Explore the vast range of titles available.

Growing functional human tissues and organs would provide much needed material for regeneration and repair. New technologies are taking us in that direction. In addition to their use in regenerative medicine, stem cells that grow and morph into organ-like structures known as organoids can be used in drug development and toxicology testing. The potential developments and possibilities are numerous and affect not only biomedicine but also areas of ongoing ethical debate, such as animal experimentation, research on human embryos and fetuses, ethics review, and patient consent. Bredenoord et al. review how organoids affect existing ethical debates and how they raise novel ethical dilemmas and professional responsibilities. Science , this issue p. 10.1126/science.aaf9414 The ability to generate human tissues in vitro from stem cells has raised enormous expectations among the biomedical research community, patients, and the general public. These organoids enable studies of normal development and disease and allow the testing of compounds directly on human tissue. Organoids hold the promise to influence the entire innovation cycle in biomedical research. They affect fields that have been subjects of intense ethical debate, ranging from animal experiments and the use of embryonic or fetal human tissues to precision medicine, organoid transplantation, and gene therapy. However, organoid research also raises additional ethical questions that require reexamination and potential recalibration of ethical and legal policies. In this Review, we describe the current state of research and discuss the ethical implications of organoid technology.

Current advances in biotechnology open up unprecedented possibilities to transform human tissues into complex, valuable tissue products, such as organoids. Here, we propose consent for governance as a leading paradigm for the derivation, storage and use of complex human tissue products to ensure adjustment to changing ethical requirements.

The “14‐day rule”—broadly construed—is used in science policy and regulation to limit research on human embryos to a maximum period of 14 days after their creation or to the equivalent stage of development that is normally attributed to a 14‐day‐old embryo (Hyun et al , 2016 ; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2017 ). For several decades, the 14‐day rule has been a shining example of how science policy and regulation can be developed with interdisciplinary consensus and applied across a number of countries to help fulfil an ethical and practical purpose: to facilitate efficient and ethical embryo research. However, advances in embryology and biomedical research have led to suggestions that the 14‐day rule is no longer adequate (Deglincerti et al , 2016 ; Shahbazi et al , 2016 ; Hurlbut et al , 2017 ). Therefore, should the 14‐day rule be extended and, if so, where should we draw a new line for permissible embryo research? Here, we provide scientific, regulatory and ethical arguments that the 14‐day rule should be extended to 28 days (or the developmental equivalent stage of a 28‐day‐old embryo). Graphical Abstract The “14‐day rule” is used in science policy and regulation to limit research on human embryos to a maximum period of 14 days after their creation. In this modern era of technological advancement and greater needs for biomedical research, isn't the rule too limited? By Annelien Bredenoord & John Appleby.

In recent years, newgenome editing technologies have emerged that can edit the genomeofnon-humananimalswithprogressivelyincreasingefficiency. Despite ongoing academic debate about the ethical implications of these technologies, no comprehensive overview of this debate exists. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a systematic review of the reasons reported in the academic literature for and against the development and use of genome editing technologies in animals. Most included articleswere written by academics from the biomedical or animal sciences. The reported reasons related to seven themes: human health, efficiency, risks and uncertainty, animalwelfare, animal dignity, environmental considerations and public acceptability. Our findings illuminate several key considerations about the academic debate, including a lowdisciplinary diversity in the contributing academics, a scarcity of systematic comparisons ofpotential consequencesofusingthese technologies, anunderrepresentation of animal interests, and a disjunction between the public and academic debate on this topic. As such, this article can be considered a call for a broad range of academics to get increasingly involved in the discussion about genome editing, to incorporate animal interests and systematic comparisons, and to further discuss the aims and methods of public involvement. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'The ecology and evolution of prokaryotic CRISPR-Cas adaptive immune systems'.

Background Our human societies and certainly also (bio) medicine are more and more permeated with technology. There seems to be an increasing awareness among bioethicists that an effective and comprehensive approach to ethically guide these emerging biomedical innovations into society is needed. Such an approach has not been spelled out yet for bioethics, while there are frequent calls for ethical guidance of biomedical innovation, also by biomedical researchers themselves. New and emerging biotechnologies require anticipation of possible effects and implications, meaning the scope is not evaluative after a technology has been fully developed or about hypothetical technologies, but real-time for a real biotechnology. Main text In this paper we aim to substantiate and discuss six ingredients that we increasingly see adopted by ethicists and that together constitute “ethics parallel research”. This approach allows to fulfil two aims: guiding the development process of technologies in biomedicine and providing input for the normative evaluation of such technologies. The six ingredients of ethics parallel research are: (1) disentangling wicked problems, (2) upstream or midstream ethical analysis, (3) ethics from within, (4) inclusion of empirical research, (5) public participation and (6) mapping societal impacts, including hard and soft impacts. We will draw on gene editing, organoid technology and artificial intelligence as examples to illustrate these six ingredients. Conclusion Ethics parallel research brings together these ingredients to ethically analyse and proactively or parallel guide technological development. It widens the roles and judgements from the ethicist to a more anticipatory and constructively guiding role. Ethics parallel research is characterised by a constructive, rather than a purely critical perspective, it focusses on developing best-practices rather than outlining worst practice, and draws on insights from social sciences and philosophy of technology.

Recent developments in biotechnology allow for the generation of increasingly complex products out of human tissues, for example, human stem cell lines, synthetic embryo-like structures and organoids. These developments are coupled with growing commercial interests. Although commercialisation can spark the scientific and clinical promises, profit-making out of human tissues is ethically contentious and known to raise public concern. The traditional bioethical frames of gift versus market are inapt to capture the resulting practical and ethical complexities. Therefore, we propose an alternative approach to identify, evaluate and deal with the ethical challenges that are raised by the increasing commercialisation of the exchange of sophisticated human tissue products. We use organoid technology, a cutting-edge stem cell technology that enables the cultivation of ‘mini-organs’ in a dish, as an example. First, we examine the moral value of organoids and recognise them as hybrids that relate to persons and their bodies as well as to technologies and markets in ambiguous ways. Second, we show that commercialisation of organoids is legitimised by a detachment of the instrumental and commercial value of organoids from their associations with persons and their bodies. This detachment is enacted in steps of disentanglement, among which consent and commodification. Third, we contend that far-reaching disentanglement is ethically challenging: (1) Societal interests could be put under pressure, because the rationale for commercialising organoid technology, that is, to stimulate biomedical innovation for the good of society, may not be fulfilled; (2) The interests of donors are made subordinate to those of third parties and the relational moral value of organoids may be insufficiently recognised. Fourth, we propose a ‘consent for governance’ model that contributes to responsible innovation and clinical translation in this exciting field.

Graphical Abstract A timely and thoughtful discussion of the ethical challenges and societal impacts presented by the recent reports demonstrating the successful in vitro generation of functional gametes from somatic and pluripotent stem cells.

Background The NIA-AA research framework proposes a purely biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). This implies that AD can be diagnosed based on biomarker abnormalities, irrespective of clinical manifestation. While this brings opportunities, it also raises challenges. We aimed to provide an overview of considerations regarding the disclosure of AD pathology before the onset of dementia. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection (on 10 December 2020) for references on conveying AD biomarker results to individuals without dementia. Our query combined variations on the terms Alzheimer’s disease, disclosure, or diagnosis, preclinical or prodromal, and biomarkers. Two reviewers independently screened the resulting 6860 titles and abstracts for eligibility and examined 162 full-text records for relevance. We included theoretical articles in English, on communicating amyloid and/or tau results to individuals with mild cognitive impairment, subjective cognitive decline, or normal cognition. MAXQDA-software was used for inductive data analysis. Results We included 27 publications. From these, we extracted 26 unique considerations, which we grouped according to their primary relevance to a clinical, personal, or societal context. Clinical considerations included (lack of) validity, utility, and disclosure protocols. Personal considerations covered psychological and behavioral implications, as well as the right to (not) know. Finally, societal considerations comprised the risk of misconception, stigmatization, and discrimination. Overall, views were heterogeneous and often contradictory, with emphasis on harmful effects. Conclusions We found 26 diverse and opposing considerations, related to a clinical, personal, or societal context, which are relevant to diagnosing AD before dementia. The theoretical literature tended to focus on adverse impact and rely on common morality, while the motivation for and implications of biomarker testing are deeply personal. Our findings provide a starting point for clinicians to discuss biomarker-based diagnosis with their patients, which will become even more relevant in light of the conditional approval of a first disease-modifying drug for AD.

Convergence of neural implants with artificial intelligence (AI) presents opportunities for the development of novel neural implants and improvement of existing neurotechnologies. While such technological innovation carries great promise for the restoration of neurological functions, they also raise ethical challenges. Developers of AI-driven neural implants possess valuable knowledge on the possibilities, limitations and challenges raised by these innovations; yet their perspectives are underrepresented in academic literature. This study aims to explore perspectives of developers of neurotechnology to outline ethical implications of three AI-driven neural implants: a cochlear implant, a visual neural implant, and a motor intention decoding speech-brain-computer-interface. We conducted semi-structured focus groups with developers (n = 19) of AI-driven neural implants. Respondents shared ethically relevant considerations about AI-driven neural implants that we clustered into three themes: (1) design aspects; (2) challenges in clinical trials; (3) impact on users and society. Developers considered accuracy and reliability of AI-driven neural implants conditional for users’ safety, authenticity, and mental privacy. These needs were magnified by the convergence with AI. Yet, the need for accuracy and reliability may also conflict with potential benefits of AI in terms of efficiency and complex data interpretation. We discuss strategies to mitigate these challenges.

The FAIR guiding principles for research data stewardship (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability) look set to become a cornerstone of research in the life sciences. A critical appraisal of these principles in light of ongoing discussions and developments about data sharing is in order. The FAIR principles point the way forward for facilitating data sharing more systematically—provided that a number of ethical, methodological, and organisational challenges are addressed as well.