 Neurofix refers to two related fields of study, what the philosopher Audin Roskis has called the ethics of neuroscience, and the neuroscience of ethics. The ethics of neuroscience comprises the bulk of work in neurofix. It concerns the ethical, legal and social impact of neuroscience, including the ways in which neurochanology can be used to predict or alter human behavior and the implications of our mechanistic understanding of brain function for society. Integrating neuroscientific knowledge with ethical and social thought. Some neurofix problems are not fundamentally different from those encountered in biofix. Others are unique to neurofix because the brain, as the organ of the mind, has implications for broader philosophical problems, such as the nature of free will, moral responsibility, self-deception, and personal identity. Examples of neurofix topics are given later in this article Key Issues in Neurofix. The origin of the term neurofix has occupied some writers. Ries and Roses cited in references on page 9 claimed neurofix is a neologism that emerged only at the beginning of the 21st century, largely through the oral and written communications of ethicists and philosophers. According to Racine 2010 the term was coined by the Harvard physician Annie Lysapontius in 1973 in a paper entitled Neurofix of Walking in the Newborn for the Persexual and Motor Skills. The author re-proposed the term in 1993 in her paper for psychological report, often wrongly mentioned as the first title containing the word neurofix. Before 1993, the American neurologist Ronald Cranford has used the term C. Cranford 1989. It deals 2003 records uses, from the scientific literature, from 1989 and 1991. Writer William Sapphire is widely credited with giving the word its current meaning in 2002, defining it as the examination of what is right and wrong, good and bad about the treatment of, perfection of, or unwelcome invasion of and worrisome manipulation of the human brain.