Neuroscience could be considered unethical if the benefits are not real or actually go on to create more complications
Neuroscientists claim to be able to locate consciousness in the brain

This raises implications about whether individuals in a persistent vegetative state should have care withdrawn
There is doubt about the soundness of the evidence as it is derived from the case study of one abnormal brain in a person suffering from severe epilepsy
Although neuroscientists may link criminal behaviours to neurological imbalances

Many see crime as a response to the social context
Even if there is a neurological basis to criminal behaviour, there is the question about whether it is acceptable to include mandatory neurological interventions for prisoners
Martha Farah (2004) argues that, if courts use neurological interventions, it signals the denial of an individual's freedom, something that even prisoners have not been denied previously
A court may offer a convicted criminal the choice of a prison term or a course of medication, introducing the ethical issue of implicit coercion - the criminal is left with very little choice about medication
Cohen Kadosh et al warn of ethical limitations to TDCS technology - there are no training or licensing rules for practitioners, which could lead to poorly qualified clinicians administering ineffective or even harmful treatments
Although comparatively cheap, TDCS apparatus is not available to everyone, so it may not be fair to allow some individuals to benefit from a treatment not available to all
There is a difference between traditional market research and neuromarketing - neuromarketing has access to our inner thoughts, potentially allowing advertisers to manipulate our free will
Currently neuromarketing firms are not obliged to abide by ethical codes of practice, and Nelson (2006) found that 5% of the brain scans recorded by marketing firms produced incidental findings that they were not obliged to report
