Emerging Debates About Breakthrough Science: Understanding the Interplay of Values and Cognition in Shaping Attitudes on Human Brain Organoids

Abstract

Human brain organoids (HBOs) hold the potential for major medical breakthroughs but raise ethical considerations that could intensify public scrutiny and regulatory challenges. This study explores the underlying value and cognitive pathways shaping public opinion of HBOs. Findings reveal political ideology correlates to moral opposition to HBOs, regardless of information intake. Religiosity predicts moral opposition, while deference to science correlates with support for HBOs. Moreover, risk-benefit perceptions shape public attitudes, but this relationship is moderated by deference to science. These findings lead to a better understanding of public opinion dynamics early in the issue attention cycle for emerging wicked science.

Keywords

human brain organoids media use public opinion religiosity risk perception science communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akin

Cacciatore

M. A.

Yeo

S. K.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Xenos

M. A.

(2020). Publics’ support for novel and established science issues linked to perceived knowledge and deference to science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 33(2), 422–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edaa010

Akin

Rose

K. M.

Scheufele

D. A.

Simis-Wilkinson

Brossard

Xenos

M. A.

Corley

E. A.

(2017). Mapping the landscape of public attitudes on synthetic biology. Bioscience, 67(3), 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw171

Anderson

A. A.

Scheufele

D. A.

Brossard

Corley

(2012). The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(2), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edr032

Brossard

Nisbet

M. C.

(2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edl003

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Kim

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 546–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507087304

Clifford

Jerit

(2013). How words do the work of politics: Moral foundations theory and the debate over stem cell research. The Journal of Politics, 75(3), 659–671. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613000492

Cobb

M. D.

Macoubrie

(2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4

Converse

P. E.

(1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. The Free Press of Glencoe.

Downs

(1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycles. Public Interest, 28, 38–50.

10.

Egan

P. J.

(2020). Identity as dependent variable: How Americans shift their identities to align with their politics. American Journal of Political Science, 64(3), 699–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12496

11.

Eichmüller

O. L.

Knoblich

J. A.

(2022). Human cerebral organoids: A new tool for clinical neurology research. Nature Reviews Neurology, 18(11), 661–680. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-022-00723-9

12.

Evans

J. H.

(2011). Epistemological and moral conflict between religion and science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(4), 707–727. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01603.x

13.

Evans

J. H.

(2018). Morals not knowledge: Recasting the contemporary U.S. conflict between religion and science. University of California Press.

14.

Evans

J. H.

(2022). The public’s ethical issues with brain organoid research and application. American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience, 13(2), 101–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2022.2048727

15.

Evans

J. H.

(2023). Translational bioethics and public input. Ethics & Human Research, 45(4), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500175

16.

Evans

J. H.

(2024a). Translational bioethical decision-making: Human brain organoids as a case study. Ethics & Human Research, 46(4), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500175

17.

Evans

J. H.

(2024b). Disembodied brains: Understanding our intuitions on human-animal neuro-chimeras and human brain organoids. Oxford University Press.

18.

Farahany

N. A.

Greely

H. T.

Hyman

Koch

Grady

Pasca

S. P.

Sestan

Arlotta

Bernet

J. L.

Ting

Lunshof

J. E.

Iyer

E. P. R.

Hyun

Capestany

B. H.

Church

G. M.

Huang

Song

(2018). The ethics of experimenting with human brain tissue. Nature, 556, 429–432. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-04813-x

19.

Fischhoff

Lichtenstein

Derby

Slovic

Keeney

(1983). Acceptable risk. Cambridge University Press.

20.

Friedman

S. M.

Egolf

B. P.

(2011). A longitudinal study of newspaper and wire service coverage of nanotechnology risks. Risk Analysis, 31(11), 1701–1717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01690.x

21.

Gauchat

(2015). The political context of science in the United States: Public acceptance of evidence-based policy and science funding. Social Forces, 94(2), 723–746. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sov040

22.

Graham

Haidt

Nosek

B. A.

(2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141

23.

Green

Palmquist

Schickler

(2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.

24.

Hatemi

P. K.

Crabtree

Smith

K. B.

(2019). Ideology justifies morality: Political beliefs predict moral foundations. American Journal of Political Science, 63(4), 788–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12448

25.

Heaven

(2013, August 29). Mini human “brains” grown in lab for first time. New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24114-mini-human-brains-grown-in-lab-for-first-time/

26.

Hetherington

Weiler

(2018). Prius or pickup? How the answers to four simple questions explain America’s great divide. Houghton Mifflin.

27.

S. S.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

(2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edn017

28.

S. S.

Scheufele

D. A.

Corley

E. A.

(2010). Making sense of policy choices: Understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12(8), 2703–2715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-010-0038-8

29.

S. S.

Scheufele

D. A.

Corley

E. A.

(2011). Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: The interplay of public and experts. Science Communication, 33(2), 167–200. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/10.1177/1075547010380386

30.

Horberg

E. J.

Oveis

Keltner

Cohen

A. B.

(2009). Disgust and the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 963–976. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017423

31.

Howell

E. L.

Scheufele

D. A.

Brossard

Xenos

M. A.

Kwon

Youtie

Shapira

. (2020). Scientists’ and the publics’ views of synthetic biology. In Trump

Cummings

Juzma

Linkov

(Eds.), Synthetic biology 2020: Frontiers in risk analysis and governance (pp. 371–387). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7_16

32.

Howell

E. L.

Wirz

C. D.

Scheufele

D. A.

Brossard

Xenos

M. A.

(2020). Deference and decision-making in science and society: How deference to scientific authority goes beyond confidence in science and scientists to become authoritarianism. Public Understanding of Science, 29(8), 800–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520962741

33.

Jennings

M. K.

Stoker

Bowers

(2009). Politics across generations: Family transmission reexamined. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 782–799. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381609090719

34.

Johnson

(2018). Lab-grown brain bits open windows to the mind: And a maze of ethical dilemmas. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/lab-grown-brain-bits-open-windows-to-the-mind–and-a-maze-of-ethical-dilemmas/

35.

Jowitt

(2022, November 2). Lab—grown brain cells can play Pong—so should they have legal rights? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/lab-grown-brain-cells-can-play-pong-so-should-they-have-legal-rights-192549

36.

Kahan

Braman

Slovic

Gastil

Cohen

(2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.341

37.

Kataoka

Gyngell

Savulescu

Sawai

(2023). The ethics of human brain organoid transplantation in animals. Neuroethics, 16(3), Article 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-023-09532-3

38.

Khushf

(2005). The use of emergent technologies for enhancing human performance: Are we prepared to address the ethical and policy issues. Public Policy and Practice, 4(2), 1–17.

39.

Kim

Yeo

S. K.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Xenos

M. A.

(2014). Disentangling the influence of value predispositions and risk/benefit perceptions on support for nanotechnology among the American public. Risk Analysis, 34(5), 965–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12141

40.

Kinder

D. R.

Kalmoe

N. P.

(2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226452593

41.

Kozlowski

A. C.

(2022). How conservatives lost confidence in science: The role of ideological alignment in political polarization. Social Forces, 100(3), 1415–1443. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soab020

42.

Krause

N. M.

(2023). How anti-science discourse limits research and action on science polarization (Publication no. 30637867) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

43.

Krause

N. M.

Scheufele

D. A.

Freiling

Brossard

(2021). The trust fallacy: Scientists’ search for public pathologies is unhealthy, unhelpful, and ultimately unscientific. American Scientist, 109(4), 226–232. https://doi.org/10.1511/2021.109.4.226

44.

Kunda

(1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.

45.

Lavazza

Pizzetti

F. G.

(2020). Human cerebral organoids as a new legal and ethical challenge. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1), Article lsaa005. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa005

46.

Lee

J. J.

(2021). Party polarization and trust in science: What about democrats? Socius, 7, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231211010101

47.

Liang

S. S.

Brossard

Xenos

M. A.

Scheufele

D. A.

Anderson

A. A.

Hao

(2015). Value predispositions as perceptual filters: Comparing of public attitudes toward nanotechnology in the United States and Singapore. Public Understanding of Science, 24(5), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513510858

48.

McPhetres

Zuckerman

(2018). Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy. PLOS ONE, 13(11), Article e0207125. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207125

49.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2024). Evolution resources at the national academies: Science and religion. https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/science-and-religion

50.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh058

51.

Nisbet

M. C.

Brossard

Kroepsch

(2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/politics, 8(2), 36–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X02251047

52.

Nisbet

M. C.

Huge

(2006). Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate: Managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. Harvard International Journal of Press/politics, 11(2), 3–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X06286701

53.

Pew Research Center. (2018). Artificial Intelligence and the future of humans. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/12/10/artificial-intelligence-and-the-future-of-humans/

54.

Pew Research Center. (2023). Americans’ trust in scientists, positive views of science continue to decline. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/11/14/americans-trust-in-scientists-positive-views-of-science-continue-to-decline/

55.

Presley

Samsa

L. A.

Dubljević

(2022). Media portrayal of ethical and social issues in brain organoid research. Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine, 17, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-022-00119-z

56.

Quadrato

Brown

Arlotta

(2016). The promises and challenges of human brain organoids as models of neuropsychiatric disease. Nature Medicine, 22(11), 1220–1228. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4214

57.

Rosenzweig-Ziff

(2024, February 20). Frozen embryos are children, ala. high court says in unprecedented ruling. The Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/19/alabama-supreme-court-embryos-children-ivf/

58.

Sarewitz

(2015). CRISPR: Science can’t solve it. Nature, 522, 413–414. https://doi.org/10.1038/522413a

59.

Satterfield

Kandlikar

Beaudrie

C. E. H.

Conti

Herr Harthorn

(2009). Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(11), 752–758. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2009.265

60.

Sawai

Hayashi

Niikawa

Shepherd

Thomas

Lee

T.-L.

Erler

Watanabe

Sakaguchi

(2022). Mapping the ethical issues of brain organoid research and application. American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience, 13(2), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2021.1896603

61.

Scheufele

D. A.

Corley

E. A.

Shih

T. J.

Dalrymple

K. E.

S. S.

(2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 91–94. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.361

62.

Scheufele

D. A.

Krause

N. M.

Freiling

Brossard

(2021). What we know about effective public engagement on CRISPR and beyond. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(22), Article e2004835117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004835117

63.

Scheufele

D. A.

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2

64.

Schiffer

(2019). Science without God: Researchers’ bold usurpation of divine authority. National Catholic Register. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/science-without-god-researchers-bold-usurpation-of-divine-authority

65.

Shih

T. J.

Scheufele

D. A.

Brossard

(2013). Disagreement and value predispositions: Understanding public opinion about stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(3), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/eds029

66.

Siegrist

Árvai

(2020). Risk perception: Reflections on 40 years of research. Risk Analysis, 40(S1), 2191–2206. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13599

67.

Siegrist

Connor

Keller

(2012). Trust, confidence, procedural fairness, outcome fairness, moral conviction, and the acceptance of GM field experiments. Risk Analysis, 32(8), 1394–1403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01739.x

68.

Siegrist

Luchsinger

Bearth

(2021). The impact of trust and risk perception on the acceptance of measures to reduce COVID-19 cases. Risk Analysis, 41(5), 787–800. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13675

69.

Simmons

(2023, July 18). In an age of ubiquitous AI, what does it mean to be human? Insights from Stanford Business. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/age-ubiquitous-ai-what-does-it-mean-be-human

70.

Sjöberg

(2002). Attitudes toward technology and risk: Going beyond what is immediately given. Policy Sciences, 35(4), 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021354900928

71.

Slovic

(1992). Perceptions of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In Krimsky

Golding

(Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 117–152). Praeger.

72.

Strekalova

Y. A.

(2015). Informing dissemination research: A content analysis of U.S. newspaper coverage of medical nanotechnology news. Science Communication, 37(2), 151–172. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/10.1177/1075547014555025

73.

Strickland

(2023, March 2). Move over, artificial intelligence. Scientists announce a new “organoid intelligence” field. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/world/brain-computer-organoids-scn/index.html

74.

Tajfel

(1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204

75.

Većkalov

van Stekelenburg

van Harreveld

Rutjens

B. T.

(2023). Who is skeptical about scientific innovation? Examining worldview predictors of artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and human gene editing attitudes. Science Communication, 45(3), 337–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470231184203

76.

Wilks

Crimston

C. R.

Hornsey

M. J.

(2024). Meat and morality: The moral foundation of purity, but not harm, predicts attitudes toward cultured meat. Appetite, 197, Article 107297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107297

77.

Yang

Krause

N. M.

Bao

Calice

M. N.

Newman

T. P.

Scheufele

D. A.

Xenos

M. A.

Brossard

(2023). In AI we trust: The interplay of media use, political ideology, and trust in shaping emerging AI attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990231190868

78.

Zaller

J. R.

(1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.

79.

Zimmer

(2022, October 12). Human brain cells grow in rats, and feel what the rats feel. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/12/science/human-brain-cells-organoids-rats.html