Neuroethics is a modern field at the intersection of bioethics and neuroscience, which, both independently and when conjoined, have philosophical and scientific roots that date as far back as the ancient philosophers, as well as eighteenth‐century and nineteenth‐century neurologists and physiologists such as Jean‐Martin Charcot, Franz Joseph Gall, Paul Broca and Joseph Jules Dejerine (Marshall & Fink, 2003). More recently, neuroethics has drawn on the works of contemporary neuroscientists, philosophers, bioethicists, and other scholars in the humanities and natural sciences, including legal and policy experts (Changeux & Ricoeur, 2000; Churchland, 2006; Moreno, 2003; McGinn, 1991; Greely, 2006; Morse, 2006). > …although imaging does not visualize human thought per se , it does provide correlates of the cognitive functions that humans harness to create thought However, as the field itself is still in flux, it is difficult to pin down what exactly neuroethics is, and, therefore, what neuroethicists are, or should be, doing. Some recent definitions include: “The ethics of neuroscience; the neuroscience of ethics” (Roskies, 2002); “…the examination of what is right and wrong and good and bad about the treatment of, perfection of, or unwelcome invasion of and worrisome manipulation of the human brain” as proposed by William Safire (Marcus, 2002); and “…the examination of how we want to deal with the social issues of disease, normality, mortality, lifestyle, and the philosophy of living informed by our understanding of underlying brain mechanisms” as proposed by Michael Gazzaniga (Gazzaniga, 2005). A newer definition, which I presented at the 2006 annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience (Illes, 2006) and that borrows from Van Rensellear Potter as cited in The Birth of Bioethics (Jonsen, 1998), is as follows: a discipline that aligns the exploration and discovery of neurobiological knowledge with human value systems. Here, I discuss …