Radiolab: "Revising the Fault Line"

Date: June 27, 2017
Hosts: Jad Abumrad, Robert Krulwich
Producer/Reporter: Pat Walters
Special Guest: Robert Sapolsky, Stanford neuroscientist

Overview

This episode of Radiolab re-examines a prior story about "Kevin" (not his real name), a man whose life was upended by a catastrophic event: after brain surgery for epilepsy, he developed uncontrollable impulses that led him to commit a serious crime. The episode dives into questions of blame, free will, neuroscience, and justice, ultimately challenging how and why we assign moral responsibility. After revisiting the original story, Jad, Robert, and guest neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky debate whether our concept of blame can withstand modern brain science.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Kevin and Janet’s Story: From Epilepsy to Accusation

• [01:20–15:00]
  • Introduction of Kevin and Janet: Kevin (alias) and Janet recount their courtship after Kevin’s epilepsy and failed brain surgery rendered him unable to drive.
  • Kevin’s Medical History: Kevin’s epilepsy led to two brain surgeries which at first seemed successful, even allowing him to preserve his love of music (he sang during the surgery to prevent loss of musical ability) ([11:18]).
  • Post-surgery Behavioral Changes: After the second surgery, Kevin’s appetite, sexual drive, and time spent on the piano dramatically increased. “It just was odd. It was not him normally, but, you know, you're like, okay.” — Janet ([13:37]).
  • Escalation: These changes eventually led to compulsive online behavior, including illegal and deeply disturbing criminal acts related to child pornography ([15:00]).

2. “I Know Who I Am. I Had No Control.”

• [16:31–18:09]
  • Kevin’s Perspective: He describes agonizing compulsion and repeated attempts to stop: “I did idiotic things that I couldn't stop myself from doing. I didn't want to do it...I couldn't help myself from going back. I'm not an idiot...But I know I had no control.” — Kevin ([17:15]).
  • Court Argument: At sentencing, Kevin and his neurologist, Dr. Orrin Devinsky, argued it was the result of Kluver-Bucy syndrome, a neurological condition caused by the removal of a brain region that moderates impulses.

3. Neuroscience on Trial

• [18:31–23:02]
  • Expert Testimony: Dr. Devinsky testifies that “This could be anybody. This could be those agents judged. This could be you. This could be me. And we would have no control over what we did.” ([18:34]).
  • Counterpoint (Prosecution): Prosecutor Lee Vartan questions the logic, pointing to the lack of criminal material on Kevin’s work computer as evidence of partial control: “If he truly lacked impulse control, I would think you would see child pornography on both computers. And so what he argued back was, what was the lid on at work and off at home?” ([20:24]).
  • Medical Rebuttal: Dr. Devinsky explains that symptoms can be environment-dependent (as in Tourette's)—neurological inhibition is context-sensitive.

4. The Verdict and Aftermath

• [27:08–30:20]
  • Judge’s Dilemma: The judge recognizes the medical basis (“he can’t be held fully responsible for his behavior”), but also the prosecution's point about moments of control ([27:34]). Final sentence: 26 months prison, 25 months house arrest.
  • Enduring Partnership: Janet supports Kevin throughout: “I knew the route, and I had my own little routine down.” — Janet ([28:55]). Kevin now on medication, with controlled impulses, but struggles with loss of libido and the shame of his actions: “I have no libido at all, but I know who I am. I know what I am. I'm disturbed by that portion of my life, but I'm trying to move on.” — Kevin ([29:54]).

5. Sapolsky’s Radical Challenge: Free Will Under Siege

• [30:28–43:13]
  • Sapolsky’s Stance: “I'm appalled by that judicial decision and the underlying worldview.” — Sapolsky ([31:00]).
  • The Control Illusion: Sapolsky argues that fluctuating access to impulse control (e.g., based on time of day, fatigue, or context) does not imply “partial free will,” but rather reflects shifting resource allocation in the brain ([32:03]).
    • Example: Judges are more lenient after lunch; it's not ‘willpower’ but biology ([37:25]).
  • Historical Perspective: He tracks how society has gradually reattributed “moral faults” (e.g., epilepsy, schizophrenia, dyslexia) to biology as science advances, predicting that this trend will continue ([39:51]).
  • Sapolsky’s Conundrum: Despite his intellectual belief in biological determinism, emotionally and practically he struggles with a world void of agency: “...I have zero belief in free will at this point. Yet at the same time, I cannot for a second imagine what the world is supposed to look like with people believing there is no free will.” ([41:38]).

6. Blame, Punishment, and Justice — Is Society Ready?

• [43:13–50:47]
  • Robert Krulwich’s Objection: If we accept total biological determinism, doesn't this undermine our justice system and social fabric? “The deep lesson of the Kevin story is that everyone is a Kevin, all of us are Kevins all the time.” — Krulwich ([43:13])
  • Sapolsky’s Response: In a fully biological world, we would “fix the things you fix; the ones that can’t be fixed, you constrain...but you don’t invoke a concept of punishment.” ([44:31])
    • Example: Treatment-resistant epileptics can’t drive, but “you don’t sit there and say they deserve not to be able to drive.” ([45:53])
  • Moral Needs: Krulwich and Jad challenge Sapolsky on whether society needs the belief in morality, agency, and punishment for cohesion, order, or personal meaning ([47:01-49:09]).
  • Sapolsky’s Vision: He imagines future generations will look back at contemporary blame and punishment with disbelief, as outdated and cruel superstition—just as we now recoil at medieval explanations for disease ([50:05–50:37]).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

The “Switch” Moment

• “It was like flipping a switch. That’s exactly what it was. It was like, I got him back.”
  — Janet, describing Kevin’s behavior after new medication ([22:45])

On Control and Compulsion

• “I did idiotic things that I couldn’t stop myself from doing. I didn’t want to do it...I couldn’t help myself from going back.”
  — Kevin ([17:15])
• “This could be anybody. This could be those agents. This could be you. This could be me. And we would have no control over what we did.”
  — Dr. Orrin Devinsky in court ([18:34])

Sapolsky’s Biological Determinism

• “I'm appalled by that judicial decision and the underlying worldview.” — ([31:00])
• “All the things that we think are under our control, that we should control and that if we don't, we can be blamed for. One by one, all of those things are going to get chalked up to screw ups in our biology.” — ([40:44])
• “I have, like, zero belief in free will at this point. Yet at the same time, I cannot for a second imagine what the world is supposed to look like with people believing there is no free will.” — ([41:38])

Justice Without Blame?

• “You fix the things you fix; and the ones that can’t be fixed, you constrain things so the damage can’t be done, but it’s done in a way...But you don’t invoke a concept of punishment.” — Sapolsky ([44:31])

Key Timestamps and Segments

• [01:20] — Story introduction, how Kevin and Janet met
• [05:00] — Kevin’s epilepsy, first surgery, and how their relationship developed
• [11:18] — Kevin sings during surgery to preserve musical ability
• [13:36] — Post-surgery compulsions escalate
• [14:46] — Federal agents arrive
• [15:00-18:09] — Discovery, arrest, and Kevin’s account of compulsion
• [18:31-22:45] — Legal defense, brain disorder, testimony about Kluver-Bucy syndrome
• [27:08-30:20] — Verdict, aftermath, Janet’s support
• [30:28-39:51] — Sapolsky’s interview, neuroscience of volition
• [41:38-43:13] — The free will paradox
• [44:31-50:37] — Societal implications, justice, and the future of moral blame

Tone and Style

The episode weaves personal storytelling and hard science in Radiolab’s signature style: humanistic, curious, and provocative. The hosts grapple candidly, sometimes emotionally, with complex moral and philosophical questions. Sapolsky is irreverent but rigorous in his dismissal of free will, while the hosts maintain skepticism and empathy for the societal stakes.

Summary

"Revising the Fault Line" is a searching and sometimes uncomfortable exploration of blame, responsibility, and the limits of the justice system in the face of modern neuroscience. Through Kevin's tragic trajectory, the show asks: If biology can override willpower, how should society respond? The conversation, especially with Sapolsky, lays bare the tensions between what science reveals and what humans need to believe about agency and justice.

Ultimately:

“All the things that we think are under our control...are going to get chalked up to screw ups in our biology.” — Robert Sapolsky ([40:44])

But as the hosts probe, the question persists—is society ready for a justice system stripped of blame?
Radiolab leaves the dilemma open, inviting us to judge how we judge.