During centuries in the past time scientists pursued an unbridled path in search of truth; whereas might lead for no reward than the pleasure of finding out. This means that the motivation for scientist was the curiosity; and the only reward was personal satisfaction of achievement of result.
There is distinction between science and technology. Science pursed an unbridled path in screech of truth; whereas technology applies the fruits of scientific facts to change the world. But the question rise when the direction of this change to be considered. During passed centuries application of scientific fact in technology was both scatter and rare. Only some scientist who was close to old age power owners were applied their knowledge to the technology for will of their benefactors.
Distinction between science and technology; and self-satisfaction of scientist for achievement of the fact isolated scientist from dynamic context of the societies; reducing the probability of any harm to the public; where these facts were abused. Also there were criteria for both training and being a scientist traditionly. These criteria were honesty, dignity, tolerance, enthusiasm, and knowledge. The only branch of science was medicine; which was protected from any abuse via the “Hippocratic Oath” at 5 century B. C.
Industrial revolution accelerate progress of both science and technology; giving root to a new line of science called neuroscience with fruitful data for application in technology in one hand. On the other hand attraction of scientist by the society due to their need of financial support for further sophisticated research changed the old traditions.
This was the beginning of need to the neuroethics to avoid the abuse of scientific facts in technology. Especially, if old knowledge of medicine was individual base in social interaction; the modern neuroscience had the ability of collective effect on the societies all over the world.
This even made the need for neuroethics more than ever. Especially, a traditional criterion for both training and being a scientist was in slippery slope. In developed counties, necessity for ethics in the neuroscience yield to collecting and codifying the neuroethics; which happened simultaneously with the progress in the neuroscience. However, in developing countries, either neglected or misunderstood.
This means that although all over the world neuroscientist apply the facts of neuroscience equally; lack of neuroethics in some local societies is count as an obstacle for use of ethical codes in some part of the world equally.To complete the application of neuroethics all over the world; defining and distancing real neuroscientist who make a reasonable contribution to the neuroscience is necessary.
Then some fictitious scientific society and/or association should replace with the gathering of real neuroscientists. Globalization of neuroethic is passable in this way; and will prevent elimination of neuroscientists; and replacing them with who lack in competence in some developing countries. Also publicizing the necessity of neuroethics in these communities may direct the progress of the neuroscience to the health and wellbeing of mankind.
An example for need of the neuroethics was mentioned earlier in “Drug & Brain” session.Finally, there is still some dilemma with neroethics regarding the animal use and/or human trial within the neuroscience research. Considering the neuroethic in animal research via limiting the projects and/or easing the suffering of animal may help both sick human as well as sick animals. However, the human blind drug / placebo trial still remine debatable.
