As new technologies are on the horizon there is debate over how or whether to use them and for what. Few would disagree with using technology to cure Alzheimer's. Yet on the other end few would say we should use technology to completely reconstruct the brain to fit some idealized archetype of perfection. Most would fear the undue influence elites would have in deciding essentially how everyone is to think.
In the middle of this is the subject of neurological disorders. Some of which correlate strongly with mental gifts as well as shortcomings and it is doubtful that one aspect could be cured with 'curing' the other. Many argue that curing for instance Autism at least Asperger's Syndrome would essentially be curing a person of their personality, of who they are. The same argument can be put forward for ADHD, dyslexia, and somewhat more controversially Down's Syndrome.
This has spawned a mainly internet-based movement called "Neurodiversity" which advocates that while ways to help neurodiverse people fit into and get by in society should be pursued that we ultimately shouldn't be 'curing' people of who they are, that changing the essential characteristics of a person's brain is tantamount to replacing that person with an entirely different person.
Most would accept cures for some brain differences and not others. Few would say let's change introverts brains so they are all extraverts. Yet few would say let's not cure Huntington's or Parkinson's Disease.
Some would say if its listed as a neurological disorder, or mental disorder therefore it should be cured, but this is lazy thinking and treats what psychologists and neurologists as gospel for how we should think and puts their worldviews and interests in an elite position. Just because someone has studied how the mind works or how the brain works does NOT mean they know better how it SHOULD work. Science studies the "is" NOT the "ought". How something should work is an entirely different question from how it does work.
Besides neurodiversity there is the issue of what neurological information could be used for. Just as people who understand computers can learn how to hack into them it is possible that in the future there will be people who know how to hack into brains. This will spur the need for scientists to figure out how to offer neuroencryption services and some sort of neurotechnological equivalent of an "Antivirus" program.
These issues will no doubt be highly contentious in the politics of the future, likely near future. It will be a challenge to politicians, political scientists, and activists to figure out how to deal with it.