Well there is actually a research journal by that very name. And that journal, Social Neuroscience, has recently honed in on topics at the very heart of ponerology. Its latest issue – Volume 8, Issue 2 – is a special issue focusing on aggression and violence.

It features an editorial entitled “The social cognitive neuroscience of aggression, violence, and psychopathy” followed by six studies that consider the links between neurological markers and responses and harmful behavior.

Here is a summary of the six studies in this special issue.

Affective startle potentiation in juvenile offenders: The role of conduct problems and psychopathic traits

• Exposed male juvenile offenders and controls to aversive sounds to compare emotion processing via measuring their startle reflexes.
• Found that juvenile offenders have fewer blinks in response to the startling sounds and the number of blinks decreases as their level of conduct disorder symptoms and psychopathic traits increases.

The neural signatures of distinct psychopathic traits

• Looked at and documented a relationship between young adults’ measures in several categories of psychopathic traits, their amygdala reactivity in response to threats and their ventral striatum reactivity in response to potential rewards.

Neural correlates of risk taking in violent criminal offenders characterized by emotional hypo- and hyper-reactivity

• Had antisocial criminals and healthy non-criminals make financial decisions involving different levels of risk while under functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).
• Found that offenders with lower emotional reactivity had less rostral anterior cingulate cortex activity than healthy people when uncertain, as well as less prefrontal cortex activity when trying to control their responses accordingly so as to make safe choices.
• This indicates that the offenders have difficulty emotionally representing uncertainty or anticipating punishment.

Vasopressin modulates neural responses during human reactive aggression

• Administered vasopressin, which is known to modulate mammalian aggressive behavior, or placebo to healthy men, who then performed in a competitive reaction time task while under fMRI.
• The men who received vasopressin displayed more activity in the right superior temporal sulcus while making decisions under threat of punishment if they lost the competition, but no behavioral differences were recognized between the two groups.

Endogenous testosterone and cortisol modulate neural responses during induced anger control

• Healthy Asian males were asked to control their anger while being insulted under fMRI monitoring to study the relationship and influence of testosterone and cortisol levels.
• Found that testosterone level correlated positively with dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and thalamus activity when cortisol levels were low, but not when cortisol levels were high.
• Also found greater functional connectivity between the amygdala and a top-down prefrontal cortical control network while subjects tried to control their anger and that this connectivity was greatest in those with high testosterone and low cortisol.
• All of this suggests a possible mechanism where testosterone and cortisol modulate anger control neurally.

Asymmetry in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and aggressive behavior: A continuous theta-burst magnetic stimulation study

• Randomly applied vs. did not apply continuous theta-burst magnetic stimulation (cTBS), an inhibitory procedure, to study the role of the right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) – which typically help inhibit impulse control – in aggression. After real or sham cTBS application, subjects engaged in a monetary task designed to assess proactive and reactive aggression.
• Found that targeting the left DLPFC with cTBS increased both proactive and reactive aggressive responses more than targeting the right, indicating the left DLPFC is more involved in modulating aggression.

As the introductory editorial describes, this issue is a reflection of the shift in the mid-90’s from a focus on attentional differences in the aggressive and psychopathic to a focus on their neurobiological and emotional dysfunctions, even though attentional differences also play an important role. It says the included studies, as a whole, demonstrate three themes:

1. “That there are different neurobiological risk factors for an increased risk for aggression and antisocial behavior.” – The risk factors associated with psychopathy differ from those associated with threat/frustration based reactive aggression, for example.
2. A relationship between reinforcement processing – processing of potential risk and rewards – and psychopathy
3. A potential relationship between brain areas associated with top-down attention and response control and “an increased risk for predominantly reactive aggression.”

Are there any biological markers by which we can identify people likely to harm others?

For example, as Dylan Stableford of Yahoo News puts it:

Can you spot evil in an X-ray?

Stableford’s article, entitled “‘Dark Patch’ Visible in Brain Scans of Killers and Rapists, Neurologist Claims,” tells of University of Bremen neurologist Dr. Gerhard Roth’s claim that, indeed, we can.

In fact, Roth claims to have identified “the region of the brain where evil is formed and where it lurks.”

Roth, who studied violent convicted offenders on behalf of the German government, consistently found a dark mass – which he calls an “evil patch” – near the front of the brain on the X-rays of those with violent criminal records.

Some find it difficult to believe that harmful behavior can often be traced to brain deficiencies. To them, Roth points out – as I have also pointed out in my writing – that conditions like psychopathy, marked by callousness and aggression, can be mimicked by clearly organic neurological conditions such as precisely located brain tumors. To further reinforce the point, Roth describes how in some of these cases, once the tumor is removed, the person’s behavior returns to normal.

If we can accept that a tumor or other injury in a certain location in the brain can have such an effect – and I believe that most of us can – then why should it be hard to believe that a similar effect can be observed in someone with a deficiency in that same brain area due to some other cause, whether genetic or developmental?

To date, I haven’t heard anyone bold enough to claim that we can predict with 100% certainty that someone will act out in violent or harmful ways just from their brain scan. But, in this article, Roth is quoted as saying that he can predict with 66% probability that a young person with “developmental disorders in the lower forehead brain” will become a felon.

The article also references Dr. Kent Kiehl, a psychologist at University of Mexico, who is somewhat known within ponerology circles for his work studying brain scans of psychopaths. And it links to Jennifer Kahn’s extremely thought-provoking article, “Can You Call a 9-Year-Old a Psychopath?” which caused a stir when published in the New York Times last year.

As of this writing, Stableford’s piece has inspired over 3300 comments in just four days since its publication – once again reinforcing how drawn people are to dialogue about ponerologic topics and their profound implications.