Background: Advances in viral sequence analysis make it possible to track the spread of infectious pathogens, such as HIV, within a population. When used to study HIV, these analyses (i.e., molecular epidemiology) potentially allow inference of the identity of individual research subjects. Current privacy standards are likely insufficient for this type of public health research. To address this challenge, it will be important to understand how stakeholders feel about the benefits and risks of such research. Design and Methods: To better understand perceived benefits and risks of these research methods, in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with HIV-infected individuals, individuals at high-risk for contracting HIV, and professionals in HIV care and prevention. To gather additional perspectives, attendees to a public lecture on molecular epidemiology were asked to complete an informal questionnaire. Results: Among those interviewed and polled, there was near unanimous support for using molecular epidemiology to study HIV. Questionnaires showed strong agreement about benefits of molecular epidemiology, but diverse attitudes regarding risks. Interviewees acknowledged several risks, including privacy breaches and provocation of anti-gay sentiment. The interviews also demonstrated a possibility that misunderstandings about molecular epidemiology may affect how risks and benefits are evaluated. Conclusions: While nearly all study participants agree that the benefits of HIV molecular epidemiology outweigh the risks, concerns about privacy must be addressed to ensure continued trust in research institutions and willingness to participate in research.

Background: Molecular epidemiology (ME) is a technique used to study the dynamics of pathogen transmission through a population. When used to study HIV infections, ME generates powerful information about how HIV is transmitted, including epidemiologic patterns of linkage and, potentially, transmission direction. Thus, ME raises challenging questions about the most responsible way to protect individual privacy while acquiring and using these data to advance public health and inform HIV intervention strategies. Here, we report on stakeholders' expectations for how researchers and public health agencies might use HIV ME. Methods: We conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with 40 key stakeholders to find out how these individuals respond to the proposed risks and benefits of HIV ME. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using Atlas.ti. Expectations were assessed through analysis of responses to hypothetical scenarios designed to help interviewees think through the implications of this emerging technique in the contexts of research and public health. Results: Our analysis reveals a wide range of imagined responsibilities, capabilities, and trustworthiness of researchers and public health agencies. Specifically, many respondents expect researchers and public health agencies to use HIV ME carefully and maintain transparency about how data will be used. Informed consent was discussed as an important opportunity for notification of privacy risks. Furthermore, some respondents wished that public health agencies were held to the same form of oversight and accountability represented by informed consent in research. Conclusions: To prevent HIV ME from becoming a barrier to testing or a source of public mistrust, the sense of vulnerability expressed by some respondents must be addressed. In research, informed consent is an obvious opportunity for this. Without giving specimen donors a similar opportunity to opt out, public health agencies may find it difficult to adopt HIV ME without deterring testing and treatment.

Advances in the field of human stem cells are often a source of public and ethical controversy. Researchers must frequently balance diverse societal perspectives on questions of morality with the pursuit of medical therapeutics and innovation. Recent developments in brain organoids make this challenge even more acute. Brain organoids are a new class of brain surrogate generated from human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs). They have gained traction as a model for studying the intricacies of the human brain by using advancements in stem cell biology to recapitulate aspects of the developing human brain in vitro. However, recent observation of neural oscillations spontaneously emerging from these organoids raises the question of whether brain organoids are or could become conscious. At the same time, brain organoids offer a potentially unique opportunity to scientifically understand consciousness. To address these issues, experimental biologists, philosophers, and ethicists united to discuss the possibility of consciousness in human brain organoids and the consequent ethical and moral implications.