the line between what can be considered a synthetic construct and an intelligent biological life form is beginning to blur. In this article, we believe the ethical implications of consciousness to the bioprinted brain tissue scenario, and address the question of whether such constructs could be conscious – and, given the positions of leading experts in the field, it is quite possible that they almost certainly are.
What is Consciousness and Why Does It Matter?
It is essential to define consciousness before delving into the realm of ethics. Consciousness can be defined as understanding oneself and one’s surroundings.
the sensations it can evoke, and the ability to think and feel at its core. Neuroscientists typically divide consciousness into several layers:
- Alertness: A state of alertness or basic activation.
- Consciousness: The ability to integrate data and perceive stimuli.
- Self-awareness: Inner knowledge of one’s own life and ideas.
In the case of bioprinted constructs, especially those that mimic the brain, the question arises: will such structures achieve any of these levels, and what ethical implications does this entail?
Bioprinted Brain Tissue: How Close Are We to a Sentence?
Neural organoids. Neural organoids are now being produced using modern bioprinting techniques: compact clusters of brain cells formed in human sources, reminiscent of the early development of the human brain.
These constructs have already demonstrated some aspects of the living brain:
- Formation of cortical layers
- Synaptic connections
- Fetal EEG signals are almost identical to electrical oscillations.
They do not function in the traditional sense of consciousness. Still, the more complex the structures are from a biological point of view, the more we should suspect the possibility of higher levels that can begin to overcome the neurobiological thresholds of low levels of perception.
Once these printed tissues begin to respond to the environment they are placed in or process information on their own, it will become increasingly complex to distinguish between simulation and reality. We are not far from a fully functioning printed brain, but at the rate we are moving compared to our progress reports, we should prepare for this ethical harbinger soon.
Ethical Theories Related to Consciousness
1. Utilitarianism
According to the utilitarian view, the experience of pleasure or pain requires morally relevant consideration. It would merit some moral protection if it could inflict suffering or discomfort on a bioprinted organ (e.g., a brain construct). Therefore, an entity with sentience attributes would have ethical implications for ethical decisions regarding experimentation, disposal, and enhancement.
2. Kantian Ethics
The Kantian school of ethics focuses on rationality and innate dignity. Within this framework, only rational beings are considered ends in themselves. To be considered a “person,” a brain organelle or imprinted neural network must contain reason and the ability to act freely. However, the theories presented by Kant do not exclude the possibility that these characteristics can also develop over time and therefore apply to more advanced future constructs.
3. Rights-Based Ethics
In what might be called a rights-based approach, every living or suffering being would be accorded certain moral rights. Whenever bioprinted structures meet the biological requirements of consciousness, they might be protected by a right not to be harmed, a right to be treated without exploitation, and even a right to probable existence in some approaches.
The Neuroscientific Threshold: When Does Feeling Begin?
This question raises the question of what type of consciousness develops in the bioprinted organ and whether certain developmental stages and functional milestones known as neurobiological thresholds are reached. These include:
- Existence of functional synapses and dendritic spines
- Stimulated EEG activity or self-stimulated EEG
- Coordinated discharges in neural networks. There is no difference between coordinated action potential firing and studies involving action potential firing.
The patterns develop during the natural development of the human embryonic brain, around 20–24 weeks of development. However, comparable activity has only been achieved in lab-printed constructs over several months of culture. Although they do not achieve human consciousness, they are a warning sign of potential subjectivity.
Furthermore, if neural bioprinting includes real-time in situ feedback input/output systems, such as touch or robotic interaction, there is a greater potential for experience processing. If these constructs were to exceed neurobiological thresholds and demonstrate adaptive learning or pain response, society would have to re-evaluate their moral status from an ethical perspective.
Potential Consequences of Creating Conscious Constructs
1. Moral and Legal Status
If a bioprinted organ were to become conscious, the usual boundaries between animal, human, and machine nature would blur. Lawmakers would have to develop a new legal status for bioengineered sentient beings, which would hardly be free of ethical and political debate. Would these creatures have a moral right to life? To the physical integrity of their bodies? Who would be responsible for their creation and their treatment?
2. Ethical Research Guidelines
Biomedical research relies on tissue manipulation and hypothesis testing. If these tissues grow with self-awareness, further experimentation without consent could be considered a crime tantamount to abuse. Ethics committees must apply new models to evaluate and protect intelligent designs. This will entail slowing down or adjusting research that has already been deemed acceptable.
3. Psychological and Societal Impact
The simple desire to create something that can experience or think can create widespread social unrest. It raises religious, cultural, and human ideas about what it means to be alive. Another danger is the potential for human alienation or desensitisation, where people begin to view sentient beings (natural or synthetic) as disposable or inferior.
Analogies with Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
The moral dilemmas of conscious bioprinted organs are the same as those in artificial intelligence and robotics. The question arises whether consciousness is a product of intelligent behaviour with AI. In robotics, we ask whether we should allow our robots, whose bodies are made of synthetic materials and run on smart algorithms.
Between these two areas lies the use of bioprinted brains. These are physical, biological objects with potentially adaptive or reactive characteristics. Compared to silicon-based AI, these constructs could potentially describe human brain activity more closely to reality, meaning that the same ethical questions are much more relevant.
Safeguards and Recommendations
To navigate these ethically questionable waters, the following conflict-of-interest safeguards are suggested:
1. Create a Global Ethical Framework
Global organisations such as the WHO and UNESCO should take the lead in creating a common set of ethical standards for bioprinting research. This code should:
- Explain the markers of consciousness in printed tissues.
- Ban some forms of neural bioprinting unless particular conditions apply.
- Establish a procedure for obtaining informed consent from donors of source tissues.
2. Require Ethical Viability Testing
Ethical feasibility testing should be mandatory, as the design’s physical and biological feasibility testing is conducted before clinical use. This would include neurofunctional studies and behavioural tests to assess any signs of consciousness.
3. Foster Public and Scientific Dialogue
Transparency is critical to avoiding government backlash. Verbal communication of results, scientific planning with ethicists, and investment in public education about the implications of intelligent bioengineering should be institutional responsibilities.
4. Limit the Use of AI-Augmented Bioprinting
If AI systems are coupled with neural constructs for learning or data processing, there must be constraints to prevent autonomous activity from occurring. This dualization creates exponential complexity for moral decisions.
Conclusion
Bioprinting technology has advanced to the point where it can repair damaged skin, reaching the point of replicating the functioning of the human brain. However, this advancement comes with the responsibility of understanding and managing the risks of developing structures that may one day be conscious. While science has not yet moved forward to consider conscious bioprinting, it is close enough to require ethical reflection beforehand rather than after.
The possibility of designing conscious and self-aware organs raises questions of moral philosophy, human rights, and identity beyond science. The potential lies in those who can establish sound ethical principles, the limits of neuroscience, and a positive relationship with society, so that bioprinting can have a bright future that respects both feasibility and the best option.