Views on the distribution of consciousness influence ethical judgements toward brain organoids as biological computers: an exploratory study.

Overview

1. Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, 1809 Ashland Ave, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States
2. Data Science and Artificial Intelligence Institute, Johns Hopkins University, 6225 Smith Ave, Baltimore, MD 21209, United States
3. Institute for Methods Innovation, 4160 E 2nd St #1309, Casper, WY 82609, United States
4. The Philosophy Department, Bar-Ilan University, Jakobovits Building, 1002, Ramat-Gan, 52900, Israel

Abstract

Biological computers, or ‘biocomputers’, are being engineered with brain organoids integrated with in silico hardware and software components. This technology promises to advance our mechanistic understanding of cognitive processes by embodying in vitro neural systems within virtual learning environments. Yet, biocomputers raise ethical and moral questions, such as whether evidence of consciousness indicates that embodied neural systems have moral status. To better understand the relationship between signs of consciousness and ethical concerns, we conducted an exploratory study to investigate public views toward biocomputers. We examined whether the public’s tendency to attribute consciousness to human and non-human entities guides moral reasoning about biocomputers. We discovered a latent structure underlying public views on the distribution of consciousness. Specifically, we identified three cluster groups, characterized by opinions on the scope of consciousness. These cluster groups were highly predictive of views toward the cognitive capacities and moral status of biocomputers. Respondents in our sample exhibited strong support for research on and creation of biocomputers, and for some, support increased as biocomputers were perceived to be more conscious—a relationship that appears to conflict with conventional reasoning in moral philosophy. Future studies will help determine the prevalence of these views among stakeholders and demographically representative publics at local, national, and global scales whose ethical judgements will inform regulation, oversight, and governance of engineered neural systems.

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY-NC), from the paper cited above.

Code

The paper links to its data, not to its authors' code: see the Data section.

Tracing map

A tracing map links a paper to the code its authors published: this paper has none, so it has no map.

Data

Datasets cited

• osf:kmsug, at OSF; found in “Data availability”

Data availability

Anonymous survey data available on the Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/KMSUG (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KMSUG)).

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY-NC), from the paper cited above.

Versions

The history of this record: each version stored by the harvester or made by a correction of its authors or of the maintainers of its code, and what changed in its facts. The texts of the paper (its abstract, its availability statements) are not part of it; versions that changed only those are not listed.

Version 2, 28 September 2026

• Funding: added National Science Foundation: 2515214; Kavli Foundation

Version 1, 27 September 2026: the first record

Recorded: type, language, journal, volume, issue, pages, dates, 4 authors, 7 keywords, 39 references.

Cite

This paper

Boyd, J. L., Jensen, E. A., Jensen, A. M., & Lipshitz, N. (2026). Views on the distribution of consciousness influence ethical judgements toward brain organoids as biological computers: an exploratory study. Neuroscience of consciousness, 2026(1), niag023. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niag023

Similar papers

The papers with a page that share the most with this one: the tools found in their code, their categories, datasets, cited references and authors, the rarest counting most.

[1] doi:10.1038/s42003-026-10132-z [code]

Hippocampal criticality tracks cognitive demand and shifts with memory impairment.

Journal: Communications biology

In common: cognitive, 1 reference

[2] doi:10.1073/pnas.2610776123 [code]

Divergent philosophical commitments in neuroscience: Evidence from a global survey.

Journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

In common: 1 reference

[3] doi:10.1162/imag.a.1193

Linking local and large-scale salient events with oscillatory and broadband arrhythmic activities in the resting human brain.

Journal: Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)

In common: 1 reference

[4] doi:10.1093/brain/awaf412 [code]

Multimodal multicentre investigation of diagnostic and prognostic markers in disorders of consciousness.

Journal: Brain : a journal of neurology

In common: 1 reference

[5] doi:10.1038/s41467-026-75244-w [code]

Neural dynamics of temporal interference stimulation monitoring by soft liquid metal interfaces across neural systems.

Journal: Nature communications

In common: 1 reference

[6] doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2026.102832 [code]

Establishing mouse forebrain organoids as models of intrinsic cortical network assembly.

Journal: Stem cell reports

In common: 1 reference

[7] doi:10.1016/j.isci.2026.117212 [code]

Critical neuronal avalanches arise from excitation-inhibition balanced spontaneous activity.

Journal: iScience

In common: 1 reference

[8] doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btag570 [code]

CASCADE: criticality avalanche spike cross-platform analysis detection engine, a multi-manufacturer MEA bash analysis pipeline.

Journal: Bioinformatics (Oxford, England)

In common: 1 reference

Contribute

The authors of this paper can claim it, correct its record and validate its tracing map, and the maintainers of its code (its owner, or a public member of its organization) correct what it says of their repository; anyone signed in can ask for its removal. Every request goes to OSCR's own machine, which answers it; your account page follows them.

Request its removal

To ask OSCR to remove this record, the copies of its authors' scripts or its tracing map, use the removal request page: signed in, you say who you are, what to remove and why, then review and confirm the request. Published rules decide every request (how).

Discussion: questions and error reports about this paper and its code, from signed-in readers and its authors. It opens with sign-in.

Reproductions: reports from readers who ran the authors' code: what they reproduced, with which environment, commit and data. It opens with sign-in.

Activity: what happens around this paper: new versions of its record, its map's validation, discussions and reproductions. It opens with sign-in.