Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40182992›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025

Bioengineering ethics for the age of microphysiological systems.

Maxence Gaillard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Maxence GaillardCentre for Medical Ethics, Department of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of microphysiological systems (MPS) is pushing ethical standards in biomedical research to a breaking point. This article argues that only a perspective drawing from engineering ethics will be able to address the new challenges raised by organoids and organs-on-chips. Extending progressively the scope of moral questioning, we discuss successively the following areas: i) individual consent: when cell lines are generated and human biomaterial is circulated and incorporated into biotechnologies whose life cycle will far exceed the scope envisioned by donors and manufacturers, the classic notion of informed consent becomes almost obsolete, or at least needs to be revisited. ii) Collective deliberation: MPSs raise many expectations for animal replacement and the advancement of precision and regenerative medicine. The management of these prospects by different stakeholders, and for everyone, is itself an ethical challenge at the interface of science and society. iii) Consideration of novel entities: some complex microphysiological systems may be endowed with a moral status in the near future, and this will have an impact on how researchers treat them and work with them.

Indexed as

biobankingethics-by-designinformed consentmoral statusprecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID40182992
PMCPMC11965581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.