Let’s disregard that first paragraph you wrote about coffee and your nausea issues, since it is completely useless in the debate.

Then just a quick remark:

RHETORIC_ERROR at line 0: `GODWIN_POINT' is not a valid argument.

Anyway… This is an unexpected development and I’d like to point out that the problematic word in “Nazi experiments” is certainly not “experiments” and I’ll try to be clearer about this.

The problem was not only the experiment, the problem was that in this country, scientists were authorized to use some people as subjects for horrible experiments, because of aspects like their religion. This is despicable and it is precisely my point.

The experiments you are referring to were indeed morally correct precisely because they were conducted in Nazi Germany, and I believe it’s important to remember that if these had been conducted in, say, the UK in the same period of time, it would had been a scandal, with very good reasons.

Back to the organoids, there is no law for or against working with these so far, and I don’t think it is the job of scientists to decide what is morally acceptable as scientists (as any other person, however, they have values, and they also have the right to defend a position regarding ethics) however, as the article stated, they raised the important questions, and are expecting for answers.

What is wrong with asking the question of morality about hypothetical future works as soon as the current ones show something they just discovered and may become unethical?

This is what I meant: ethics are one thing, science is another one. Science obeys according to ethics thanks to the laws, and I believe this distinction is crucial.

Let me rephrase your own question in another context: if a person is put in jail for life because he’s gay in a country where it’s against the law; in your opinion, is the problem coming from the judge applying the law, or does it mostly come from the reason why this law exist?