SCIENTIFIC advances and societal norms rarely progress at the same pace, a mismatch that is behind some of the biggest controversies in science, from the theory of evolution to genetically modified foods. Should scientists be doing more to take the public with them as research fields develop?
Researchers behind a high-tech advance in healthcare (see “Organoids made from uterus fluid may help treat fetuses before birth”) should be praised for their open approach. The work involves obtaining cells that have been shed by a fetus in the uterus and coaxing them into forming tiny balls of tissue, sometimes called “mini-organs” or organoids. Studying these structures could one day let doctors treat children born with various medical conditions.
Advertisement
Organoids – usually made from adult cells – have been used in research for a little over a decade. Because they seem closer to real human organs than cells grown in a single layer on the bottom of a dish, they already make some feel squeamish. Add fetuses into the mix and it only raises the potential for controversy.
But really, there is no cause for alarm. While the field accepts the need for caution with brain organoids – in case they one day approach some kind of sentience – those resembling other organs should raise no more ethical concerns than a tissue biopsy stored in a fridge.
The goal of this fetal organoid research is to help children who would otherwise have a very poor quality of life. The technique is likely to be first applied to a lung condition where nearly a third of babies who have it don’t survive for long after birth. Organoids have another benefit: those made from adult cells are already replacing some animal experiments. The field is therefore likely to lead to less suffering in the world, rather than more.
Nevertheless, when new technologies such as these arrive, it is right that scientists work to explain the details, so that the public can understand and debate what is going on. No matter how uneasy it makes some people, transparency is the only way to prevent an anti-scientific backlash.
