How Pragmatism is Reshaping Brain Science Ethics
Imagine a world where scientists can read emotions through brain scans, where AI-brain interfaces transform how we communicate, and where neurological interventions could potentially alter moral decision-making. This isn't science fiction—it's the emerging reality of neuroscience that neuroethics aims to navigate. As brain technologies advance at an unprecedented pace, they bring not only tremendous promise for treating conditions like Alzheimer's and depression but also profound ethical questions that challenge our very understanding of human identity, free will, and moral responsibility 5 .
For years, neuroethics has been guided by two fundamental assumptions: that neuroscience could radically change our understanding of ethics itself, and that the ethical challenges posed by brain technologies are entirely unique. But what if these foundations are flawed? Emerging pragmatist approaches are challenging these very assumptions and offering a more nuanced framework for addressing the ethical dilemmas of brain science 1 7 . This article explores how pragmatism is reconstructing neuroethics to better navigate the complex intersection of brain, technology, and society.
The first problematic foundation of neuroethics lies in what pragmatist scholars call "neuroscientism"—the idea that neuroscience can fundamentally change our understanding of ethics itself 1 . This perspective suggests that by studying the brain mechanisms behind moral decisions, we might eventually reduce complex ethical questions to mere neural computations.
This view has been popularized by several prominent neuroscientists and philosophers. For instance, some have argued that moral reasoning is essentially a biological process governed by brain circuits that evolved through natural selection 7 . From this perspective, concepts like "justice" or "virtue" are ultimately explainable through neural mechanisms—a position that threatens to reduce rich ethical traditions to mere brain activity.
This reductionist approach risks overlooking the social, cultural, and philosophical dimensions of morality that cannot be fully captured by studying brains alone. As pragmatist scholars point out, while neuroscience can provide valuable insights into how moral decisions are made, it doesn't necessarily tell us what we ought to value or how we should structure our ethical frameworks 1 .
The second problematic foundation is the assumption that ethical issues in neuroscience are fundamentally different from those in other areas of medicine and science 1 . This exceptionalist view has driven neuroethics to develop as a specialized field separate from mainstream bioethics.
Proponents of this view argue that the brain is different because it's the biological substrate of consciousness, identity, and personhood. Therefore, technologies that interface with or alter brain function raise unique ethical concerns that deserve specialized attention 5 .
This assumption has been challenged by critics who note that many ethical issues in neuroscience (informed consent, privacy, risk-benefit analysis) share important similarities with other areas of biomedical ethics. By overemphasizing its uniqueness, neuroethics risks isolating itself from valuable insights and frameworks developed in other ethical domains 7 .
Pragmatist neuroethics offers a reconstruction of these problematic foundations by drawing on the philosophical tradition of pragmatism, which emphasizes practical solutions to real-world problems rather than abstract theoretical principles 1 7 .
Instead of asking "Can neuroscience redefine ethics?" pragmatist neuroethics asks: "How can neuroscience help us better understand and address morally problematic situations?" This shift in questioning moves the field from theoretical speculation toward practical problem-solving.
Similarly, rather than assuming the unique status of neuroethical issues, pragmatist neuroethics recognizes that while some challenges may have distinctive features, they often benefit from being addressed within broader ethical frameworks and in collaboration with other domains of applied ethics 7 .
Pragmatist neuroethics values empirical research—including neuroscience findings—as crucial for understanding the context and dimensions of moral problems, but rejects the notion that empirical data alone can resolve ethical questions 7 .
Instead of starting from abstract principles or technological capabilities, pragmatist neuroethics begins with concrete problematic situations raised by neurological and psychiatric conditions and their treatments 1 .
Pragmatist neuroethics emphasizes the importance of collaboration across disciplines—neuroscience, medicine, philosophy, law, social sciences—to address complex ethical challenges 7 .
Recognizing that neuroethical issues affect diverse stakeholders, pragmatist approaches emphasize inclusive deliberation that incorporates perspectives from researchers, clinicians, patients, families, and the public 9 .
A compelling example of pragmatist neuroethics in action comes from recent research on portable MRI (pMRI) technology 9 . This innovative technology promises to revolutionize brain research by making it possible to conduct neuroimaging in field settings rather than traditional laboratory environments—potentially expanding participation to include rural, elderly, and historically underrepresented populations.
Rather than waiting for the technology to become widespread and then reacting to ethical concerns, researchers adopted a proactive, pragmatist approach by conducting empirical studies of public attitudes toward pMRI research before it becomes widely deployed 9 .
Researchers conducted a nationally representative online survey (N=2,001) in August 2022, specifically powered to capture perspectives from five key demographic subgroups often underrepresented in neuroscience research: rural residents, older adults (65+), Hispanic individuals, non-Hispanic Black individuals, and economically disadvantaged populations 9 .
The survey utilized hypothetical vignettes to provide participants with contextual information about pMRI research, then assessed their willingness to participate, perceived benefits and concerns, and factors that might influence their participation decisions 9 .
| Demographic Group | Percentage of Sample | General Population Benchmark |
|---|---|---|
| Rural residents | 20% | ~19% (U.S. Census) |
| Adults 65+ | 17% | ~16% (U.S. Census) |
| Hispanic individuals | 19% | ~19% (U.S. Census) |
| Non-Hispanic Black | 13% | ~13% (U.S. Census) |
| Economically disadvantaged | 12% | ~11% (Federal poverty measure) |
The survey revealed several important findings that directly inform the ethical implementation of pMRI technology:
Respondents were overwhelmingly willing to participate in pMRI research, with no significant differences across the five key demographic subgroups 9 .
Participants saw many potential benefits, with follow-up information about study results being particularly valued 9 .
Respondents reported relatively few concerns about participation, with insufficient payment being among the most mentioned 9 .
The study found that lack of trust in scientists reduced likelihood of participation, highlighting the importance of building trust with participant communities 9 .
| Factor | Strongly Increase Participation | Somewhat Increase Participation | No Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Follow-up information | 62% | 28% | 10% |
| Transportation assistance | 58% | 30% | 12% |
| Remote option | 55% | 31% | 14% |
| Financial compensation | 52% | 35% | 13% |
| Community organization host | 48% | 36% | 16% |
This empirical research identified several ethical priorities for pMRI implementation:
The survey revealed significant gaps in participant knowledge about pMRI capabilities, with many participants expecting clinically informative scans from research procedures. This highlights the need for clear communication about the limitations of research technologies 9 .
Since trust in scientists significantly predicted willingness to participate, researchers must engage participant communities transparently and reciprocally 9 .
The consistent willingness across demographic groups suggests pMRI could indeed help diversify neuroimaging research, but only if implemented in ways that address practical barriers to participation 9 .
This case exemplifies the pragmatist approach to neuroethics: rather than beginning with abstract concerns about neuroexceptionalism, it starts with a practical technology and uses empirical methods to identify and address ethical issues in context, with attention to real-world implications for diverse stakeholders 9 .
Neuroethics research draws on a diverse set of methodological tools and resources. Here are some key components of the neuroethics research toolkit:
| Research Tool | Example Products | Primary Functions |
|---|---|---|
| Human cell cultures | Primary Human Neurons (HNC001) | Modeling neurological processes in vitro |
| Human Brain Astrocytes (HMP202) | Studying blood-brain barrier and inflammation | |
| Antibodies | Neuronal-glial markers | Identifying specific cell types in neural tissue |
| Pain research antibodies | Investigating pain pathways and mechanisms | |
| Cellular models | Immortalized Human Brain Microglia (HBMCs001) | Researching neuroimmune responses |
| 3D Human Blood-Brain Barrier Model (3D45002) | Studying drug delivery to the brain | |
| Imaging technologies | Portable MRI devices | Conducting neuroimaging in field settings |
| Survey instruments | Public attitude assessments | Measuring ethical perceptions and concerns |
These tools enable both the neuroscience that raises ethical questions and the neuroethics research that addresses them. For instance, human cell cultures and cellular models help researchers understand basic neural processes that might eventually be manipulated by neurotechnologies, while survey instruments allow ethicists to assess public attitudes toward those potential applications 4 9 .
The pragmatist reconstruction of neuroethics offers a promising path forward for the field—one that balances excitement about neuroscience advances with thoughtful attention to ethical implications without falling into reductionism or exceptionalism.
This approach is increasingly relevant as we face new ethical challenges at the intersection of neuroscience and artificial intelligence, a focus of the upcoming Neuroethics 2025 conference in Munich 2 . As brain technologies become more sophisticated and widespread, pragmatist neuroethics provides a framework for addressing ethical questions through inclusive, empirical, and practical approaches that engage diverse stakeholders.
The future of neuroethics lies in its ability to evolve from a specialty focused on hypothetical concerns about futuristic technologies to a practical discipline that addresses real-world problems faced by people with neurological and psychiatric conditions today 1 7 . By embracing pragmatist approaches, neuroethics can fulfill its promise as both a scholarly field and a practical endeavor dedicated to ensuring that advances in brain science benefit all members of society.
As we continue to unravel the mysteries of the human brain, we would do well to remember that our ethical frameworks need to be as sophisticated, nuanced, and adaptable as the technologies they aim to guide. Pragmatist neuroethics offers precisely this kind of framework—one that respects both the complexity of the brain and the richness of human values.