Abstract
The emergence of organoid intelligence (OI) presents complex ethical, legal, and social considerations that necessitate rigorous examination as this field of research evolves. This article explores the duality of organoids as both subjects and objects, highlighting the ongoing debate regarding their potential for sentience. While current research indicates that brain organoids lack consciousness, future advancements may challenge this understanding, underscoring the importance of nuanced ethical frameworks. The paper emphasizes the critical need for meaningful informed consent from human donors, addressing issues such as the scope of biomaterial use, the ability to withdraw consent, and privacy risks associated with genomic data. Additionally, the study examines public perceptions of organoid research through workshops with diverse stakeholders, revealing general optimism tempered by ethical concerns, particularly around commercialization and equitable access. The findings indicate a disconnect between public expectations and the scientific community’s cautious approach, advocating for transparent communication and proactive ethical guidelines to navigate the intricate challenges posed by organoid research. Ultimately, this article calls for a balanced dialogue among researchers, ethicists, and the public to ensure that advancements in OI align with ethical accountability, thereby safeguarding the integrity of scientific progress in this promising but contentious field.
Subject-like Versus Object-like
One of the central questions regarding the ethical implications of organoids is the categorization of organoids as either subjects or objects. Hartung et al. (2023) defines subjects as “living entities with potential sentence or consciousness” while describing objects as “inanimate things used for a specific purpose.” In a separate study, Levin et al. (2021) found that brain organoids are currently far from possessing the complex neural networks required for consciousness. While they can mimic certain aspects of brain function, such as neural activity and connectivity, they are not capable of subjective experience or self-awareness. The ethical concern, however, stems from the potential future development of more advanced organoids that might reach a level of complexity that raises questions about sentience or moral status. This description propels the idea that OI has the potential to qualify as a subject as technology advances. Therefore, defining it strictly as an object would be short-sighted. However, in another study, Trujillo et al. (2022) argued that brain organoids, while biologically derived, do not exhibit any of the qualities necessary for sentience. They are inanimate in the sense that they are used instrumentally to study neurological processes, disease modeling, and drug development, much like other laboratory equipment. As with any scientific tool, organoids are designed and manipulated by researchers for a specific function: to advance understanding of brain function and disorder. This description categorizies OI as an object that aligns with its role in research, where it operates as a passive entity, manipulated to serve a defined scientific purpose. However, according to the researchers of this paper, this binary categorization is “problematic” (Hartung et al. 2023) as it understates the complexity of moral value regarding organoids. Organoids possess both subject-like and object-like values; therefore, they transcend the simple barrier defined by the two characteristics. This multifaceted view recognizes that organoids will not be limited by terms like biological tools but potentially acquire characteristics of living, sentient beings. As this is one of many ethical dillemas present in the current debate, the paper emphasizes the value of discussing these topics through a diverse group of stakeholders including but not limited to “teams of ethicisits, researchers, and members of the public” (Hartung et al. 2023). All these factors play into reigning in OI and ensuring that it develops under careful consideration and jurisdiction.
Donor Consent and Ownership
Brednoord et al., 2018 and Hartung et al. 2023 stress several points which warrent meaningful informed consent from donors. Brednoord et al. (2018) and Hartung et al. (2023) emphasize the importance of informed consent in biomedical research, especially when dealing with human donors. Both sources highlight several nuanced aspects that ensure consent is not only legally valid but ethically meaningful.
Scope and Duration of Permission for the Use of Biomaterials (Hartung et al., 2023): It is not enough for donors to simply give a one-time, broad consent to the use of their biological materials. Hartung et al. 2023 argues that donors should be fully informed about the exact scope of the research their biomaterials will be used for, including any potential future studies that may arise. In addition, the duration of this permission needs to be clearly communicated, ensuring that donors are aware of how long their biological contributions may remain in use. This scope should not be vaguely defined, as donors deserve a clear understanding of the extent to which their materials will be utilized. This dimension of consent—covering both present and future uses—must be explicit and dynamic to accommodate evolving research landscapes.
Options and Processes for Donors to Withdraw or Restrict Consent (Boers & Bredenoord, 2018): Informed consent is not a static agreement. Boers and Bredenoord stress the importance of ensuring that donors have options to revise, restrict, or withdraw their consent at any point during or after the research process. The procedures for doing so should be straightforward and easily accessible to the donor, offering a real sense of autonomy over their contributions. This means that donors must not only understand their ability to withdraw but also the specific processes involved, including whether data or materials already used can be recalled or restricted in future studies. Such flexibility ensures that participants can maintain control over their involvement, respecting their rights even after initial consent has been given.
Privacy Risks from Genome or Medical Data (Hartung et al., 2023): A significant challenge in biomedical research, particularly with the rise of genomic studies, is the potential for privacy breaches. Hartung et al. underscore the necessity of communicating the possible risks that come with sharing sensitive genome or medical data. Given that this data could lead to the identification of donors or reveal unforeseen health risks, researchers must be transparent about how donor data will be protected and what the specific privacy concerns are. This involves discussing not just the likelihood of these risks but also the measures in place to mitigate them. The possibility of future privacy violations, whether through re-identification or data sharing across platforms, must be carefully addressed, ensuring donors understand the potential long-term implications of their participation.
Public Perception
Advancements in organoid research have captured the attention of scientists, ethicists, and the broader public alike. As the development of lab-grown brain organoids pushes the boundaries of biotechnology, it raises numerous ethical questions. To explore these concerns, a recent study conducted a series of workshops to assess public and stakeholder perceptions of organoid research, focusing on key ethical issues, concerns, and potential societal implications. The study aimed to gather insights into how laypeople and stakeholders conceptualize organoids and their potential role in future medical and technological advancements. Three primary themes emerged from the study’s analysis: (1) participants' attitudes towards the ethical implications of organoid technology, particularly commercialization, governance, and the development of cerebral organoids; (2) how participants classified organoids in terms of their typology and moral status; and (3) participant recommendations for addressing ethical concerns in future guidelines for organoid research. The study, done in April 2023, ultilizied participants from Italy, Greece, and Denmark to report their opinions on the matter. Hartung et al. 2023 stated that these surveys were taken by a multitude of people ranging from citizens, vulnerable groups (examples include parents to children with genetic diseases, relatives to patients with genetic diseases, patients self-identifying as vulnerable), patients, donors, and CSOs (examples include religious organizations, patient organizations, science outreach organizations, student associations, and a blood donation organization). These surveys resulted in these groups of people bringing up several important praises and worries about the future of this technology. Through this thematic approach, the study not only captured general perceptions but also highlighted both the expectations and concerns that accompany such pioneering technologies. Despite some ethical reservations, participants across various demographics expressed optimism about the potential of organoid research. Many saw the technology as a promising avenue for advancing treatments for genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis (CF) and cancer, and as a means of improving personalized medicine, drug testing, and life expectancy. Additionally, the study underscored the dynamic nature of the field, calling for ongoing societal debate and regulatory oversight to ensure that ethical guidelines keep pace with the rapid developments in organoid research.
1. Regardless of demographic or background, organoid research was generally supported, as according to the results of the study “Positive Expectations” scored the highest in all the nations compared to categories such as “Danger” and “Fear.”
2. On a general level, participants stressed the importance of continued, detail-oriented updates to findings, regular updates on policy and ethical guidelines, and to have regulations that foster growth in the research while staying in bounds of ethical/safety borderlines
3. Participants were uncomfortable with the excessive commercialization of organoids.Concerns were raised about the exploitation of research findings, economic agendas, and the beneficiaries of the research. The unease with commercialization was not a total rejection of market forces or profit-driven companies. Some participants of the study corroborated that the private sectors could also foster scientific growth as well.
Takeaways
Research in OI stands at a very interesting juncture of scientific advancement and ethical consideration, with the societal optimism and media-induced enthusiasm concealing the intricate issues associated with this growing discipline. Hartung et al. 2023 shows that there is an emerging gap between public hopeful expectations and the prudent view of the scientific community about organoid development. This disconnect can lead to unrealistic expectations, making it critical for researchers to manage public perceptions with transparency and accuracy.
Ethical dilemmas in OI are a multifaceted problem, involving concerns that go way beyond technical challenges. There is, of course, the possibility, as this technology matures, that organoids will achieve a level of sentience or consciousness. The prospect, though still hypothetical, raises major questions: what constitutes sentience in a brain-like organoid grown in the lab? At what point must organoids be given moral consideration or rights? Contemporary ethical frameworks lack the capacity to address these nascent inquiries, thereby underscoring the necessity of proactively formulating guidelines that can foresee such eventualities.
Yet another ethical issue is the use of human cells in organoid technology. While this holds much promise for personalized medicine, it also concurrently invites questions on the ethics of fabricating human-like tissue for research. The question about whether such organoids are mere research tools or will develop some form of consciousness is not yet settled, and this ambiguous situation may have important legal and ethical disputes arising if appropriate guidelines are not laid down.
Adding on, a very important topic in the ethical discussion of research involving organoids concerns consent. Where organoids are developed using human stem cells, particularly those from vulnerable populations, clear consent processes are required. However, long-term implications of consent are not well understood. For example, if an organoid produced from a person's cells becomes capable of high-level thought, what rights, if any, might the donor retain with respect to that entity? There is a more general concern about how advances in organoid technology could exacerbate existing inequities. If organoid technology leads to great strides in personalized medicines or cognitive enhancements, for example, it will further increase the gap between those who have the opportunity to take advantage of such advances and those who do not have that opportunity. This could, in turn, raise difficult questions of fairness and distributive justice around the distribution of these benefits, which would require far-reaching policy actions to ensure equity and access.
It is essential, as the development of organoids advances, that both the legislative frameworks and neuroethical guidelines do so in a commensurate manner with scientific development. The authors highlight the necessity for continued monitoring of the ethical setting to avoid possible misuse of the technology due to commercialization or accidental military applications. The dual-use nature, common for many technological discoveries, whereby a scientific discovery with medical applications can be turned towards harmful purposes, is another level of ethical complexity that should not be ignored. But in summary, while OI promises to bring a sea-change of progress in medicine and our understanding of human cognition, the ethical issues it raises range from modest to monumental. Keeping public perceptions in line with the real world, open science to facilitate trust, and robust ethics frameworks will be key to mitigating these risks. The meticulous equilibrium between scientific advancement and ethical accountability will shape the future direction of organoid research, ensuring that enthusiasm does not eclipse the critical examination necessary for its responsible progression.
Written By: John Kim
Works Cited
Hartung, T., Morales Pantoja, I. E., & Smirnova, L. (2023). Brain organoids and organoid intelligence from ethical, legal, and social points of view. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6, Article 1307613. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1307613
Levin, M., et al. (2021). Ethical considerations for brain organoid research: Current challenges and future perspectives. Nature Neuroscience, 24(9), 1205–1212.
Trujillo, C. A., et al. (2022). The role of brain organoids in the study of neurodevelopmental disorders. Cell Stem Cell, 29(3), 338-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2022.01.005
Boers, S. N., & Bredenoord, A. L. (2018). Consent for governance in the ethical use of human data in research. Nature Biotechnology, 36(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4021
Comments