Methodological aspects of regulation of neuroresearch and neurotechnologies in neuroethics

This article is dedicated to methodological questions in ethical regulation of neuroresearch. Neuroethics has emerged recently within the framework of the neuro-trend in modern technoscience; its regulatory capabilities are yet to be discovered. Sciences that study human brain and behavior orient towards existing institutions of ethical regulation, which do not consider the complexity and specificity of the emerging threats and risks. The author examines the circumstances for formation of the research ethics and points of intersection with neuroethics. Research ethics is viewed as a part of bioethics, which not only assessed the potential harm for the examinees, but also the social and anthropological consequences of scientific and technological development. The author provides a “narrow” understanding of research ethics as a system of rules within the framework of particular disciplines, and as a clinical research practice. Based on the historically established ethical regulation of clinical research and the forming beneath our eyes rules of modification of human genome and artificial intelligence, the author demonstrates contradictions and trends of the separate regulatory systems, which should be taken into account to prevent risks in neuroresearch and prediction of social implications of the spread of neurotechnologies. Ethical examination became a part of a complex system of international control of clinical research, which leads to fading of the value component aimed at protection of research subjects. The author underlines two factors that form the types of harm peculiar to neuroresearch: orientation towards technological realization and vulnerability of mental sphere as a subject of research. The conclusion is made on inefficiency of application of the calculation of harm/advantage in ethical assessment of neuroresearch. Leaning on the experience of bioethics, neuroethics requires development of the own systems of rules that would become the institutions of neuroethical regulation. For preventing formalization of ethical control, it is essential to advance extensive socio-humanistic assessment of new achievements in neuroscience, as well as neuroethical education for the scientists.