Search

Human cerebral organoids are three-dimensional biological cultures grown in the laboratory to mimic as closely as possible the cellular composition, structure, and function of the corresponding organ, the brain. For now, cerebral organoids lack blood vessels and other characteristics of the human brain, but are also capable of having coordinated electrical activity. They have been usefully employed for the study of several diseases and the development of the nervous system in unprecedented ways. Research on human cerebral organoids is proceeding at a very fast pace and their complexity is bound to improve. This raises the question of whether cerebral organoids will also be able to develop the unique feature of the human brain, consciousness. If this is the case, some ethical issues would arise. In this article, we discuss the necessary neural correlates and constraints for the emergence of consciousness according to some of the most debated neuroscientific theories. Based on this, we consider what the moral status of a potentially conscious brain organoid might be, in light of ethical and ontological arguments. We conclude by proposing a precautionary principle and some leads for further investigation. In particular, we consider the outcomes of some very recent experiments as entities of a potential new kind.

Human cerebral organoids (HCOs) are an in vitro model of early neural development, aimed at modelling and understanding brain development and neurological disorders. In just a few years there has been rapid and considerable progress in the attempt to create a brain model capable of showcasing the characteristics of the human brain. There are still strong limitations to address, including the absence of vascularization which makes it difficult to feed the central layers of the organoid. Nevertheless, some important features of the nervous system have recently been observed in cerebral organoids: they manifest electrical activity (i.e. communication between neurons), are sensitive to light stimulation and are able to connect to a spinal cord by sending impulses that make a muscle contract. Recent data show that cortical organoid network development at ten months resembles some preterm babies EEG patterns. Although cerebral organoids are not close to human brains so far due to their extremely simplified structure, this state of things gives rise to ethical concerns about the creation and destructive experimental use of human cerebral organoids. Particularly, one can wonder whether a human cerebral organoid could develop some degree of consciousness and whether, under certain conditions, it could acquire its own moral status with the related rights. In this article, I discuss the conditions under which HCOs could be granted their own moral status. For this purpose, I consider the hypothesis that HCOs might develop a primitive form of consciousness and investigate the ways in which it could be detected. In light of all this, I finally point out some cautionary measures that could be introduced into research on and with human cerebral organoids., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Human cerebral organoids (HCOs) are three-dimensional in vitro cell cultures that mimic the developmental process and organization of the developing human brain. In just a few years this technique has produced brain models that are already being used to study diseases of the nervous system and to test treatments and drugs. Currently, HCOs consist of tens of millions of cells and have a size of a few millimeters. The greatest limitation to further development is due to their lack of vascularization. However, recent research has shown that human cerebral organoids can manifest the same electrical activity and connections between brain neurons and EEG patterns as those recorded in preterm babies. All this suggests that, in the future, HCOs may manifest an ability to experience basic sensations such as pain, therefore manifesting sentience, or even rudimentary forms of consciousness. This calls for consideration of whether cerebral organoids should be given a moral status and what limitations should be introduced to regulate research. In this article I focus particularly on the study of the emergence and mechanisms of human consciousness, i.e. one of the most complex scientific problems there are, by means of experiments on HCOs. This type of experiment raises relevant ethical issues and, as I will argue, should probably not be considered morally acceptable.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Human brain organoids (HBOs) are three-dimensional biological entities grown in the laboratory in order to recapitulate the structure and functions of the adult human brain. They can be taken to be novel living entities for their specific features and uses. As a contribution to the ongoing discussion on the use of HBOs, the authors identify three sets of reasons for moral concern. The first set of reasons regards the potential emergence of sentience/consciousness in HBOs that would endow them with a moral status whose perimeter should be established. The second set of moral concerns has to do with an analogy with artificial womb technology. The technical realization of processes that are typically connected to the physiology of the human body can create a manipulatory and instrumental attitude that can undermine the protection of what is human. The third set concerns the new frontiers of biocomputing and the creation of chimeras. As far as the new frontier of organoid intelligence is concerned, it is the close relationship of humans with new interfaces having biological components capable of mimicking memory and cognition that raises ethical issues. As far as chimeras are concerned, it is the humanization of nonhuman animals that is worthy of close moral scrutiny. A detailed description of these ethical issues is provided to contribute to the construction of a regulative framework that can guide decisions when considering research in the field of HBOs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human cerebral organoids (HCOs) are an in vitro three-dimensional model of early neural development, aimed at modelling and understanding brain development and neurological disorders. In just a few years, there has been a rapid and considerable progress in the attempt to create a brain model capable of showcasing the structure and functions of the human brain. There are still strong limitations to address, including the absence of vascularization that makes it difficult to feed the central layers of organoids. Nevertheless, some important features of the nervous system have recently been observed: HCOs manifest electrical activity, are sensitive to light stimulation and are able to connect to a spinal cord by sending impulses that make a muscle contract. Recent data show that cortical organoid network development at 10 months resembles some preterm babies' electroencephalography (EEG) patterns. In the light of the fast pace of research in this field, one might consider the hypothesis that HCOs might become a living laboratory for studying the emergence of consciousness and investigating its mechanisms and neural correlates. HCOs could be also a benchmark for different neuroscientific theories of consciousness. In this paper, I propose some potential lines of research and offer some clues and insights so as to use HCOs in trying to unveil some puzzles concerning our conscious states. Finally, I consider some relevant ethical issues regarding this specific experimentation on HCOs and conclude that some of them could require strict regulation in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human cerebral organoids (HCOs) are miniature brains cultivated in a dish using pluripotent human cells that, thanks to advanced technologies, tend to reproduce the development path of the brain of an embryo in the mother's uterus. Recent data from studies carried out in different laboratories have indicated that HCOs show complex electrical activity, are receptive to light stimuli, and can command a muscle connected to them. The presence of the main neuronal structures in them suggests that, despite currently lacking vascularization and sensory exchanges with the outside world, more developed HCOs could exhibit some rudimentary form of consciousness, specifically a minimal sentience with respect to the basic experiences of pain and pleasure. Faced with this possibility, which for many scientists is still a long way off, we have begun to reflect on how we could empirically investigate the presence of consciousness. If we were certain or had a reasonable belief that some types of HCOs are sentient, what kind of entity would we judge them to be? Would they have specific legal protection? Should they be attributed to a moral status? This article tries to give an initial answer to these two questions. On the one side, it seems that no special rights can be claimed for HCOs other than those relating to human biological material. On the other side, instead, a sentient HCO could aspire to having its moral status recognized. If this were the case, the law may have to adapt to this unprecedented situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is epiphenomenalism virtually entailed by the current empirical knowledge about how the mind/brain causes human behavior? I'll address this question by highlighting that recent discoveries in empirical psychology and neuroscience actually do not strike the final blow to the notions of free will and intentional agency. Indeed, most of the experiments that purport to show that our behavior is unconscious and automatic do not prove that it is indeed the case and that therefore we do not have free will. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that those experiments focus on a specific range of our behavior, one that manifests a significant correlation between unconscious priming and decisions or reactions. However, this doesn't mean that the entire range of our relevant behavior works the same way. It can be argued that there are situations of higher relevance in which we are fully conscious of our decisions or, at least, there are decisions such that psychological experiments cannot prove them to always be unconscious and automatic. However, the epiphenomenalist challenge may suggest that we should abandon some of the suppositions implied by a traditional idea of free will. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I use the comparison between human beings and intelligent machines to shed light on the concept of teleology. What characterizes human beings and distinguishes them from a robot capable of achieving complex objectives? In the first place, by stipulating that what characterizes human beings are mental states, I consider the mark of the mental. A smart robot probably has no consciousness but we might have reason for doubt while interacting with it. And a smart robot shows intentionality. I focus on the type of naturalized intentionality that is at stake here. Then I go back to the traditional idea of teleology, and to the scientific criticism of it, through the question of the kind of purposes that artificial intelligence (AI) may set itself. Husserl's basic idea of teleology therefore serves to have an authoritative term of comparison and to introduce the intuitive difference between human beings and intelligent machines based on the homo pictor thought experiment proposed by Jonas. My conclusion is that a specific finalism, understood in a non-criterial sense, is what qualifies the human being and differentiates the latter (for now) from smart robots. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]