Abstract

The amount of neuroimaging evidence introduced in courts continues to increase. Meanwhile, neuroimaging research is in the midst of a reproducibility crisis, as many published findings appear to be false positives. The problem is mostly due to small sample sizes, lack of direct replications, and questionable research practices. There are concerns that a significant proportion of neuroimaging evidence introduced in court may therefore be unreliable. Guidelines governing the admissibility of scientific evidence—Frye and Daubert—are not designed to weed out such data. We propose supplementing Frye and Daubert with minimal reproducibility criteria that allow judges to make informed admissibility decisions about neuroimaging research. To demonstrate how this could work, we subjected functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) findings on psychopathy—evidence that has been admitted in court—to a minimal reproducibility test. A systematic PRISMA search found 64 relevant studies but no sufficiently powered, directly replicated evidence of a psychopathy-related neurobiological profile. This illustrates two things: (a) the probability of false positives in this data set is likely to be unacceptably high and (b) the reproducibility of similar neuroimaging evidence can be evaluated in a straightforward way. Our findings suggest an urgent need to modify admissibility guidelines to exclude low-quality neuroimaging data.