Suppose neuroscientists faced absolutely no financial or ethical constraints. What would that allow us to do? What kind of hitherto-intractable questions would we be able to answer?
Well, the money would certainly let us make our studies larger and more elaborate, while the lack of ethics would allow us to do the kind of research currently performed on animals, on humans (I did say a complete lack of ethics.)
But those kinds of improvements are all essentially quantitative – bigger samples, better species.
I wonder, would there be a qualitatively different neuroscience in such a neuro-dystopia?