important to the ethical frameworks of planetary health. Neurolaw, as Dr. Mishra explains, is at the heart of the many interconnected challenges of our time.

1. Introduction

Challenges is a unique interdisciplinary journal dedicated to integrating diverse scholarly discourses, especially those related to the grand challenges currently facing our societies and the planet at large. To that end, the journal maintains ongoing interviews that cut across disciplines, professions, and perspectives. In collaboration with the Nova Institute for Health, these interviews seek out individuals at the cutting edge of transformative research. The goal of the interviews is to question outstanding individuals on their work, experiences, and ideas, and how those might help break down barriers to the promotion of health and flourishing at the scale of individuals, communities, and the planet.

The concept of planetary health erases the boundaries between personal and community health and the natural systems that underpin the health and wellness of all humans [1]. As such, planetary health is concerned with the marginalization of individuals and communities and underscores the importance of equity, harm reduction, and cross-cultural value systems and human virtues that otherwise underpin honesty, fairness, kindness, humanity, wisdom, and justice [2]. That is, planetary health aligns itself to the wisdom expressed by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., when he wrote that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in a net of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever effects one directly effects all indirectly” [3]. It is noteworthy that Dr. King wrote those words while he was incarcerated.

In the sphere of health at all scales—individual, community, and planet—planetary health emphasizes the importance of justice. Indeed, the Planetary Health Pledge taken by allied health professionals includes the affirmation that “I will advocate for equity and justice” [4]. Despite planetary health’s interest in justice as a broad term, the role of the criminal justice system in the planetary health paradigm has largely escaped discourse and scrutiny. This seems odd, especially because mass incarceration, the criminalization of mental illness, and grotesquely punitive measures (e.g., excessive sentencing, solitary confinement, and capital punishment) remain commonplace. Mass incarceration is a costly enterprise for individuals, communities, and the planet [5,6]. Incarceration of an individual has far-reaching detrimental effects on families and communities [7]. Mass incarceration and the criminal justice system writ large is also an energy-dense venture, significantly adding to the global carbon footprint [8,9].

According to critics, this unhealthy status quo remains because modern courts and criminal justice systems writ large remain rooted in prescientific notions of willpower and blameworthiness—assumptions that otherwise bolster punitive worldviews [10,11]. Courts appear content to be walled off from the massive 21st-century advances in neurobehavioral sciences, including neuromicrobiology, multi-omics, polygenetics, and exposome discoveries [12]. That is, prosecutors, judges, and juries are essentially insulated from the rapidly growing scientific reality that leaves little room for free will—at least insofar as a decision to act is individually determined by brain architecture that has been determined by total lived experiences (and pre-birth and transgenerational factors) and biological factors over time [13] (Figure 1).

One transdisciplinary endeavor that presents a challenge to the assumptions of near-universal levels of free will, willpower, and blameworthiness is the field of neurolaw. The term neurolaw was coined in 1991 by personal injury lawyer J. Sherrod Taylor and colleagues at the Taylor, Harp and Collier law firm [14,15]. In using the term, these lawyers emphasized the use of objective brain imaging in conjunction with validated neurocognitive testing to support civil court claims related to traumatic brain injury [16]. Since then, the term has been applied to advances in brain sciences that might inform court decisions and policy, including those related to criminal culpability [17]. The use of the term neurolaw belies a long history of attempts to use advances in brain science in courtroom outcomes; for example, the use of electroencephalograms in criminal courts dates back to the 1940s [18].

The promise of neurolaw is that it can chip away at antiquated assumptions surrounding willpower and blameworthiness, bring objectivity and equity to judicial decision-making, diminish punitive mindsets that otherwise foster inhuman sentencing, enhance rehabilitative efforts, and erase artificial lines between human biophysiology/anatomy and behavior [19]. At the same time, the application of neurolaw requires ethical considerations, the safeguarding of fundamental rights, and of course, society’s right to protect itself. With the goal of exploring neurolaw in more detail, Challenges Advisory Board member and Nova Institute for Health Fellow, Alan C. Logan, was honored that Dr. Pragya Mishra agreed to be the subject of the Nova Interview.

Dr. Mishra is a legal scholar and interdisciplinary researcher with an academic appointment at the University of Allahabad, in Prayagraj, India. She obtained a B.A.LL.B. (Honors) from Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, an LL.M. from the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), Hyderabad, and her Ph.D. in neurolaw from National Law University, Delhi. While neurolaw is a truly transdisciplinary endeavor, Dr. Mishra is one of the few scholars globally to have earned a Ph.D. specifically in this field. This background provides a unique vantage point for the discussions that follow.

2. The Nova Interview

Nova: Can you tell us a little bit about your academic journey and what sparked your passion for the fascinating field of neurolaw?

Dr. Mishra: My path to neurolaw emerged from a deep engagement with fundamental questions about human consciousness, responsibility, and justice—questions that bridge ancient Indian philosophy and contemporary neuroscience. During my undergraduate legal studies, I found myself increasingly drawn to examining how legal systems navigate the complex terrain of criminal culpability, particularly in cases where cognitive impairment or altered mental states challenge traditional notions of responsibility. This initial interest crystallized during my masters in law at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, where I began exploring the intricate relationships between legal theory, neuroscientific evidence, and philosophical inquiry.

The foundations of my interdisciplinary perspective were significantly shaped by my father, Dr. S. K. Mishra, who introduced me to the rich traditions of Indian contemplative practice and metaphysical thought. These early influences helped me recognize the profound parallels between ancient wisdom traditions and modern neuroscientific investigations into consciousness, decision-making, and moral behavior. During my doctoral studies at National Law University, Delhi, this perspective was further enriched through the mentorship of Dr. Craig Reeves, Senior Lecturer at the University of London. As my co-supervisor, he encouraged me to probe deeper into the metaphysical dimensions of law, particularly examining how neuroscientific insights might reshape our understanding of free will and moral responsibility.

Professor Dr. Upendra Baxi, Professor Emeritus at the Universities of Warwick and Delhi, has been another pivotal influence in my academic development. His guidance helped me develop a more nuanced approach to legal reasoning, one that considers both empirical evidence and philosophical principles in addressing complex judicial questions. This mentorship proved invaluable as I began exploring how neuroscientific advances might inform and transform criminal jurisprudence [20], mental health defense, and ethical approaches to sentencing.

What I find particularly compelling about neurolaw is how it engages with questions that have preoccupied human thought for millennia. The field’s central inquiries—whether concerning the nature of free will or the neural basis of decision-making—echo ancient debates in Vedantic philosophy and Buddhist [21] thought. These traditions have developed sophisticated frameworks for understanding consciousness (Chaitanya) [22] and the complex interplay between predetermined factors (Prarabdha, the portion of past karma destined to manifest in the present life) [23] and individual agency (Purushartha, the balanced pursuit of the four aims of human life: righteousness, wealth, desire, and liberation) [24]. The parallels between these ancient wisdom traditions and contemporary neuroscientific investigations are striking and often illuminating.

My doctoral research explored these intersections, examining how modern neuroscience can inform legal frameworks while remaining mindful of the profound philosophical questions these advancements raise. This work has convinced me that meaningful legal reform requires us to integrate scientific evidence with deeper philosophical insights about human nature, responsibility, and justice. The field of neurolaw offers a unique opportunity to bridge these perspectives, potentially leading to more equitable and scientifically informed approaches to justice.

Nova: Neurolaw sounds like a complex term. If you were talking with a new student or a policymaker, how would you define and describe neurolaw? Why should researchers, clinicians and advocates in the health field care about neurolaw?

Dr. Mishra: Neurolaw represents the convergence of neuroscientific discovery and legal practice, though its implications extend far beyond this simple intersection. At its core, it examines how our expanding understanding of brain function and human behavior can transform legal principles and practices [25], particularly in areas such as criminal responsibility, judicial decision-making, and evidence-based sentencing. To make this concrete, consider how traditional legal systems have operated on what we might call the “rational actor” model [26]—that is, individuals make purely conscious, deliberate choices when engaging in criminal behavior. However, neuroscientific research reveals a far more nuanced reality: human behavior emerges from an intricate interplay of neural architecture, genetic predispositions, environmental influences, early life experiences, and the complex relationship between our brain and gut microbiome [27,28]. Neurolaw provides a framework for incorporating this sophisticated understanding into legal decision-making. The field can be understood through three fundamental dimensions. First, it explores the neural substrates of behavior and decision-making, helping us understand how brain structure and function influence human actions. Second, it develops protocols for the appropriate use of neuroscientific evidence in legal proceedings, ensuring that scientific insights are applied rigorously and ethically. Third, it informs the development of evidence-based approaches to rehabilitation and crime prevention, moving beyond purely punitive measures to address the underlying neurobiological and environmental factors that contribute to criminal behavior.

For healthcare professionals and researchers, the relevance of neurolaw extends across multiple domains of practice. In mental health settings, it provides crucial insights into decision-making capacity and informed consent, helping clinicians navigate complex questions of autonomy and competency. In forensic contexts, understanding the neurobiological basis of behavior can inform both assessment protocols and rehabilitation strategies. Consider, for example, the case of auto-brewery syndrome, where individuals produce alcohol endogenously through gut microbe fermentation, leading to intoxication without oral alcohol consumption. This condition, identified through careful clinical observation, has resulted in the dismissal of driving while intoxicated charges [29]. Such cases illustrate how advances in medical understanding can fundamentally reshape legal outcomes.

However, neurolaw’s significance extends beyond the mere application of brain imaging in courtrooms. It represents a profound convergence of ancient contemplative wisdom and modern neuroscience in our understanding of human behavior, responsibility, and rehabilitation. While ancient traditions like Vipassana meditation recognized that sustained attention to our mental states could transform behavioral patterns through what they called “purification of the mind” (citta-visuddhi) [30], contemporary neuroscience now validates this through studies of neuroplasticity and the brain’s remarkable capacity for rewiring itself. For instance, research shows that mindfulness practices can increase gray matter [31] in the anterior cingulate cortex—the region responsible for self-regulation and behavioral control—while reducing activity in the amygdala, our brain’s center for fear and emotional reactivity [32]. This scientific validation of age-old contemplative insights suggests that combining traditional wisdom with modern neuroscience [33] could revolutionize our approach to criminal rehabilitation.

Modern medicine has evolved from traditional remedies to evidence-based treatments while preserving valuable insights from healing traditions. Similarly, neurolaw advocates for the evolution of legal systems that integrate both scientific understanding and enduring wisdom about human transformation. This reimagining of justice through the dual lenses of neuroscience and contemplative practice offers a way forward that is both empirically grounded and deeply humane. It is probably worth noting at this point that mindfulness is a broad and often-used term. In contemporary scientific studies, mindfulness is generally regarded to be moment-to-moment awareness characterized by open, non-reactive, non-judgmental attention. Mindfulness is a teachable asset [34].

When we understand, as both ancient practitioners and modern neuroscientists do, that the brain is constantly being shaped by experience and that focused attention can literally rewire neural circuits, we begin to see criminal behavior not as a fixed trait but as a pattern that can be transformed through proper intervention. For professionals working in human health and well-being, engagement with neurolaw becomes increasingly crucial as we recognize the complex interconnections between brain function, behavior, and societal systems. Whether assessing patient competency, developing treatment protocols, or considering the ethical implications of novel interventions, neurolaw provides a framework for more nuanced and compassionate care that acknowledges the full complexity of human behavior and experience.

Nova: Popular press articles often equate neurolaw with neuroimaging evidence and criminal cases in which, for example, the defendant was discovered to have a brain tumor. However, the American Bar Association describes neurolaw as the practical translation of advances in brain science. Since brain science is a broad term, doesn’t this mean that we are really talking about a very wide array of individual and environmental factors—ranging from gut microbes to heavy metal exposure—that could influence human behavior?

Dr. Mishra: You’ve highlighted a crucial distinction that gets to the heart of neurolaw’s broader implications. While media coverage often gravitates toward dramatic cases involving visible (neuroimaging) brain abnormalities, the field encompasses a far more complex web of biological and environmental influences on human behavior. This reflects the evolution of neuroscience itself—from studying isolated brain structures to understanding the brain as part of an intricate biological ecosystem.

The Legalome framework that we’ve been developing illustrates this expanded perspective, drawing particularly on recent advances in nutritional psychiatry and environmental epigenetics. The research we quoted in our article clearly reveals how seemingly distant factors like environmental toxins, nutritional status, and gut microbiota can profoundly influence neural function and, consequently, behavior. The microbiome-gut-brain axis exemplifies how biological systems once considered separate from brain function can fundamentally shape cognitive processes and decision-making. This understanding forces us to reconsider traditional legal concepts of responsibility and culpability.

Consider a case of impulsive aggression: traditional neurolaw might focus solely on examining prefrontal cortex abnormalities through brain imaging. However, our current understanding demands a more comprehensive analysis—one that considers how chronic stress alters cortisol levels, how inflammatory markers affect neural circuits [35], how early life adversity shapes brain development [36], and how gut dysbiosis might influence emotional regulation [28]. Each of these factors represents a potential intervention point for both prevention and rehabilitation.

Moreover, this expanded framework highlights the importance of considering gene-environment interactions. While we know certain genetic variants may predispose individuals to impulsive behavior, these predispositions often only manifest under specific environmental conditions—whether those are exposure to toxins, chronic stress, or traumatic experiences [37,38,39]. This nuanced understanding challenges simplistic notions of biological determinism while emphasizing the importance of environmental interventions in legal and therapeutic contexts.

This comprehensive approach to neurolaw also has profound implications for public health and criminal justice policy. If we understand that criminal behavior emerges from a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors, our focus naturally shifts from purely punitive measures to preventive interventions that address these underlying influences. This might include everything from environmental toxin regulation to early childhood nutrition programs to stress reduction interventions in high-risk communities [40].

Nova: That’s interesting—let’s dig deeper into one of those factors. Given the recent advances in understanding how gut microbes influence behavior, do you think this will impact how courts approach criminal responsibility?

Dr. Mishra: You’ve touched on what I find to be one of the most fascinating aspects of this expanded understanding of neurolaw we were just discussing. The microbiome-brain connection, which you introduced me to during our recent collaboration, really exemplifies how we need to think beyond simple brain structure to understand behavior. I think, it’s quite remarkable—these trillions of microorganisms in our gut aren’t just passive passengers; they’re actively producing neurotransmitters, modulating inflammation, and significantly impacting how we think and feel through what we call the gut-brain axis [41].

This research really challenges our traditional legal thinking about behavior and responsibility. We were talking earlier about how courts typically operate on that “rational actor” model—assuming people make purely conscious, deliberate choices. But when we discover that gut bacteria can influence everything from serotonin levels affecting our mood to dopamine impacting our reward-seeking behavior and GABA controlling our impulses [42], it forces us to reconsider what we mean by conscious decision-making.

Let me give you an example that builds on what we were discussing about environmental factors: Imagine a case where someone exhibits uncharacteristically aggressive behavior. The traditional legal analysis would focus solely on their mental state during the offense. But what if we could demonstrate a clear pathway where severe gut dysbiosis led to increased inflammation, compromised their blood-brain barrier function, and altered their neurotransmitter levels? This kind of biological cascade could significantly impact their capacity for emotional regulation and decision-making.

Now, this doesn’t mean we should simply start excusing criminal behavior based on microbiome evidence—that would be too simplistic. Instead, I believe we need to develop what I might call a “biological jurisprudence” that integrates these insights while maintaining meaningful standards of responsibility. This actually connects back to our earlier discussion about rehabilitation approaches. If we understand that dysregulated gut-brain communication can contribute to antisocial behavior, we might incorporate interventions targeting the microbiome [43] alongside traditional rehabilitation programs.

What excites me most about this research is its potential for prevention. Understanding how early-life factors—including diet, stress, and antibiotic use—shape both our microbiome and subsequent behavior could help us develop more effective preventive approaches. Rather than waiting to address criminal behavior after it occurs, we could work to promote healthier biological systems that support better decision-making and emotional regulation.

This really ties back to what we were saying about neurolaw’s broader implications—it’s not just about using biological evidence in courtrooms, but about fundamentally reimagining how we approach justice and rehabilitation based on our growing understanding of human biology.

Nova: Your work is deeply interdisciplinary, bridging law, neuroscience, psychology, and even contemplative traditions. Could you elaborate on some of your current research interests?

Dr. Mishra: My work is indeed deeply interdisciplinary, and I find immense value in drawing connections between law, neuroscience, psychology, and contemplative traditions. Currently, I am particularly focused on three major areas.

I’m deeply engaged in exploring interconnected areas that build on our earlier discussion about neurolaw and rehabilitation. The first focuses on what I consider the foundational question in neurolaw: the neuroscience of free will and moral responsibility. This isn’t just an abstract philosophical inquiry—it has profound practical implications for our justice system. As we were discussing earlier regarding the influence of gut microbes and other biological factors, we’re discovering that human decision-making is far more complex than traditional legal frameworks assume. My research examines how we can reconcile this growing understanding of unconscious neural processes with a justice system predicated on individual responsibility [44]

The second area extends from my work with Vipassana meditation in criminal rehabilitation. I’m investigating how ancient Indian contemplative practices—including mindfulness, mantra japa, and various forms of meditation—can be meaningfully integrated into modern rehabilitative justice. This research is particularly exciting because it bridges the gap between traditional wisdom and contemporary neuroscience. We’re finding that these ancient practices have measurable effects on brain structure and function, particularly in areas related to emotional regulation and decision-making [45].

The third focus of my research examines the ethical and legal implications of artificial intelligence [46] in forensic decision-making. This might seem like a departure from the other areas, but it actually connects deeply with questions of human cognition and responsibility. As AI systems become more prevalent in forensic contexts [47], we need to carefully consider how they impact human autonomy and the fundamental nature of judicial reasoning. This involves understanding both the technological capabilities and the cognitive processes of human decision-makers.

To deepen my engagement with these questions, particularly where they intersect with cognitive abilities, mental health and behavior, I’m currently pursuing a master’s degree in clinical psychology. This additional training allows me to better understand the practical implications of my research, especially in forensic settings [48]. It’s fascinating how clinical insights can inform our understanding of legal responsibility and rehabilitation potential.

All these research streams ultimately converge on a central question: How can we create a more effective and humane justice system that reflects our growing understanding of human behavior and consciousness? Whether we are examining neural processes, contemplative practices, or artificial intelligence, the goal is to bridge the gap between scientific insights and practical legal applications [49].

Nova: Given the global scope of your interdisciplinary research, what key policy changes would you advocate for to foster a more just and effective legal system?

Dr Mishra: A significant shortcoming of many modern legal systems is their often rigid and mechanistic approach to justice, where retribution sometimes overshadows the potential for transformation and rehabilitation. Both neuroscience and Indian spiritual traditions offer a compelling alternative: a justice system that acknowledges the intricate complexity of human cognition, actively integrates rehabilitative practices, and prioritizes inner transformation alongside accountability.

I would passionately advocate for three areas of international, cross-cultural research and policy development.

• The development of holistic legal frameworks: Here, the idea is to deeply integrate insights from science, law, and philosophy, with the aim of promoting the development of legal policies and practices are viewed through a holistic lens. This approach should recognize that human behavior is not simply a biological phenomenon but arises from a dynamic and complex interplay of biology, environment, and deep existential awareness. To a large degree, my emphasis here in legal frameworks is aligned with a similar shift in medicine and healthcare, and the increased adoption of a whole person health model [50,51]. The whole person health model moves away from a purely reductionist model, and the view that all persons are the same. Holistic legal frameworks require a personalized approach to outcomes, with an understanding of the individual across multiple domains—social, biological, behavioral, and environmental.
• The establishment of international ethical guidelines for neuroscience in law: Despite the enthusiasm for the application of brain sciences in courts and the criminal justice system, there are risks associated with the application. For example, could neuroscience be used to unjustly confine a person? Could neuroscience be used to weaken the protection of society? As the research matures, there is an urgent need to develop robust international ethical frameworks to guide the use of neuroscientific evidence in legal contexts, ensuring that such evidence is neither over-relied upon nor dismissed without due consideration.
• Integrate contemplative practices into correctional and rehabilitative programs: Here, the idea is to actively incorporate and study—with the aim of building on the existing evidence-base—various contemplative practices. This might include the use of meditation, breathwork (Pranayama), and mantra chanting, in carceral and rehabilitative settings.

Nova: Let’s expand on the idea of contemplative practices. Your recently published book, Neurolaw and Criminal Justice in India [52], champions the integration of meditation, mindfulness, and mind-body interventions into rehabilitation. What are the core arguments driving your strong advocacy for this approach?

Dr. Mishra: India has a rich cultural heritage of contemplative practices, including meditation, breathing techniques, and mantra chanting. These practices have been adopted by western cultures, sometimes modified, and often placed under the broad terms of ‘yoga’ [53], mindfulness [54], or mind-body medicine [55]. Historically, these practices are used to help individuals and groups work toward self-acceptance, self-reflection, and self-discipline.

While Western legal models often prioritize punishment, Indian wisdom traditions have long recognized that lasting reform stems from self-awareness, inner discipline, and the cultivation of cognitive mastery. Compellingly, neuroscience is now validating what our sages understood millennia ago: meditative and contemplative practices possess the remarkable ability to influence neural pathways—in popular language, rewire the brain—leading to improved impulse control, reduced aggression, and enhanced cognitive flexibility [56,57,58,59]. Moreover, there is a growing body of research demonstrating the value of contemplative practices in carceral settings, including increased self-compassion, self-esteem, ability to cope with stress, overall well-being, behavioral functioning, better sleep, lowered anxiety, fewer depressive and trauma-related symptoms, reduced substance use, and remarkably, decreased recidivism [60,61,62,63,64,65]. These interventions can be applied in group settings and in ways that are more tailored to the personalized needs of the individual [66]. The value of contemplative practices is not limited to inmates and the accused—research shows that these practices can reduce aggression among law enforcement officers [67].

I explore these arguments in detail in my new book because I think they can help inform global practices. Ancient Indian jurisprudence, particularly the Dharmaśāstras, emphasized reformative justice through self-purification and introspection [68]. Even Kautilya’s Arthashastra, often viewed as pragmatic, recognized that ethical governance relies not solely on deterrence but also on educating and rehabilitating individuals [69] Neuroscientific research provides empirical support for these ancient insights, demonstrating that meditative practices can demonstrably reduce recidivism and significantly enhance emotional regulation, fostering a genuine sense of accountability and personal transformation. It is quite amazing to see the principles of ancient Indian contemplative practices successfully applied in prisons of the deep south in the United States [70].

Nova: Why do you think there isn’t wider uptake of so-called mind-body interventions in carceral settings and justice systems as a whole? Do you think the widespread superficial commercialization of contemplative practices—referred to by some critics with the fast-food moniker of “McMindfulness” [71]—has diluted the legitimate application in vulnerable and marginalized populations?

Dr. Mishra: I think we have much work to do to raise awareness of science-based rehabilitative potential of these practices, and their value at the prevention and recidivism reduction ends of the criminal justice spectrum [72]. For years, contemplative practices have been sidelined or dismissed as a “soft science” that is relatively unserious. The application of neuroscience, as a so-called “hard science” is changing this stereotype, and this will hopefully lead to wider acceptance and uptake, especially in areas where it is really needed. That’s why I am so passionate about neurolaw in this context. That said, in Western settings, mind-body medicine and mindfulness-based interventions are often concentrated along a gradient that favors affluent populations that already enjoy multiple health-related resources [73]. It is also important to emphasize that love and compassion are at the center of this effort, and there is a need to make words such as love normative in academic discourse [74,75,76,77]. Perhaps we need to destigmatize these words and challenge the very notion that “soft science” is illegitimate. Qualitative research describes the realities of lived experiences, and this can act as a strong force that can inform neuroscience.

As excited as I am about neuroscience, it is the integration of sciences, the transdisciplinary movement based on good evidence, that will lead to significant changes in policies and practices. Therefore, advocating for the integration of such interventions into modern correctional policies is not merely about reviving ancient wisdom—it is a matter of scientific pragmatism and effective justice. The convergence of law, neuroscience, and contemplative traditions holds immense potential to reshape global criminal justice systems, making them both more humane and demonstrably more effective.

Nova: Let’s return to neurolaw as an overall field, discipline, or concept. What do you see as some of the current limitations? Like biological criminology in general, critics would say that current neuroscience cannot distinguish between offenders who show impulse control and those who do not. In other words, research might tell us that most violent offenders have underactivity of the frontal cortex and overactivity of the amygdala, yet a person with this combination might be the most law-abiding citizen, and a person with the opposite signs of neuroactivity—at least as neuroimaging might go—could act on impulse [78].

Dr Mishra: This is a crucial question that gets to the heart of neurolaw’s current challenges. While the field offers transformative potential, we must be clear-eyed about its limitations to use it responsibly in legal settings.

One major challenge is that much of our current neuroscience—especially neuroimaging—yields correlational data rather than clear, causal markers. For instance, while studies often report that violent offenders tend to exhibit underactivity in the frontal cortex coupled with overactivity in the amygdala, these neural patterns are not exclusive to individuals who engage in antisocial behavior. In fact, similar profiles may be observed in law-abiding citizens. Dr. Adrian Raine, in his seminal work The Anatomy of Violence, has even noted that he observed some of these markers in himself [79]. His reflections underscore that such neural indicators, by themselves, do not deterministically predict criminal behavior.

Adding another layer of complexity, epigenetic mechanisms play a pivotal role in shaping behavior [80]. Environmental influences—ranging from stress and nutrition to toxin exposure—can lead to epigenetic modifications that alter gene expression. These changes may either amplify or mitigate predispositions toward impulsivity and aggression, highlighting that our neurobiology is not static but dynamically interacts with our lived experiences.

These biological complexities point us toward an even deeper question about causation and behavior. While we often think of behavior as following simple cause-and-effect patterns—like Newton’s falling apple—the reality is far more complex. Just as quantum physics reveals uncertainty at the microscopic level, human behavior emerges from an intricate web of influences that can’t be reduced to simple deterministic patterns. This scientific perspective aligns remarkably well with Hindu wisdom, which teaches that we carry our sanskars—deep-seated imprints or impressions accumulated over past experiences, including karmic influences over from many lifetimes—and that both determinism and free will operate in a complementary, unified manner. Just as sanskars represent deep impressions that influence but don’t determine our actions, brain patterns suggest predispositions rather than destiny.

It is understood that ancient philosophical frameworks remain distinct from prevailing neuroscientific and neuro-microbiological theories of aggression and antisocial behavior. However, this does not mean that philosophical traditions cannot inform and enrich the unfolding neurolaw discourse. For example, emerging research indicates that interventions rooted in contemplative practices have beneficial influences on the gut microbiome [81,82]. These insights have profound practical implications for neurolaw. While we can’t use brain scans alone to predict who will or won’t show impulse control, we can use this understanding to develop more effective interventions. Mindfulness meditation and mentalization-based therapies [83], for instance, can help individuals become aware of their unconscious drives, thereby empowering them to “insert new causes” into their behavioral chain, regardless of their baseline neural activity patterns. This approach acknowledges both biological predispositions and our capacity for transformation.

By embracing the dynamic interplay between biology and environment—spanning from neural circuitry and epigenetics to contemplative insights—we can work toward legal frameworks that are not merely punitive but also rehabilitative and hopeful. The limitations of current neuroscience shouldn’t discourage us; rather, they should inspire us to develop more sophisticated, multidimensional approaches to understanding human behavior in legal contexts.

In essence, while neurolaw has made impressive strides, its current limitations demonstrate the necessity of a more integrative approach. We must move beyond simple correlations between brain patterns and behavior to understand the complex interplay of biological, environmental, and experiential factors that shape human conduct. Only by embracing this complexity can we aspire to a justice system that is both scientifically informed and deeply humane.

Nova: The much-debated concept of ‘free will’ and ideas of ‘willpower’ and blameworthiness are central to neurolaw. Do you think it is odd that courts still hold on tightly to ideas of willpower, given massive advances in neuroscience, and science in general? Consider obesity for context on antiquated notions of willpower and “moral fiber.” Obviously, obesity does not involve criminal behavior and persons living with obesity do not represent a danger to society. However, individuals living with obesity have been, and still are, widely considered blameworthy, and forced to deal with social perceptions—consider the jury of peers here—that ‘free will’ is not being exercised properly, and there is simply a lack of willpower [84]. Modern science tells us that obesity has little to do with willpower [85], and much to do with factors such as neurobiology and the microbiome as they intersect with the environment [86]. Unprecedented rises in obesity over that last four decades do not equate to massive and sudden losses in willpower among the global population! Sapolsky, who argues that the criminal justice system needs to be overhauled and rebuilt from the ground up because free will is an illusion [87], maintains that persons who successfully lose weight, compared to individuals who struggle to lose and maintain weight loss, are indebted to their own neuroarchitecture rather than their wise application of free will [88].

Dr. Mishra: As you noted, obesity and criminal behavior are completely distinct, but the social perceptions and universal notions of free will and willpower as they relate to punishment are important. In fact, in mock trials, female defendants who are overweight or obese are more likely to be found guilty, and more likely to be presumed as a repeat offender, and overweight subjects are more likely to be considered blameworthy and punished in trials [89,90]. The question of free will is indeed central to neurolaw, and its implications are profound for both law and ethics. Historically, legal systems are fundamentally built on the assumption of free will and moral responsibility. We hold people accountable for their actions because we assume they could have chosen to act differently. This assumption underpins concepts like culpability, intent, and punishment.

However, neuroscience is increasingly revealing the extent to which our choices and actions are influenced by unconscious neural processes, brain structures, genetics, and environmental factors. If our actions are, to a significant degree, determined by factors outside of our conscious control, it raises fundamental questions:

• Can we truly be held morally and legally responsible for our actions if free will is an illusion or significantly constrained?
• Does neuroscience undermine the very basis of retributive justice, which relies on the idea of deserved punishment based on freely chosen wrongdoing?
• How should legal systems adapt if our understanding of free will shifts due to neuroscientific evidence?

These are not just abstract philosophical debates. They have very real consequences for how we understand criminal behavior, assess culpability, design rehabilitation programs, and even structure our entire justice system. If neuroscience suggests that free will is more limited than traditionally assumed, it may necessitate a shift towards more rehabilitative and preventative approaches to justice, focusing on addressing the underlying causes of behavior rather than solely on punishment. It also compels us to grapple with complex ethical questions about autonomy, responsibility, and the very nature of human agency, considering our growing neuroscientific understanding of the brain.

Nova: Obviously, society has a right to protect itself. If neurolaw were to dismantle antiquated ideologies and assumptions that otherwise underpin systems of harsh punishment and retribution, what would an alternative look like? Sapolsky argues that a person who might harm society is akin to a vehicle with faulty brakes, needing to be taken off the streets for repair, and returned when the brakes are fixed. His position is that being sequestered from society is punishment enough. What are your views on the public health quarantine model?

Dr Mishra: Sapolsky’s car analogy offers an accessible entry point for understanding rehabilitation, but like many metaphors in science, it only tells part of the story. While there’s elegance in comparing behavioral rehabilitation to repairing a car’s faulty brakes, human beings present a far richer complexity. Through our work on the legalome project, we’ve discovered that behavior emerges from an intricate dance of genes, neural circuits, and environmental influences—a dynamic system that continually evolves and adapts.

What makes humans fundamentally different from mechanical systems is our remarkable capacity for neuroplasticity—our brain’s ability to reorganize itself through experience. This is not just about fixing what’s broken; it is about cultivating new neural pathways and patterns of behavior. Consider how a pianist’s brain physically changes through practice [91], or how a stroke patient can regain function through rehabilitation [92]. These examples illustrate a profound truth: our brains are not fixed machines but living organs capable of tremendous transformation.

This understanding of neuroplasticity aligns beautifully with both Frankfurt’s philosophical insights about volitional hierarchy [93] and the ancient wisdom of Buddhist contemplative traditions [94]. When we implement mindfulness practices in rehabilitation settings—as we have seen in programs like the Tihar Jail Vipassana initiative [95]—we are not merely applying an external fix. Instead, we are engaging what I call “autonomy competence”: the brain’s inherent capacity for self-regulation and metacognitive awareness [96].

What is particularly fascinating is how this approach transforms the very nature of rehabilitation. Rather than simply quarantining individuals until they are “fixed,” we create what might be thought of as neural greenhouses—environments specifically designed to nurture new patterns of thinking and being. This combines our latest understanding of brain science with time-tested contemplative practices, offering individuals tools not just for behavior management but for profound personal transformation.

The empirical evidence for this approach is compelling. Brain imaging studies show how mindfulness practices strengthen neural circuits involved in self-regulation and emotional control. But perhaps more telling are the qualitative shifts reported by participants themselves—moving from feeling controlled by their impulses to experiencing a genuine sense of agency over their actions and choices.

This brings us back to Sapolsky’s analogy, but with a crucial refinement: perhaps instead of thinking about rehabilitation as fixing faulty brakes, we might better conceptualize it as teaching someone to become their own mechanic—equipped with both the understanding and the tools to maintain their own psychological well-being. This autonomy-centered approach aligns more closely with what neuroscience tells us about the brain’s capacity for self-directed change.

Nova: There is a perception that neuroscientific evidence will let people “get away” with criminal behavior. Do juries see it that way? What does the research show?

Dr Mishra: The perception that neuroscience might provide an “escape hatch” from criminal responsibility is both common and understandable. However, recent research reveals a far more nuanced reality about how neuroscientific evidence influences judicial outcomes.

Recent studies using mock juries demonstrate an important tension in the application of neuroscientific evidence in sentencing decisions. For example, one recent study shows that the interpretation of neuroscientific evidence is dependent upon whether one views incarceration as primarily punitive or rehabilitative. If the goal of sentencing is deterrence, then neuroscientific evidence suggesting diminished culpability may be dismissed; however, if rehabilitation is the focus, such evidence becomes highly relevant in shaping sentencing outcomes [97]. This study underscores the ongoing challenge of integrating scientific insights into legal reasoning without undermining public perceptions of justice.

The work of Stinnett and Alquist [98] builds on this discourse by examining how knowledge of brain abnormalities affects perceptions of free will and moral responsibility. Their study found that when individuals were informed that a brain tumor influenced a defendant’s actions, they were significantly more lenient in recommending punishment. This finding raises profound questions about the legal system’s reliance on cognitive and moral attributions—how much of criminal behavior should be excused due to biological factors? And more importantly, where should the law draw the line between neurological determinism and personal accountability? These debates align closely with classical Indian philosophical perspectives on karma and moral agency, which acknowledge both predisposition and self-effort in human behavior.

Looking at these studies together reveals something crucial: neuroscientific evidence does not function as a simple “get out of jail free” card. Instead, it prompts a more sophisticated dialogue about responsibility, culpability, and the purposes of punishment. When jurors encounter such evidence, they do not typically abandon notions of responsibility altogether [99]. Rather, they engage in a more nuanced evaluation [100] that considers both biological influences and personal agency—much like the ancient wisdom traditions that recognized both deterministic and volitional aspects of human behavior.

This complexity suggests that as our understanding of the brain deepens, the legal system would not collapse into excuse-making, but rather evolve toward a more refined and evidence-based approach to justice. The challenge lies not in whether to consider neuroscientific evidence, but in how to integrate it thoughtfully into our existing frameworks of moral and legal responsibility.

Nova: Looking ahead, where do you see the field of neurolaw heading in the next 5–10 years? What are you most excited about exploring in your own research as the field evolves?

Dr Mishra: The field of neurolaw is poised for significant growth and transformation in the coming years. I anticipate several key trends:

• Increased Precision in Neuroscience: Advances in neuroimaging, genetics, and computational neuroscience will likely lead to more refined and nuanced understandings of brain-behavior relationships, which will have profound implications for legal contexts.
• Focus on Prevention and Rehabilitation: I believe we will see greater emphasis on using neurolaw insights to develop more effective preventative and rehabilitative strategies within the justice system, moving beyond solely punitive approaches. This aligns with the growing understanding of neuroplasticity and the brain’s capacity for change.
• Ethical and Regulatory Frameworks: As neuro-technologies become more sophisticated (brain-computer interfaces, neuro-interventions), there will be an urgent need to develop robust ethical and legal frameworks to govern their use, ensuring responsible innovation and preventing misuse.
• Global and Cross-Cultural Perspectives: Neurolaw has largely been developed within Western legal systems. I anticipate a growing recognition of the need to incorporate diverse cultural, philosophical, and legal perspectives, particularly from traditions like those in India, to enrich and broaden the field.

Personally, I am most excited about exploring the integration of contemplative neuroscience and legal theory. I believe that further research into the neurobiological mechanisms of mindfulness, meditation, and related practices, combined with insights from ancient wisdom traditions, can offer transformative pathways for rehabilitation, restorative justice, and a more humane approach to law. Unlocking the potential of these ancient practices through modern neuroscience to reshape our understanding of justice is a truly exciting frontier.

Nova: For someone interested in entering the field of neurolaw, perhaps a student or early career researcher, what advice would you give them in terms of skills to develop or areas to focus on?

Dr. Mishra: Neurolaw is a dynamic and intellectually stimulating field to enter. Based on advice given to me by my own mentors, and has worked for me so far, I would offer these steps:

• Build a strong interdisciplinary foundation: Cultivate a solid understanding in at least two core disciplines—law and neuroscience (or a related field like psychology or philosophy). This could mean pursuing degrees in law and science, or taking interdisciplinary courses.
• Develop critical thinking and analytical skills: Neurolaw requires rigorous analytical thinking to bridge different fields and critically evaluate complex research. Honing your skills in logic, argumentation, and scientific reasoning is essential.
• Embrace ethical inquiry: Neurolaw is inherently laden with ethical dilemmas. Develop a strong ethical compass and cultivate the ability to analyze complex ethical issues from multiple perspectives. Study ethics, philosophy, and legal theory.
• Hone communication skills: Being able to clearly and effectively communicate complex ideas across disciplines is crucial. Practice writing, presenting, and engaging in discussions with people from diverse backgrounds.
• Seek Mentorship and collaboration: Find mentors who are established in neurolaw or related interdisciplinary fields. Actively seek out collaborative research opportunities to learn from others and expand your network.
• Stay Curious and open-minded: Neurolaw is constantly evolving. Cultivate a lifelong learning mindset, stay curious about new developments in both law and neuroscience, and be open to unexpected discoveries.

Ultimately, passion, intellectual curiosity, and a genuine commitment to ethical and just outcomes are the most important qualities for success in neurolaw.

Nova: Beyond your demanding academic and research pursuits, how do you cultivate personal well-being and maintain a healthy work-life balance?

Dr Mishra: For me, true balance is intrinsically linked to the pursuit of inner understanding and self-discovery. My deepest joy and sense of equilibrium arise from my personal practices of meditation, mantra japa, and immersing myself in philosophical texts, particularly the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and classical Indian metaphysical writings. The exploration of consciousness, self-inquiry, and contemplative wisdom is not simply an intellectual pursuit for me; it is a vital and integral part of my daily life and well-being.

I also find profound solace and rejuvenation in soulful music and poetry—ancient Sanskrit verses, Indian classical compositions, and contemplative literature that resonate deeply and evoke a sense of transcendence. Occasionally, I seek out spiritual retreats and visit historic temples, places where the enduring echoes of centuries-old wisdom are palpable. Walking through these spaces serves as a powerful reminder that wisdom, like justice, is timeless—constantly evolving yet deeply rooted in the enduring human search for truth.

Nova: If you had the opportunity to reshape one aspect of the current intersection of law and neuroscience, what critical change would you prioritize and why?

Dr. Mishra: If I could affect one fundamental change, it would be to address the often overly reductionist approach that currently dominates the field of neurolaw. Far too frequently, neuroscience is utilized in a way that either inappropriately absolves individuals of responsibility by reducing them solely to neural mechanisms, or conversely, to reinforce rigid and purely punitive structures within the legal system.

However, human consciousness is not simply a byproduct of brain activity alone. It is profoundly shaped by awareness, lived experience, and deeper metaphysical dimensions that are often overlooked in purely materialistic frameworks. Cultivating a more nuanced and integration-informed legal philosophy—one that genuinely acknowledges both the invaluable insights of scientific inquiry and the profound introspective traditions of human wisdom—could pave the way for a justice system that is not only rational and evidence-based, but also fundamentally more humane and transformative in its approach.

Nova: In 1988, OMNI magazine asked well known personalities, some in science and medicine, about their own utopian thinking, or the world they would like to live in. Contemporary research on utopian thinking indicates that it can be a healthy process, increasinag both personal and social hope, yielding an abstract mindset that bridges the psychological distance between the status quo (“here and now”) and a better possible future [101,102]: What type of world would you like to live in?

Dr. Mishra: I envision a world where our societal and judicial institutions embody the profound wisdom of Mahatma Gandhi’s [103] ideal of Ram Rajya—a state where, as Goswami Tulsidas so beautifully expresses [104], no one is overwhelmed by physical, existential, or material suffering. To capture this, I offer a poetic translation of a verse by Tulsidas:

दैहिक दैविक भौतिक तापा। राम राज नहिं काहुहि ब्यापा॥

सब नर करहिं परस्पर प्रीती। चलहिं स्वधर्म निरत श्रुति नीती॥1॥

Roman Transliteration (IAST):

Daihika daivika bhautik tāpā. Rāma rāj nahiṃ kāhuhī byāpā.

Sab nara karahiṃ paraspara prītī. Calahiṃ svadharma nirata śruti nītī.

English Translation

In the realm of Ram Rajya, no mortal endures

Bodily, divine, or material woes;

For all souls dwell in mutual love, secure—

Each faithfully pursuing the duty prescribed by sacred prose.

This verse encapsulates an ideal society where every individual, freed from undue suffering, lives in harmony with others by adhering to a higher ethical order. What makes this vision particularly compelling in our time is how it aligns with our growing scientific understanding of human behavior and transformation. Through my research in neurolaw and contemplative practices, I’ve seen how this ancient wisdom finds validation in modern neuroscience.

Imagine a criminal justice system that fully embraces what neuroscience teaches us about the brain’s remarkable plasticity—a system that recognizes, as we discussed earlier, that behavior emerges from an intricate interplay of neural circuits, gut microbiota, environmental factors, and conscious awareness. Prisons would be reimagined as centers of transformation where, through practices like Vipassana meditation, individuals develop what we earlier discussed as “autonomy competence”—the capacity to understand and regulate their own mental states. This approach recognizes that true rehabilitation requires not merely behavioral modification but a profound shift in consciousness, empowering people to move from being controlled by their impulses to becoming stewards of their own transformation.

This vision extends beyond justice reform to redefine our entire understanding of human behavior and responsibility. Contemporary neurolaw reveals that our actions emerge from an intricate dance of biological, environmental, and conscious factors—from the microbiome-gut-brain axis we discussed to the neural circuits shaped by early life experiences. Such insights do not diminish responsibility but call for a more sophisticated approach to accountability—one that respects both our inherent constraints and our capacity for change. Just as modern medicine has evolved beyond viewing disease as moral failure, our legal system can transcend simplistic blame to embrace evidence-based, compassionate rehabilitation.

Central to this vision is the ancient Upanishadic principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam—the understanding that the whole world is one family [105]. This ancient principle of universal interconnectedness finds remarkable validation not only in contemporary planetary health science but also in emerging research on collective trauma and societal healing. The growing evidence that trauma and healing can transmit across generations and communities suggests that transforming our justice system could have far-reaching effects on public health and societal well-being. When we recognize that an individual’s neural health is inseparable from their gut microbiome, their social environment, and their contemplative practices, we begin to see how personal transformation ripples outward to affect the entire community.

In essence, I envision a world that bridges apparent opposites—scientific determinism and human agency, individual responsibility and collective healing, modern precision and timeless wisdom. It’s a future where justice serves not merely as a mechanism for maintaining order but as a pathway toward collective flourishing. This vision isn’t about creating a perfect society but about approaching human fallibility with wisdom, compassion, and evidence-based hope for transformation—moving ever closer to realizing the ideal of Ram Rajya, where profound love and ethical living form the bedrock of a harmonious society.

3. Conclusions

In conclusion, this interview has illuminated how neurolaw serves as a transformative bridge between ancient wisdom and modern science, while highlighting its crucial role in addressing planetary health challenges. By integrating the profound insights of contemplative traditions with cutting-edge neuroscience, neurolaw challenges conventional punitive models and paves the way for justice systems that are more equitable, rehabilitative, and humane. This interdisciplinary approach not only redefines notions of free will, responsibility, and moral accountability but also offers innovative strategies for criminal justice reform—strategies that recognize human behavior as the product of complex interactions among neural processes, genetic predispositions, environmental influences, and deep-seated cultural values.

The promise of neurolaw extends far beyond the courtroom. By aligning legal frameworks with holistic principles that emphasize inner transformation and collective well-being, neurolaw contributes fundamentally to the broader agenda of planetary health. Recent research in epigenetics and transgenerational trauma demonstrates how the effects of justice systems ripple through generations and communities, suggesting that transformative approaches to justice could have far-reaching implications for public health and societal resilience. The emerging science of neuroplasticity and contemplative practices provides empirical support for rehabilitation strategies that can break cycles of trauma and foster collective healing.

In recognizing the intricate connections between individual neurobiology, collective well-being, and environmental factors, neurolaw emerges as a crucial component of planetary health. Its emphasis on holistic understanding and transformative justice aligns with broader efforts to address the interconnected challenges of human and planetary flourishing. In a world where individual and societal health are inextricably linked, this integrated vision of justice supports a future where human flourishing is nurtured at every level—from personal rehabilitation to global sustainability.

Ultimately, neurolaw invites us to reimagine our systems of justice as dynamic, evidence-based pathways toward a more compassionate and interconnected world. By bridging scientific understanding with timeless wisdom, it offers a framework for addressing not only individual criminal behavior but also the broader challenges of creating sustainable, just, and healthy societies. This convergence of neuroscience, law, and contemplative wisdom points toward a future where justice serves not merely as a mechanism for maintaining order but as a catalyst for positive transformation at both individual and planetary scales.