The precautionary principle and the ethical governance of human brain organoid research.

IF 4.4 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Xiaoya Huang, Huiyu Luo, Julian Savulescu, Yonghui Ma
{"title":"The precautionary principle and the ethical governance of human brain organoid research.","authors":"Xiaoya Huang, Huiyu Luo, Julian Savulescu, Yonghui Ma","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2717416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Human brain organoids have attracted increasing attention for their potential to model human brain development and neurological disorders. However, concerns about their possible consciousness have generated ongoing ethical debate. In situations where scientific evidence remains uncertain but the possibility of serious moral harm cannot be excluded, the precautionary principle has been proposed as a framework for ethical governance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This article critically examines the applicability of the precautionary principle to human brain organoid research through normative analysis. It clarifies core normative elements of precautionary principle and evaluates its relevance to emerging ethical challenges in brain organoid research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis identifies several major governance challenges, including the epistemic limitations of similarity-based inference, tensions between evidentiary standards and precautionary obligations, and the risks of ethics dumping. These problems reveal broader governance gaps rather than theoretical disagreements, underscoring the need for institutional adaptation in advance of definitive scientific evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The article argues that precautionary governance in human brain organoid research should avoid both excessive restriction and ethical complacency. It proposes strategies including dynamic and graded regulation, proportionality-based safeguards, and stronger international coordination. These approaches aim to balance ethical vigilance with responsible scientific innovation in a rapidly evolving field.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2717416"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2717416","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Human brain organoids have attracted increasing attention for their potential to model human brain development and neurological disorders. However, concerns about their possible consciousness have generated ongoing ethical debate. In situations where scientific evidence remains uncertain but the possibility of serious moral harm cannot be excluded, the precautionary principle has been proposed as a framework for ethical governance.

Methods: This article critically examines the applicability of the precautionary principle to human brain organoid research through normative analysis. It clarifies core normative elements of precautionary principle and evaluates its relevance to emerging ethical challenges in brain organoid research.

Results: The analysis identifies several major governance challenges, including the epistemic limitations of similarity-based inference, tensions between evidentiary standards and precautionary obligations, and the risks of ethics dumping. These problems reveal broader governance gaps rather than theoretical disagreements, underscoring the need for institutional adaptation in advance of definitive scientific evidence.

Conclusions: The article argues that precautionary governance in human brain organoid research should avoid both excessive restriction and ethical complacency. It proposes strategies including dynamic and graded regulation, proportionality-based safeguards, and stronger international coordination. These approaches aim to balance ethical vigilance with responsible scientific innovation in a rapidly evolving field.

人脑类器官研究的预防原则与伦理治理。
背景:人脑类器官因其模拟人脑发育和神经系统疾病的潜力而受到越来越多的关注。然而,对它们可能有意识的担忧引发了持续的伦理辩论。在科学证据仍然不确定但不能排除严重道德损害可能性的情况下,预防性原则已被提议作为伦理治理的框架。方法:本文通过规范分析,批判性地考察了预防原则在人脑类器官研究中的适用性。它阐明了预防原则的核心规范要素,并评估了其与脑类器官研究中新兴伦理挑战的相关性。结果:该分析确定了几个主要的治理挑战,包括基于相似性推理的认知限制、证据标准与预防义务之间的紧张关系以及道德倾销的风险。这些问题揭示了更广泛的治理差距,而不是理论分歧,强调了在获得明确的科学证据之前进行制度适应的必要性。结论:本文认为,人脑类器官研究的预防性治理应避免过度限制和道德自满。它提出了包括动态分级监管、基于比例的保障措施以及加强国际协调在内的战略。这些方法旨在在一个快速发展的领域中平衡道德警惕与负责任的科学创新。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书