Introduction
With the evolving nature of bioprinting technology it is now acceptable that advanced tissue repairs may one day be subjected to actual full human organ replacements, yet in parallel to this overall advancement the greater the technical potential the more inseparable are the new ethical concerns that matter, and least of all the capacity that some bioprinted structures may one day possess sentience or self-awareness, mainly on brain-like tissues chiefly bioprinted. Although it is still speculative, this question makes us ask ourselves whether we will risk going over a moral line and end up creating beings that actually feel or think without necessarily knowing what it entails.
There is the development of neural organoid models and the use of human stem cells in printed tissues and the lines are beginning to blur between what can be considered a synthetic construct and a biological sentient life form. In this article, we consider the ethical dimensions of awareness when applied to the scenario of bioprinted brain tissue, and address the question of whether, whether those constructions might be conscious, and quite possibly, given the positions of the leading experts in the field, that they almost certainly do.
What is Consciousness and Why Does It Matter?
It is vital to derive the definition of what is meant by consciousness before venturing into the realm of ethics. Consciousness can be defined as an understanding of self and environment, the sensation it is capable of and the ability to think and feel at its center. Neuroscientists tend to divide consciousness into a few layers:
- Wakefulness: Basic arousal or alertness
- Awareness: The intake to integrate data and perceive stimuli
- Self Awareness: The internal knowledge about own life and ideas
With bioprinted constructs, and in regard to those simulating the brain in particular, the question would then arise whether such structures might possibly attain any of these levels, and what an ethical implication it would hold upon accomplishment of such.
Bioprinted Brain Tissue: How Close Are We to Sentence?
Neural organoids Neil organoids are now being made by modern bioprinting methods: compact clumps of brain cells formed in human sources, resembling the very beginnings of human brain development. Such constructs have already shown certain aspects of living brains:
- Cortical layers formation
- Connection of Synaptics
- Fetal EEG signals quite identical to electrical oscillations
These do not operate in a traditional sense of being conscious but the greater the complexity of the structures bio-wise, the more we must suspect the possibility of higher levels being formed that may start to breach neuroscientific threshold hide-lines of low indexes of perception.
When these printed tissues begin reacting to the environment they are introduced in, or operating information on its own, it will become harder and harder to distinguish between simulation and actual reality. We are not making much headway towards a cookie cutter produced of complete working printed brain but the rate at which we are going in comparison to our progress reports then we might want to brace ourselves soon early than later towards that ethical herald.
Ethical Theories Related to Consciousness
- Utilitarianism
According to utilitarian perspective, a morally relevant consideration is necessary to the experience of pleasure or pain. In case it is possible to cause a bioprinted organ (like a brain construct) some distress/discomfort, then such an organ would warrant some level of moral protection over themselves. As such, an entity displaying the attributes of sentience would have ethical bearings in the ethical choices of experimentation, disposal, and enhancement.
- Kantian Ethics
The Kantian school of ethics is all about rationality and inherent dignity. Within this framework only rational beings are seen to be ends in themselves. To be considered a “person”, a brain organoid or a printed neural network would have to contain reason and the capacity to act freely. Still, the theories presented by Kant do not exclude the possibility that these characteristics may also develop over time, and thus they can apply in case the future constructions are more advanced.
- Rights Based Ethics
On what can be termed as a rights-based approach, any being that suffers or lives should be allocated some moral rights. Provided that bioprinted structures started fulfilling the biological requirements of awareness, they could come under the right not to be harmed, to be treated without exploitation, and even to have probable existence in some approaches.
The Neuroscientific Threshold: When Does Feeling Begin?
This issue poses which consciousness develops in an organ obtained in a bioprinter is whether a set of developmental and functional milestones in a bioprinted organ is reached, called neuroscientific thresholds. These include:
- The existence of the functioning synapses and dendric spines
- EEG activity that is incited by stimuli or self-stimattery EEG
- Coordinated discharges in neural networks There is no difference between action potential firing and its studies between coordinated action potential firing and studies involving action potential firing.
The patterns evolve during natural human development of the fetal brain at around the 20 24 weeks of development. However, comparable activity has already been achieved only in a few months of culture in the case of lab-printed constructs. They do not equal human consciousness but it is a red flag regarding possible subjectivity.
In addition, in case the neural bioprinting includes the input-output systems with real-time feedback in situ, such as the senses or robot interaction, then there is a higher possibility of experience processing. In case these constructs surpassed neuroscientific thresholds and displayed adaptive learning or manifested response to pain, the society would be asked to reconsider their moral status ethically.
Potential Consequences of Creating Conscious Constructs
- Moral and Legal Status
In case of sentience of a bioprinted organ, it would blur conventional boundaries between animal, human, and the nature of machines. Lawmakers will have to invent a new legal status to sentient bioengineered creatures, which hardly will be free of ethical and political debates. Could whereby such kind of creations have the ethical right to life? To physical integrity of a body? Who would get the responsibility of creating them and the manner of treatment?
- Ethical Research Guidelines
Biomedical research is based on manipulation of tissues and testing of hypotheses. Should these tissues grow with the self-consciousness, the further experimentation without consent may be viewed as a crime tantamount to the abuse. New models would have to be applied to the ethical review boards that would evaluate and safeguard sentient constructs. It would imply slowing or adjusting research that has already been considered acceptable so far.
- Psychological and Societal Impact
This concept alone of wanting to create something that may experience or have the capability of thinking may generate general social discomfort. It poses religious, cultural, and humane ideas, of what it is to be alive. Another danger is the possible human detachment or desensitization in which humans have started treating sentient beings (natural or synthetic) as being disposable or inferior to them.
Analogies with Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
The moral dilemmas of conscious bioprinted organs are the same as in the artificial intelligence and robot industries. There is the question of whether consciousness is a product of intelligent behaviour with AI. Under robotics, we are asking ourselves whether our robots whose bodies are made of synthetic materials and have intelligent algorithms should be allowed.
In the middle of the two camps is the use of bio-printed brains. They are physical, biological objects having possibly adaptive or responsive characteristics. Compared to silicon-based AI, such constructs would potentially be able to denominate human brain activity more closely to the real thing, which means that the same ethical issues are that much more pressing.
Safeguards and Recommendations
In order to wade through these dubious ethical waters, the following protective measures against conflict of interest are suggested:
- Create a Global Ethical Framework
The global organizations such as WHO or UNESCO must take the initiative to establish a shared set of ethical terms of bioprinting research. This code should:
- Explain what are the markers of consciousness in printed tissues
- Ban some forms of the neural bioprinting, at least unless very specific conditions apply
- Establish procedure to obtain mandate consent of source tissue donors
- Require Ethical Viability Testing
Ethical viability tests should be compulsory in the same way physical and biological study of the viability of a construct is done before such construct is used in clinics. This would entail scans of the neurofunctional as well as behavioral tests to assess any traces of awareness.
- Foster Public and Scientific Dialogue
Transparency is crucial not to expose the government to a hurtful backlash. The oral communication of findings, scientific planning with ethicists, and the investing in educating the population on the implications of sentient bioengineering should be implied by the institution.
- Limit the Use of AI-Augmented Bioprinting
In the case where AI systems are being paired with neural constructs to learn, or process data, there should be constraints on this so as to prevent emergent autonomous activity. This dualization brings up an exponential complexity in moral choices.
Conclusion
Bioprinting technology has progressed all the way to fixing broken skin to the brink of duplicating human brain functioning. However, along with this development comes a duty to realize and handle the dangers of developing structures that may, someday, have awareness. Although science might not have gone yet over the line and started thinking of sentient bioprinting, it is now close enough to require ethical thinking beforehand, rather than afterward.
The possibility of designing sentient, self-aware organs brings to question issues of moral philosophy, human rights and identity that is outside the scope of science. The potential lies in the hands of those who can establish strong moral principles, neuroscience limits, and positive relations with society so that bioprinting has a bright future that respects not only the feasibility but also the best thing to do.
