Caroline Flint, the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Public Health in the UK, in her first sentence in last year's major consultation document on the UK's fertility law, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, set the scene in the following way. She described the UK as a world leader in human reproductive technologies. The tone of the comment gives the impression that this is a good thing, and reflects the fact that in many areas of reproduction, research and regulation in the UK the technological imperative is having its way, with support from the general public, politicians and the media. Science says we can, therefore we should. Will the same also be true in new biotechnologies? Will neuroscientific developments be yet another area where science races ahead, before the ethical, legal and social aspects are fully considered? If the UK thus regards itself as a self-styled leader in both research and regulation of bio issues, and if it is perceived by other countries to be a model to follow, then it is imperative that the wider community is aware of what is taking place in the UK.This paper aims to look at the UK and its self-appointed 'pioneering' position on a variety of bioethical issues within the context of the wider European Community. It will consider what could be done to challenge the reigning permissive attitude to biotechnology in the UK. It will also consider how this position might impact on and guide developments in neuroscience and their application in the future.