Philosophy articles from across Nature Portfolio

Human brain organoids can partly mimic features of the human brain. This Perspective discusses key ethical considerations in human brain organoid research and introduces an ethical framework of mindful innovation to conceptualize and guide ethical considerations of human brain organoid research.

With incredible speed Large Language Models (LLMs) are reshaping many aspects of society. This has been met with unease by the public, and public discourse is rife with questions about whether LLMs are or might be conscious. Because there is widespread disagreement about consciousness among scientists, any concrete answers that could be offered the public would be contentious. This paper offers the next best thing: charting the possibility of consciousness in LLMs. So, while it is too early to judge concerning the possibility of LLM consciousness, our charting of the possibility space for this may serve as a temporary guide for theorizing about it.

What kind of cognitive state occupies the central stage in our interest in the phenomenon of climate change? What exactly is required to achieve this cognitive state? This paper addresses these questions from a purely conceptual footing by delving into the recent philosophical literature on the nature of understanding. As it will be argued, given the cognitive benefits associated with this state and the (mostly) practical concerns underpinning it in this context, understanding is what we are after, at a cognitive level, when we are interested in climate change. Knowing this is important because it can be used to further determine (in a purely conceptual way) what is required to achieve this cognitive state as well as who can achieve it. Much of the discussion in this paper is devoted to showing that understanding climate change is a highly demanding cognitive state that can be achieved to different degrees and that requires different things depending on what we take ‘climate’ and ‘climate change’ to mean. The most important implication of this discussion concerns the level of understanding of this phenomenon that is achievable by laypeople: even though gaining a basic degree of understanding of climate change isn’t above laypeople’s capacities, when it comes to making the connection between climate change and the kind of phenomena that can negatively impact our society (e.g., extreme weather events), laypeople cannot do better than to trust the scientists.

Technological advances can reduce the numbers of laboratory animals used in studies — but they need to be carefully validated.

Scientists are increasingly expected to incorporate socio-political considerations in their work, for instance by anticipating potential socio-political ramifications. While this is aimed at promoting pro-social values, critics argue that the desire to serve society has led to self-censorship and even to the politicization of science. Philosophers of science have developed various strategies to distinguish between influences of values that safeguard the integrity and freedom of research from those impinging on them. While there is no consensus on which strategy is the best, they all imply some trade-offs between social desirability and the aims of science. If scientists are to incorporate socio-political considerations, they should receive relevant guidance and training on how to make these trade-offs. Codes of conduct for research integrity as professional codes of ethics can help scientists navigate evolving professional expectations. Unfortunately, in their current status, these codes fail to offer guidance on how to weigh possibly conflicting values against the aims of science. The new version of the European Code of Conduct (2023) is a missed opportunity in this regard. Future codes should include guidance on the trade-offs that professional scientists face when incorporating socio-political considerations. To increase effectiveness, codes should increase the attention that scientists have for such trade-offs, make sure scientists construe them in appropriate ways, and help scientists understand the motivations behind pro-social policies. Considering the authority of these documents—especially the European one—amending codes of conduct can be a promising starting point for broader changes in education, journal publishing, and science funding.