The Evolution of Neuroethics: A Multi-millenia Discussion
By Nicole Less
As brain-computer interface (BCI) technology and regulatory debates increasingly permeate global politics, the conversation around neuroethics remains critical. What exactly is the field of neuroethics and how have our brain-based philosophical ideas evolved? Neuroethics exists at the intersection of neuroscience, privacy, judicial legislation, consciousness, and both the biological and cultural implications of neurotechnology. While the formal terminology of neuroethics is a product of the 21st century, investigations into mind, behavior, intellectual capacities, technology, and moral responsibilities have saturated society since ancient civilizations.
Ancient Greece (circa 400-300 B.C.E.): Athenian Philosopher Plato expressed concern over humans with enhanced intellectual abilities who lacked proper training and moral guidance posing risks of tyranny and abuse. While exploring early ideas of state-controlled selective breeding, he suggested that intellect serve as a key marker of social value or state patronage to cultivate a population of intellectuals. Plato argued that rigorous education and training was necessary to prevent “gifted” citizens from acting with hubris (Horan, 2008a). He grappled with the idea that even a philosopher, a person with specialized knowledge or intellect, must exercise self-control to ensure knowledge be pursued free of self-importance (Horan, 2008b).
Ancient Rome (circa 8th century B.C.E. – 5th century C.E.): Greek born physician and philosopher Galen rejected Aristotle’s cardiocentric model in favor of the brain at the center of consciousness, perception, and personal identity (Freemon, 1994). Concurrently, Roman legislators and philosophers began considering mental soundness, impulse control, and emotional regulation when assessing criminal accountability (Benincasa and Nowak, 2023). Their practices anticipated contemporary legal principles and criteria for evaluating mental fitness to stand trial (Geetika, 2024). Modern neuroethics examine how neurological and psychiatric health may impact a perpetrators decision-making and are therefore crucial for consideration when determining both punishment and rehabilitation options.
Islamic Golden Age (10-11th Centuries): Ibn Sina (known as Avicenna in the West), one of history’s most important physicians and philosophers, raised critical questions of neurological dysfunction, injury, and personality distortion. His encyclopedic texts served as the foundation of medical understanding in the Middle East and Medieval Europe. His remarkably advanced work validated the brain’s susceptibility to injury and the subsequent consequences of impaired cognitive facilities (Masic, 2012). His theories were used for hundreds of years continuously to evaluate and understand cognitive well-being.
Medieval Times (14-15th Centuries): Christian theologians frequently interpreted irrationality, madness, or sinful behavior as evidence of spiritual possession or demonic influence (Bailey, 2006). Without scientific models of psychology or neurology, religious frameworks equated mental disturbance with moral or spiritual corruption, identifying unusual behavior as an external force that obstructed human will and therefore couldn’t be met with the legal system (Smith, 1985; The Tertullian project 2025).
United States of America (19th Century): Phrenology, a racially motivated pseudoscience that claimed to measure human intelligence via skull shape and size, distorted and weaponized early understandings of neurology to justify eugenic ideologies and reinforce inequitable social hierarchies (Luchett, 2022). The latter half of the 1800s witnessed the rise of psychiatric interventions including electric shock therapy and lobotomy surgeries for individuals exhibiting mental illness or merely defying social norms and hegemonic expectations (Caruso and Sheehan, 2017).
Nazi Germany (1945-1946): During World War II, Nazi physicians conducted brutal, unethical experiments on concentration camp prisoners under the guise of refining psychosurgery techniques and identifying supposed neuropathological mechanisms in a (futile) attempt validate racial inferiority (Loewenau and Weindling, 2016).
United States of America (1970s): Controversial psychological studies such as the Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram Shock Experiment challenged perceptions of authority, morality, and compliance in a hierarchical structure (Haslam and Reicher, 2012). These experiments sparked poignant debates around human subject research, informed consent, and the lasting psychological impact on voluntary participants.
Global (Late-20th century–Present): As neurological knowledge advances, complex and ambiguous questions around brain-dead individuals, medically induced comas, and vegetative states raise pressing ethical dilemmas for both medical professionals and affected families (Colby 2006).
San Francisco (2002-Present): The first official Conference of Neuroethics held in San Francisco attracted scientists, philosophers, physicians, and legal experts to discuss neurological device interventions, protective legislation, and emerging commercial interests (Moreno et al., 2017). Neuroethics publications, global societies, and broader discussions continue to track and evaluate how to best implement neurotechnology safely, equitably, and responsibly–integrating neuroscience and public policy into societal frameworks.
Unique and often unsettling cases that unearth ethical blind spots in neuroscience understandings continue to challenge established assumptions across disciplines. For instance, Chinese surgeons claim to have successfully performed a human head transplant between cadavers with successful reconnection of the spinal cord–a feat following their successful transplant on live rats who survived almost 36 hours after surgery (Kirkey, 2017). In another notable case, a 40-year-old man abruptly developed overwhelming pedophilic desires which sent him to a doctor who identified an egg-sized tumor pressing against his frontal lobe. Following surgical removal of the mass, his compulsive behavior completely disappeared, raising questions about identity, culpability, and neurological determinism (Burns & Swerdlow, 2003).
Neuroethics remains a continuously evolving discourse predated by ancient philosophers who wrestled with the same concerns of advancing technology, medical understandings, and the preservation of moral codes. While our technical understandings of the body and brain have advanced dramatically, ethical gray areas of principles such as autonomy persist. In an era of unprecedented technological capabilities often intertwined with commercial interests, the field of neuroethics is essential to maintain safe, just, human-centered solutions.
What would you like to read about next? Let us know here!
~~~
Written by Nicole Less
Edited by Liza Chartampila, Alvi Khan, and William Mills
~~~
Works Cited
Bailey, Michael D. “Magic and Impotence in the Middle Ages.” Social History of Medicine, vol. 19, no. 3, 1 Dec. 2006, pp. 557–558, https://doi.org/10.1093/shm/hkl060.
Benincasa, Zuzanna, and Maria Nowak. “Outline of the Legal Situation of Persons with Mental Disabilities (Furiosi) in Roman Law.” Routledge EBooks, 21 Nov. 2023, pp. 47–60, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003463016-5.
Burns, Jeffrey M., and Russell H. Swerdlow. “Right Orbitofrontal Tumor with Pedophilia Symptom and Constructional Apraxia Sign.” Archives of Neurology, vol. 60, no. 3, 1 Mar. 2003, p. 437, jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/783830.
Caruso, James P., and Jason P. Sheehan. “Psychosurgery, Ethics, and Media: A History of Walter Freeman and the Lobotomy.” Neurosurgical Focus, vol. 43, no. 3, Sept. 2017, thejns.org/focus/view/journals/neurosurg-focus/43/3/article-pE6.xml?tab_body=fulltext.
Colby, William H. Unplugged: Reclaiming our right to die in America. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn, 2006.
Horan, David. “The Republic – Book 5: Translated from Plato” Platonic Foundation, 2008, www.platonicfoundation.org/translation/republic/republic-book-5/.
Horan, David. “The Republic – Book 6: Translated from Plato” Platonic Foundation, 2008, www.platonicfoundation.org/translation/republic/republic-book-6/.
Freemon, Frank R. “Galen’s Ideas on Neurological Function.” Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, vol. 3, no. 4, Oct. 1994, pp. 263–271, https://doi.org/10.1080/09647049409525619.
Geetika, Saxena. “Criminal Liabilities and Insanity Defense in the Criminal Justice System.” J Crim Forensic Studies, vol. 2024, no. 1, 10 June 2024, academicstrive.com/JOCFS/JOCFS180067.pdf.
Haslam, S. Alexander, and Stephen. D. Reicher. “Contesting the “Nature” of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo’s Studies Really Show.” PLoS Biology, vol. 10, no. 11, 20 Nov. 2012, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426.
Kirkey, Sharon. “World’s First Human Head Transplant Successfully Performed on a Corpse, Scientists Say | National Post.” National Post, 18 Nov. 2017, nationalpost.com/health/worlds-first-human-head-transplant-successfully-performed-on-a-corpse-scientists-say.
Loewenau, Aleksandra, and Paul J. Weindling. “Nazi Medical Research in Neuroscience: Medical Procedures, Victims, and Perpetrators.” Canadian Bulletin of Medical History, vol. 33, no. 2, Sept. 2016, pp. 418–446, https://doi.org/10.3138/cbmh.33.2.152-27012015.
Luchetti, Michele. “The Quantification of Intelligence in Nineteenth-Century Craniology: An Epistemology of Measurement Perspective.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science, vol. 12, no. 4, 16 Sept. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00485-7.
Masic, Izet. “Thousand-Year Anniversary of the Historical Book: “Kitab Al-Qanun Fit-Tibb”- the Canon of Medicine, Written by Abdullah Ibn Sina.” Journal of Research in Medical Sciences : The Official Journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, vol. 17, no. 11, Nov. 2012, p. 993, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3702097/.
Moreno, Jonathan D, et al. “The First Neuroethics Meeting: Then and Now.” Cerebrum: The Dana Forum on Brain Science, vol. 2017, Sept. 2017, p. cer-13-17, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6132043/. Accessed 23 Oct. 2025.
Smith, J. A. “ON the SOUL.” Complete Works of Aristotle, Volume 1, vol. 1, 31 Dec. 1985, pp. 641–692, https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400835843-015. Accessed 23 Oct. 2025.
The Tertullian Project. “C. Dodgson, Tertullian Vol. 1. Apologetic and Practical Treatises. (1842). Pp.187-219. De Spectaculis.” Tertullian.org, 2025, www.tertullian.org/lfc/LFC10-13_de_spectaculis.htm.
