Questioning the direction of neuroscience research is not a futile exercise, particularly when considering its impact on society. Owing to its potential to affect mental function, the social implications of neuroscience research are of paramount importance. But by contrast to scientists in other disciplines, many neuroscientists are surprisingly innocent about or uninterested in the repercussions of their work on society. For example, whereas most geneticists know what the acronym ELSI stands for, far fewer neuroscientists would associate it with the ethical, legal and social implications of scientific research. Such innocence might relate to the fact that, so far, society has been rather lenient with neuroscience research. After all, who would not want to have a better memory or a longer attention span? But in a climate in which the public perception of science is steadily deteriorating, we cannot trust that this leniency will continue. More people will stop simply nodding to the prospect of improving our mental capacity and will begin to wonder about the real repercussions of such a possibility. So, as Jonathan Moreno highlights in this issue (page 149), we must be aware of the implications of neuroscience research, as the public will increasingly challenge us to explain its social significance.

Our awareness of the social repercussions of neuroscience research should not lead us to impose a moratorium on it, but to reflect on the questions that society might ask and find sound answers for the fears of our most sophisticated critics. What makes this challenge even more daunting is the extra level of complexity that the commercial implications of neuroscience bring into the picture. And in our contemporary society — so politically correct, yet so financially liberal — we cannot afford to neglect such an additional complication. Perhaps we should begin by paraphrasing our geneticist colleagues and start referring to the ELSCI of neuroscience research.