---
title: "Neuroethics"
chunk: 4/8
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:50.583791+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

=== Memory dampening ===
While complete memory erasure is still an element of science-fiction, certain neurological drugs have been proven to dampen the strength and emotional association of a memory. Propranolol, an FDA-approved drug, has been suggested to effectively dull the painful effects of traumatic memories if taken within 6 hours after the event occurs. This has begun the discussion of ethical implications, assuming the technology for memory erasure will only improve.
Originally, propranolol was reserved for hypertension patients. However, doctors are permitted to use the drug for off-label purposes—leading to the question of whether they actually should. There are numerous reasons for skepticism; for one, it may prevent us from coming to terms with traumatic experiences, it may tamper with our identities and lead us to an artificial sense of happiness, demean the genuineness of human life, and/or encourage some to forget memories they are morally obligated to keep. Whether or not it is ethical to fully or partially erase the memory of a patient, it is certainly becoming a more relevant topic as this technology improves in our society.

=== Ethics of brain organoids ===

==== Sentient organoids ====

==== Guidelines and legislation ====

==== Humanized animals ====

=== Ethics of cognitive wetware ===

=== Cognitive diversity ===
The neurodiversity movement challenges traditional views of mental and neurological differences as purely deficits or disorders. Instead, it emphasizes variation in human cognition as part of normal diversity. This shift raises important ethical questions about diagnosis, treatment, research priorities, and societal inclusion. For example, some argue that rather than "treat" conditions like autism or ADHD society should adapt to accommodate different ways of thinking and being. Others maintain that not all cases of autism, ADHD, and other conditions should be treated as mere differences.
Cognitive and moral enhancement technologies intersect with these concerns. Gene editing technologies and cochlear implants might eventually eliminate certain minority groups, such as autistic or deaf people. Or widespread availability of enhancement could increase population-level cognitive diversity, e.g. as different people will choose to enhance different aspects of their cognition. Neuroethics must grapple with these questions to ensure that neuroscience respects individual dignity, avoids pathologizing difference, and promotes justice in healthcare and education.