Ethical problems of neurodigital inclusive oriented education in modern universities

Introduction. Behind the outwardly simple idea of neurodigital pedagogy and neurodigital education, in practice there is a huge system of questions of theoretical and methodological, cultural and political, psychological and axiological, educational and methodological, and other levels. Purpose setting. The purpose of the study is to analyze the ethical aspects of the creation, application and improvement of neurodigital educational technologies in the context of modern education as an inclusive practice. Methodology and methods of the study. The research methods are theoretical analysis and synthesis of ethical aspects of neurodigital education in a modern university. The novelty of the study is related to an attempt to integratively comprehend the ethical aspects of neurodigital education in the context of modern university education as an inclusive practice. Results. Disharmonies at various levels of development, implementation, and refinement of modern neurodigital technologies in inclusive education in primary, secondary, and higher education, as well as the mythologization and near-complete absence of neurodigital culture as an independent section of theory and practice, including mythologization and deliberate distortions of ideas about social and psychophysiological pathologies and the normal functioning of the brain, humans, and society, lead to various difficulties, blockages, and barriers to the neurodigitalization of education. These problems are particularly noticeable in the context of making evidence-based/reasoned decisions about the adoption/rejection of certain innovations and the qualified implementation of such decisions at various stages and in various situations of inclusive education. In modern secondary and higher education, neurodigital technologies in education are considered an independent type or format of education, which is inconsistent with reality and hinders the development of truly effective formats for their use, including at the development and improvement stages. In addition to the opacity of the conclusions and information processing processes of AI and other technological devices, and the fact that the development, implementation, and improvement of technologies is often carried out not by a team but by individual specialists, including those lacking a comprehensive and multi-layered understanding of disabilities, special educational needs, etc., the technologies themselves can contain a number of problems and limitations associated with fundamental errors, including moral, ideological, and procedural ones. Conclusion. Prospects for research into the ethical issues of neuro-digital inclusive education at universities are related to the study of interactions between all participants in the educational process, both through and indirectly, neuro-digital devices and technologies. Research into the neuro-digitalization of education and the lives of individuals with disabilities emphasizes the importance of professional training and the development of competencies in neuro-digital (digital and «brain») culture among students and teachers as one of the most important concepts and approaches that offer hope for a productive solution to other problems. According to the authors, the strategically correct path is to explore the possibilities of supporting the development of individuals with and without disabilities using a full range of tools and technologies, including neurodigital ones, based on the core values and meanings of human life as the life of a being who realizes and improves themselves and the world around them.

1. Miller R. Neuroeducation. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 2016, vol. 38 (2), pp. 103–115.

2. Rodgers D. L., Hales. R. L. Brain-Based Learning. L. C. Johnston, L. Su (eds.). Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: ECMO Simulation. Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation. Cham, Springer Publ., 2021, pр. 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53844-6_5

3. Chojak M. Neuropedagogy as a scientific discipline: interdisciplinary description of the theoretical basis for the development of a research field. Neuropedagogy as a scientific field, 2019, vol. 12, pp. 1084–1087. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1474341

4. Doukakis Sp., Alexopoulos E. C. The Role of Educational Neuroscience in Distance Learning. Knowledge Transformation Opportunities. M. E. Auer, D. Centea (eds.) Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC). Cham, Springer, 2021, vol. 1314. ICBL 2020, 14–16 October 2020, Hamilton, Canada, pp. 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67209-6_18

5. Kinzer St. Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control. New York, Henry Holt and Co. Publ., 2019, 368 p.

6. England R., Vu Ch. S&T Happens: Surviving and Thriving in a VUCA World. New York, Two Hills Publ., 2022, 98 p.

7. Cascio J. TED about the future of humanity in an unpredictable scenario. Tools for a better world. TED. 2009. January. P. 1. URL: https://www.ted.com/speakers/jamais_cascio (accessed 06.22.2025)

8. Sridharan M. BANI: A new framework to make sense of a chaotic world? Think Insights, 2022, June 30, p. 1. URL: https://thinkinsights.net/leadership/bani/ (accessed 06.22.2025).

9. Tsygankov V. D., Lopatin V. N. Psychotronic weapons and security of Russia. Moscow, Sinteg Publ., 1999, 150 p. (In Russ.)

10. Coleman J. Conspirators’ Hierarchy. New York, Bridger House Publishers Inc, 2016, 302 p.

11. Kelman H. Reflections on Social and Psychological Processes of Legitimation and Delegitimation. J. T. Jost and B. Major (eds.) Psychology of Legitimacy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 340р.

12. Lobachzhevskij A. Politicheskaja ponerologija. France, Paris, Red Pill Press, 2022, 343 p.

13. Milgram St. Obedience to Authority. London, Tavistock Publications; New York, Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 1974–2009, 256 p.

14. Stephenson S. Russian Bandit Gangs, Their Moral Code and Practices of Violence. Universe of Russia. Sociology. Ethnology, 2016, vol. 25, no. 1, рр. 35–54.

15. David E. Principles of the law of armed conflicts. Moscow, International Committee of the Red Cross Publ., 2000, 658 p. (In Russ.)

16. Radishevskaya Z. M. Medical experiments on prisoners is it legal? The International Scientific and Practical Congress of Economists and Lawyers «The genesis of genius». Geneva, 30 January, 2015. Geneva, Switzerland, Consilium Publ., 2015, pp. 76–79. (In Russ.)

17. Arpentieva M. R. Internet security issues. Bulletin of the Prikamskiy Social Institute, 2017, vol. 3 (78), pp. 99–110. (In Russ.)

18. Golovnin V. N., Bayanova D. S., Komoltseva A. P. «Digital economic paradise» or electronic economic concentration camp. Innovations. Science. Education, 2022, no. 49, pp. 226–231. (In Russ.)

19. Zimbardo F. Stanford prison experiment. Pines E., Maslach K. Workshop on social psychology. St. Petersburg, Peter Publ., 2000, pp. 296–320. (In Russ.)

20. Asch S. E. Studies of independence and conformity. Psychological Monographs, 1956, vol. 70 (9), pp. 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718

21. Donati A. (ed.). Long-Term Training with a Brain-Machine Interface-Based Gait Protocol Induces Partial Neurological Recovery in Paraplegic Patients. Scientific reports, 2016, vol. 6, № 3038, pp. 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep30383. URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep30383.pdf (accessed 06.22.2025).

22. Shaikhouni A., Donoghue J. P., Hochberg L. R. Somatosensory responses in a human motor cortex / A. Shaikhoun. Journal of Neurophysiology, 2013, vol. 109, iss. 8, pp. 2192–2220. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00368.2012