Brainstorming at Will

Scientists, economists and lawyers find themselves on the same page at a USC conference – striving for a better future in their fields of expertise.

—By Suzanne Wu
 
Neuroscientists, economists and lawyers from USC and other top research institutions gathered in Kerckhoff Hall May 14-15 to brainstorm about studies that might lead to better laws and a more innovative economy.

Prof. Gillian Hadfield directs  the Southern California  Innovation Project

“Any fundamental research on decision-making, which includes the study of the underlying brain mechanisms that are involved, will eventually have an impact on the design of incentives, policies and laws,” said Isabelle Brocas, an economist at USC and co-director of the Theoretical Research in Neuroeconomic Decision-Making Institute.

“At this early stage, the objective of this type of conference is to develop interest in such studies by generating discussions on future potential applications,” Brocas added.

The two-day discussion at sessions such as “Social Interactions and Social Pressure” and “Formation and Evolution of Beliefs” soon got personal, veering into talk of eating habits, curiosity, retirement plans and – this being Los Angeles – driving.

“You don’t usually find scientists, economists and lawyers talking together about the same topic,” said Gillian Hadfield, director of the Southern California Innovation Project and professor at the USC Gould School of Law. “I think people will find that we can enrich the research agenda of all these disciplines with this kind of cross-pollination.”

In the first session of the two-day “Law, Economics and Neuroscience: Implications for Innovation” symposium, Brocas presented her paper, “Reason, emotion and information processing in the brain,” co-authored by USC economist Juan Carrillo, with Hadfield as the person discussing it.

The next session featured USC psychologist Julian Jamison and Harvard University economist David Laibson, both of whom presented research about decisions that involve the future.

Jamison showed that the part of the brain associated with empathy is triggered when we think about our future selves. In other words, we tend to think of our future selves as other people, and this may explain why we so readily do things – like reach for another slice of cake – that may harm our future selves down the road.

James Spindler of the USC Law, an expert in corporate finance, opened the discussion of Laibson’s research.

Later in the day, USC Law visiting professor Mat McCubbins presented research about trust and the use of electroencephalograph (EEG) technology in the session “The neural basis of choice.”

In the same session, Dan Simon of USC Law discussed a study by Alan Sanfey of the University of Arizona in which male participants looked at pairs of female faces and were asked to choose the more attractive face.

On the second day of the symposium, Simon Wilkie, executive director of the USC Center for Communication Law and Policy, offered a supporting anecdote for self-delusion research by MIT economist Drazen Prelec, showing that some people’s brains release dopamine as a reward for confirming contradictory beliefs.

By way of explaining his tardiness, Wilkie noted that on the way to the conference, taking a popular shortcut, he had deluded himself into believing that the police had abandoned their usual speed trap.

In addition, Hadfield and Tom Lyon of USC Law were panelists in the plenary session about possible future intersections of law, economics and neuroscience.

The symposium was sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the Southern California Innovation Project at USC, the Theoretical Research in Neuroeconomic Decision-Making Institute at USC and the USC Center for Communication Law and Policy.