NEUROETHICS: The Dilemmas of Brain Science
- Marcela Emilia Silva do Valle Pereira Ma Emilia
- Sep 9
- 7 min read
🧠 Neuroethics: The Dilemmas of Brain Science
The human brain is the most complex organ we know. Studying how it works has brought us extraordinary advances — from treatments for neurological diseases to technologies that allow us to control machines with thought. But, along with progress, dilemmas also arise: how far can we (or should we) go when we talk about manipulating, improving, or even “reading” the human brain?
It is at this point that neuroethics is born, a field that unites neuroscience, philosophy, and bioethics to reflect on the limits and responsibilities of brain science. Its discussions revolve around how discoveries about the brain impact morality, freedom, privacy, justice, and identity, as well as regulate the use of neurotechnologies.
🔬 What is neuroethics
Neuroethics is a multidisciplinary field that explores the ethical, legal, and social implications of discoveries and technologies in neuroscience. It combines principles of ethics, philosophy, neuroscience, and other areas to address complex issues that arise with advances in the study and manipulation of the brain.
Neuroethics can be understood in two large complementary dimensions:
The neuroscience of ethics: seeks to understand how the brain makes moral decisions. Which regions are activated when we judge a situation as fair or unfair? What happens neurally when we choose to help or punish someone? Researchers such as Joshua Greene and Jonathan Haidt have been investigating for years how morality is rooted in brain circuits.
The ethics of neuroscience: analyzes the social and ethical impacts of discoveries and technologies that come from neuroscience. If we can alter a person’s mood with deep brain stimulation, to what extent is this treatment and to what extent is it manipulation? What to do when technologies that expand cognitive capacities are available only to a few? In general, it examines the moral implications of using techniques such as neuroimaging, brain stimulation, psychopharmacology, and brain-computer interfaces.
According to Illes & Racine (2005), neuroethics is “the study of the ethical, legal, and social dilemmas that arise when neuroscience is applied to the individual and to society.” In other words, it is the necessary reflection in the face of the speed of advances.
However, there is also the perspective of neuroethics applied to neuroscience, that is, the ethical issues that arise directly from neuroscientific research and practices, such as experiments, technologies, and interventions in the brain.
⚖️ Main dilemmas
Experts in neuroethics who study neuroscience focus on how the techniques, experiments, and technologies that investigate or manipulate the brain raise ethical dilemmas.In this case, neuroethics puts us face to face with questions that challenge both science and philosophy:
• Free will x determinism: Experiments such as those of Benjamin Libet (1980s) and John-Dylan Soon (2008) showed that the brain “decides” even before we are aware of the decision. The specialist Patricia Churchland includes that this impacts ethical and legal concepts, such as responsibility for actions.
The ethical questions revolve around: if behaviors are determined by the brain, how to assign blame or merit to someone? And how to avoid neuroscience being used to justify discriminations (e.g., criminal brain)?
• Neurotechnologies: Brain-machine interfaces, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), deep brain stimulation, and even neurochips already allow altering brain functions. These resources can treat diseases such as Parkinson’s or resistant depression, but they also raise the risk of manipulation or military use. Adina Roskies warns about the issue that techniques such as fMRI and EEG allow mapping brain activity and that this can lead to the “reading” of thoughts or mental states, threatening mental privacy.
Indeed, fMRIs are currently already used to detect lies and intentions, even though the data are inaccurate and may be misinterpreted.
So, to what extent is it ethical to use neuroimaging in courts to assess intentions or mental sanity? Is there a way to protect brain data against misuse by companies or governments?
• Mental privacy: Studies with fMRI and artificial intelligence algorithms are beginning to decode brain patterns associated with images, words, and even intentions. What happens to the notion of privacy if our thoughts can be read?
• Cognitive enhancement: Substances such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) and modafinil, used to treat ADHD or sleep disorders, are also consumed by healthy people in search of “better performance” in studies or at work, memory, or focus — that is, to improve cognition. This generates ethical dilemmas about equality of access, social coercion, and health risks. More than that, would this be a form of “brain doping”?
Would it then be fair to allow the use of nootropics in exams or academic competitions? Or would these tests require anti-doping exams?
• Justice and responsibility: Moral decisions have biological bases, such as brain circuits linked to emotions and empathy, and this, as well as brain anomalies (e.g., tumors or lesions), can influence criminal behaviors. If brain exams show dysfunctions in areas of impulse control in criminals, how should this impact legal judgments? Can (or should) neuroscience change our notion of guilt and responsibility? Would this be a justification to reduce a defendant’s guilt?
• Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs): Technologies such as brain implants that allow users improvements in mobility, diseases, and even a return to physical independence, but that somehow still connect the brain to computers. Specialists such as Hank Greely warn about the risks of neural hacking that could lead to loss of autonomy or external manipulation.
The ethical question is who controls this data and what these technologies are doing inside people’s brains? Is it possible to ensure that these technologies will not be or are not being used for coercion, surveillance, or manipulation?
💼 Questionable Potential Corporate Benefits
With significant discussions about the use of neurotechnology to increase company profits, debates about potential benefits, such as improving employee productivity or optimizing business decisions, can be seen as competitive innovation, especially in the technology or finance sectors.
However, on the other hand, neuroethics warns that the commercial use of these tools may prioritize profit over human well-being.
Although these discussions are interdisciplinary, involving neuroscientists, philosophers, and jurists, for example, they emphasize questions of how the manipulation of these neuroscientific tools must be carried out responsibly to avoid serious human violations:
• Regarding Mental Privacy and Surveillance
Companies could monitor or influence employees’ or consumers’ thoughts or preferences via neural data, such as preference signals, to maximize sales or productivity without their consent, through marketing campaigns that exploit cognitive biases. UNESCO highlights that this may undermine democracies by allowing political or behavioral influence for profit.
• Regarding Social Inequality and Access
Access to these technologies is limited to wealthy companies or elite employees, expanding economic disparities. Thus, cognitive enhancement would be exclusive to a wealthier class, potentially creating unnecessary conflicts and discrimination.
• Regarding Autonomy and Coercion in the Workplace
Employers could pressure employees to use neurotechnologies to “optimize” performance, blurring the line between work and personal life. This raises questions about power asymmetry.
• Regarding Impact on Investments and Regulation
Recent discussions, much in focus this year, explore how neuroethics influences investments in neurotech, encouraging companies to adopt responsible practices to avoid legal or reputational risks. Organizations such as UNESCO and IEEE advocate global frameworks for governance, including protection of neuro-rights and regulation to prevent commercial abuses.
In short, all data and use depend on caution for use and interpretation. Roskies and Mograbi warn that neuroscience data are not simple, they are complex and must be used that way.
With the rapid advance of neurotechnology, neuroethics is not only gaining relevance but is here to regulate the use of these technologies. Many organizations, such as UNESCO and the World Health Organization, are not only already discussing but already have ethical guidelines to protect human rights in the use of these machines.
Series Severance, AppleTV
Severance is practically a dramatized case study in workplace ethics taken to the extreme.
Where the series hits directly on organizational ethics
Autonomy & consent: the “procedure” is decided under power asymmetry. Consent without a real alternative isn’t free consent—classic workplace‐ethics red flag.
Privacy & surveillance: total monitoring of the “work self.” Parallels with bossware, keylogging, webcam watching, and email scanning. Core question: what’s the ethical limit of tracking?
Person–work boundaries & dignity: the radical separation of memories surfaces the right to disconnect and the healthy boundary between performance and humanity.
Responsibility & accountability: if the “work self” makes decisions without the “civilian self’s” memory, who is liable for harm? This touches compliance, governance, and justice.
Cultural manipulation: rituals, infantilizing gamification, opaque punishments—textbook toxic culture and moral injury.
The neuroethics hook
Cognitive liberty: no one should be forced to alter mental functions to keep a job.
Mental privacy & “neuro-rules”: reading/editing the mind for productivity? Maximum ethical risk.
Equity & coercion: who gets access—or can refuse? Economic pressure biases the “yes.”
Real-world red flags
“Accept this 24/7 monitoring software or…”
Targets that reward presence/time (surveillance) over outcomes.
Deliberately opaque policies/processes (no one knows who decides what).
Subtle retaliation against people who question.
Good practices to avoid a corporate “Severance”
Radical transparency about any employee data collection (what/why/how long).
Data minimization + real opt-out + alternatives without penalty.
Right to disconnect and clear time boundaries.
Assess psychosocial risks (ISO 45003) as part of duty of care.
Tech Ethics Committee (HR + Legal + Security + employee reps) to approve/monitor internal tech.
Safe whistleblowing channels, no retaliation, with SLAs and audit.
🧪 Examples and studies
The ethical discussion is not abstract — there are historical cases and research that show how the brain and morality are intertwined:
• Phineas Gage (1848): the famous worker who, after an accident that damaged his frontal lobe, radically changed personality. His case paved the way to understanding the link between brain and moral behavior.
• fMRI in the judicial system: in some countries, brain imaging exams have already been considered as evidence to assess predisposition to criminal recidivism or capacity for discernment. This raises the question: how far can we trust this data for legal decisions?
• TMS and moral judgments: studies show that magnetic stimulation in certain brain areas can alter moral judgments, changing, for example, whether someone considers an action intentional or accidental. This puts into debate to what extent our ethical choices are malleable to external stimuli.
🌟 Conclusion
Neuroethics is not just an academic reflection: it is a practical necessity in the face of the speed with which brain science advances. More than asking “what can we do with the brain?”, we need to ask “what should we do?”.
Neuroethics will be fundamental to regulate the ethical use of emerging technologies, ensuring that the benefits (e.g., treatments for Alzheimer’s, depression, or brain injuries) outweigh the risks.
After all, every advance brings power, and all power requires responsibility. Neuroscience and ethics must walk together — so that discoveries bring more humanity, and not less.
📚 References and recommended readings
· Illes, J. & Racine, E. (2005). Neuroethics: defining the issues.
· Greene, J. & Haidt, J. Research on morality and brain.
· Farah, M. J. Neuroethics: An Introduction with Readings.
· Articles in Nature Reviews Neuroscience on neuroethics.
Comments