Researchers Raise Concerns Over Claims in Organoid Intelligence

In recent discussions at the Asilomar conference in California, researchers expressed significant concerns regarding inflated claims surrounding the emerging field of organoid intelligence. This innovative area of research, spearheaded by scientists like Lena Smirnova and Thomas Hartung at Johns Hopkins University, explores the potential for brain organoids—tiny lab-grown models of human brain tissue—to mimic cognitive functions such as learning and memory.

These organoids are cultivated in bioreactors and later placed on silicon chips equipped with microelectrodes, enabling them to send and receive electrical signals. This setup allows researchers to decode the communication within the organoids as they adapt to their environments. Smirnova and Hartung propose that this capability may lead to the creation of “organoid intelligence,” a concept they first introduced in a 2023 paper, advocating for a dedicated field to ethically explore the capabilities of these systems.

The implications of organoid intelligence extend beyond academic curiosity. One potential application is the development of biocomputers—organism-machine hybrids that could perform tasks currently managed by traditional data centers, which consume large amounts of water and energy. This idea has garnered attention and funding from organizations such as the National Science Foundation and DARPA, which have invested millions into organoid-based biocomputing initiatives.

Despite the interest, many scientists who initially established the field of brain organoids for studying psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders are apprehensive. At the Asilomar gathering, attendees, including ethicists and legal experts, debated the ethical and social implications of human neural organoids. A recurring theme was the challenge of defining when these lab-cultured constructs might develop sentience or consciousness—attributes that carry significant moral considerations.

Sergiu Pasca, a neural organoid researcher at Stanford University and organizer of the Asilomar meeting, emphasized the importance of using precise language in research. He stated, “Using accurate terms that neither hype nor misrepresent the work really does matter,” highlighting that exaggerated claims could mislead the public and policymakers about the capabilities of organoids.

In contrast, Tony Zador, a computational neuroscientist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, views the aspiration to create organoid intelligence comparable to silicon-based AI as misguided. He pointed out that human-designed data centers function based on specified instructions, while neural circuits inherently operate based on their wiring. Zador remarked, “The challenge is that we still don’t understand which neurons are important and how to form models of computation with them.”

Concerns among researchers extend to the potential regulatory implications of biocomputing. Madeline Lancaster, who developed the first brain organoids at University of Cambridge, warned that overly broad regulations could stifle beneficial research aimed at understanding and treating human conditions. She noted, “That could bring in regulations that prevent all work, including on the side of the field that’s really doing research to try to help people.”

Smirnova’s lab, focused on investigating how environmental toxins affect brain development, has utilized organoids to explore critical questions. Their work aims to understand how chemicals, such as flame retardants, affect fetal brain development. In her view, organoids represent a powerful tool for examining these issues, stating, “It’s a tool to study the relevant physiological functionality of these brain organoids.”

To facilitate the study of organoid intelligence, researchers have begun integrating biofabricated sensors with thousands of electrodes. This technology enables them to simultaneously stimulate and record neuronal activity, paving the way for more complex investigations of organoid behavior.

Ethical considerations remain at the forefront of Smirnova and Hartung’s work. They emphasize the involvement of bioethicists in their projects to ensure responsible research practices. The National Science Foundation has echoed this commitment by requiring ethics to be a key component in its funding proposals for organoid research.

Meanwhile, some companies are also addressing ethical issues within the realm of biocomputing. Brett Kagan, CEO of Cortical Labs in Melbourne, Australia, has been proactive in foregrounding ethical discussions. Kagan’s team successfully taught lab-grown neurons to play the video game Pong, but faced backlash when they described the neurons as having “sentience” in their published paper. This terminology drew criticism from 30 researchers who argued it jeopardized the credibility of the field.

Kagan’s experience highlights a foundational issue within this emerging discipline: the necessity for a shared language to define the properties of organoids accurately. He stated, “If you can’t have a shared language, the ethics don’t mean anything,” underscoring the importance of collaboration in establishing consensus on terminology.

As the field of organoid intelligence continues to evolve, researchers are actively seeking to navigate these complexities. Kagan has reached out to the scientific community, aiming to recruit interdisciplinary experts to foster collaboration in defining and classifying organoid properties. He encourages constructive criticism while advocating for a unified approach to advance the field responsibly.

The ongoing dialogue among researchers, ethicists, and industry leaders will be crucial in shaping the future of organoid intelligence. Balancing innovation with ethical considerations will be essential in harnessing the potential of this groundbreaking research while ensuring that it serves the greater good of society.