THE BIOETHICS OF SCIENTISM AND ANTI-SCIENTISM IN THE AGE OF NEUROTECHNOLOGIES AND BIOENGINEERING

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the profound bioethical crisis stemming from the ideological conflict between scientism and anti-scientism in the age of rapid development in neurotechnologies and bioengineering. It examines breakthrough technologies such as genome editing (CRISPR), brain-computer interfaces, and 3D bioprinting, which are shifting discussions about the future of humanity from theoretical debates to practical realities. The scientific novelty of this work lies in its unique interdisciplinary approach to the study of the body and corporality, which synthesizes five methodological perspectives: philosophical-anthropological, neuroethical, bioethical regulation and design, sociocultural posthumanist, and the analysis of biomedical transformations. Scientism views these technologies as a primary tool for the unlimited enhancement of humankind, overcoming biological constraints, and evolving towards a new, more perfect species. In contrast, anti-scientism warns of the existential risks associated with uncontrolled interference in human nature, highlighting threats to its fundamental attributes: identity, free will, dignity, and uniqueness. Based on an analysis of the works of leading global thinkers (including M. Sandel, D. Haraway, R. Braidotti, R. Yuste, and others), the article explores key contemporary ethical dilemmas. These include the blurring of the line between therapeutic intervention and human «enhancement», threats to mental privacy and personal autonomy, and the emerging need for a framework of «neurorights». It is argued that the solution to the modern bioethical crisis lies not in abstract ontological debates about the status of biological systems, but in the transition to the practical implementation of the «ethics by design» concept. This approach involves integrating fundamental ethical principles – respect for the person, responsibility for consequences, and social justice – directly into the architecture of new technologies from their earliest stages of development. Thus, the article proposes a path toward harmonizing technological progress with humanistic values, allowing society to harness the potential of science for the benefit of humanity while minimizing the risks of dehumanization.