“Neuroscience is ethical” (24)

• Para 1: ethical, understanding consciousness

  • P: one argument supporting the ethical use of neuroscience is that it provides life-changing insight into human consciousness, potentially informing morally complex decisions.

  • E: for example, Crick and Koch (1998) identified the claustrum as a potential seat of consciousness. This was supported by Koubeissi et Al. (2014), who found that electrical stimulation of this area temporarily “switched off” consciousness in a patient.

  • E: such findings may help clinicians make informed decisions about withdrawing life support for patients in a persistent vegetative state. while critics may argue this is based on a single case study, it still prevents a vital step toward understanding an elusive concept that could improve end-of-life care decisions .

  • L: therefore, the ability of neuroscience to address deeply human questions may justify its ethical use.
• Para 2: unethical, treating criminal behaviour

  • P: However, applying neuroscience to reduce criminal behaviour raises ethical concerns about autonomy and human rights.

  • E: Cherek et al. (2002) demonstrated that administering SSRIs like paroxetine reduced aggression in criminal males, suggesting that pharmacological interventions could rehabilitate offenders.

  • E: Yet, Farah (2004) argues that this infringes a person’s freedom to think and feel autonomously, even within prison. Moreover, offering medication as an alternative to prison creates implicit coercion, undermining informed consent.

  • L: this suggests that although the intentions may be to protect society, such use of neuroscience may violate ethical standards by denying individual agency and manipulating behaviour.
• Para 3: ethical, enhances cognition

  • P: neuroscience can be seen as ethical when used to enhance neurological function and benefit education.

  • E: cohen kadosh et Al. (2012) found that TDCS improved memory and problem-solving skills, suggesting practical uses for exam preparation.

  • E: in this light, the approach is no different from widely accepted cognitive enhancers like caffeine. If used safely and voluntarily, TDCS may offer opportunities for individuals to realise their potential and level the playing field for those with learning difficulties.

  • L: therefore, in contexts where the benefits are clear and risks minimised, cognitive enhancement through neuroscience can be ethically justified.
• Para 4: unethical, neuromarketing and manipulation

  • P: despite its benefits, neuroscience becomes ethically questionable when used in commercial contexts such as neuromarketing.

  • E: eye-tracking and EEG technologies can bypass social desirability bias and reveal subconscious consumer preferences, as demonstrated in Volkswagen’s “The Force” campaign.

  • E: however, Wilson et Al. (2008) argue that this allows companies to manipulate choices and undermine consumer autonomy. With no formal ethical regulations in place, marketing firms may exploit neurological data for profit, even when incidental medical findings go unreported. (Nelson, 2008)

  • L: this raises concerns about privacy, consent, and the misuse of sensitive data, making such practises ethically problematic.
• Conclusion

  In conclusion, neuroscience is neither wholly ethical nor unethical; its morality depends on how the knowledge and technology are applied. While it holds immense potential in areas such as medicine and education, ethical boundaries become blurred when interventions risk infringing on personal freedoms or manipulating behaviour. Ethical oversight and equitable access must guide its use to ensure neuroscience contributes positively and fairly to society.