This (what GP and this story is about) is voluntary. Like letting a primitive android into your house so you can order pizza, or carrying around a sophisticated connected computer that informs you. The next step is always tighter integration. Pretending that an ethical review board is going to prevent "closed source humans" is not going to work.
People understanding it is the only way I can see to prevent it (it's already the status quo). I'm honestly looking for suggestions.
How can a monkey give consent?
I also don’t believe a human can, because we look at that nice doctor who is offering sincere advice and think “they have my best interests at heart”. We certainly don’t make rational judgments of probability, because if we as a species could do that, lotteries would not exist.
I'm not namedropping for the sake of namedropping, and I don't know why you'd say philosophers are only relevant in theater.
We're discussing ethics and failing to understand the contributions of philosophy in that context is a major mistake (your reasoning is primarily utilitarianist and I'm not saying that's wrong, just what it is. Utilitarianism is very widely used in modern societies).
We're also debating science. Who do you think developed ideas of scientific processes; what knowledge is and how we attain it?
> Will n scientists deciding not to look into something prevent it's discovery?
If getting to a discovery requires unreasonably horrible actions I hope it'll at least be delayed until such time it can be made without such horrible actions. Many have suffered throughout history in the name of scientific progress.
Plenty of ethics are implemented in science already. That's a good and ever-evolving thing.