The idea of paying donors in order to make more human bodily material available for therapy, assisted reproduction, and biomedical research is notoriously controversial. However, while national and international donation policies largely oppose financial incentives they do not treat all parts of the body equally: incentives are allowed in connection to the provision of some parts but not others. Taking off from this observation, I discuss whether body parts differ as regards the ethical legitimacy of incentives and, if so, why. (...) I distinguish two approaches to this issue. On a ”principled” approach, some but not all body parts are inherently special in a way that proscribes payment. On a ”pragmatic” approach, the appropriateness of payment in relation to a specific part must be determined through an overall assessment of e.g. the implications of payment for the health and welfare of providers, recipients, and third parties, and the quality of providers’ consent. I argue that the first approach raises deep and potentially divisive questions about the good life, whereas the second approach invokes currently unsupported empirical assumptions and requires difficult balancing between different values and the interests of different people. This does not mean that any attempt to distinguish between body parts in regard to the appropriateness of payment necessarily fails. However, I conclude, any plausible such attempt should either articulate and defend a specific view of the good life, or gather relevant empirical evidence and apply defensible principles for weighing goods and interests. (shrink)

The utilisation of human organoids has the potential to expedite the cycle of biological innovation significantly, yet it also raises a series of ethical and societal concerns. This study aims to evaluate the perceptions and attitudes of researchers regarding the ethical and social challenges associated with the research and application of human organoids. A 20-item questionnaire was developed to assess various aspects: four items evaluated the overall understanding of organoids, 13 items addressed ontological, ownership, informed consent and additional ethical issues, (...) while the remaining four items focused on ethical governance and regulatory concerns. This questionnaire was distributed to attendees of the 3rd China Symposium on 3D Cell Culture and Organoids in May 2023. Basic descriptive statistical analyses and chi-square tests were conducted. The work has been reported in line with the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. A substantial majority (over 70%) of participants expressed concerns that the research and application of human organoids might raise ethical issues, such as moral status, informed consent and commercialisation. In contrast, a minor segment (4.5%, n = 8) reported feelings of disgust or nausea towards human-animal neural chimeras, with a significant gender difference (p = 0.004). Regarding informed consent for human organoid samples, over 90% of researchers rejected blanket consent for all purposes, and more than half preferred a model of continuous consent, which entails resoliciting consent for new uses. Further, over 40% of participants believed that the commercialisation of human organoids is dependent on their specific type. Our findings show that some researchers held that as long as human embryonic stem cells are not utilised in human organoid research and application, there are no ethical relevant issues. Most researchers also showed indifference towards the concern of moral status and humanisation of animals. The majority believe that the “consent for governance” model is preferable than broad consent or specific consent. We believe to realise the promise of human organoids for medicine, navigating complex ethics tensions and proactively engaging diverse stakeholders are required. Only with prudent, thoughtful and effective guidance, mutual understanding and trust between scientists and public can be fostered; the promising field of organoids can progress rapidly and responsibly. (shrink)