My book has been out for around a month now in the United States. It seems to be selling well (relative to academic title) so far as I can tell. It's not the first monograph on neuroethics but I hope it will help set the agenda.
One thing I hope to accomplish is to have my very broad conception of the field accepted.
By 'neuroethics' I mean not only the ethical issues raised by neuroscience and the technologies its helps to develop, but also the ways in which all the sciences of the mind - cognitive, social and evolutionary psychology, as well as AI to some extent - help us to understand all aspects of human cognition insofar as it leads to morally relevant behavior. So I have chapters not only on mind reading and control, but also on free will and moral responsibility, self-deception, and moral cognition. All of these are topics are illuminated by the sciences of the mind, I believe, and they are therefore all neuroethical.
The other thing I hope to do is to argue for what I call (following Andy Clark and David Chalmers) the 'parity principle': the principle that manipulations of the mind using means internal to the agent (eg, psychopharmaceuticals) should not be regarded as problematic just because they are internal. It is the results that matter, not the means. This conflicts with an emerging neuroethical dogma, I believe. For a brief presentation of the view, you could save the expense of the book and read my perspectives paper in the latest issue of AJOB - Neuroscience.
Comments