Olivier Oullier questions the commercial and judicial use of brain-scan technology to predict or judge human behaviour (Nature 483, 7; 2012). His arguments undermine a major driver of academic funding and research — its potential for commercial application. Moreover, banning the commercial use of neuroimaging could encourage government interference in the development of a promising and widely applicable tool.

Society demands benefits in return for investment in scientific research. Universities are expected to be entrepreneurial and to collaborate with industry, promote spin-offs and capitalize on intellectual property.

An emerging technology should be judged on its specificity, sensitivity and predictive value. Neuroimaging results must be assessed in their specific context, and not broadly dismissed. Functional magnetic resonance imaging used to measure motivation in response to health campaigns, for example, was found to have greater predictive value than self-reported intentions (E. B. Falk et al. J. Neurosci. 30, 8421–8424; 2010).

The technique is also able to identify paedophilial inclinations with 95% accuracy (J. Ponseti et al. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 69, 187–194; 2012). Careful investigation will establish whether or not such findings can one day be used as evidence in court.