Close
Articles

Organoids Part Two: Despite Limitations, They’re Still Amazing

April 24, 2026

Clearly one article wasn’t enough to explore the full potential of organoids, so here we go again. This article won’t make much sense without reading the first but a quick catch up:
Organoids are 3D cell structures grown from Stem cell samples and grown in nutrient rich gel.

  • They can better model human systems as they are more complex than their 2D counterparts and a better representation of human systems than animal models.
  • This advantage makes organoids uniquely beneficial to the field of drug research and testing and personalized medicine.
  • Link to original article if desired: https://chargedmagazine.org/2026/04/organoids-what-are-they-and-why-theyre-amazing/

Limitations
These applications are not without limitations however. While organoids can replicate many aspects of human tissue, some specific cell genes are harder to find in organoids (Andrews and Kriegstein, 2022). This impaired the organoids’ ability to properly simulate the systems they are derived from, preventing researchers from properly modeling diseases and treatments in that area.

Additionally, while developments have been made to improve organoid lifespans, organoids still require controlled environments and regular care to survive (Simian and Bissell, 2016). Even the longest lasting organoids, neurological models, have only survived a couple of years. Many organoids will even grow patches of dead tissue in the center due to a lack of oxygen hindering their research capabilities (Andrews & Kriegstein, 2022). In organic systems, cells are constantly interchanging molecules to maintain their functions and prevent necrosis. The nutritional gel can only do so much to get the molecules to cells at the interior of organoid structure without the natural systems to supply it.

All of this causes organoid maintenance to be costly compared to in-vitro models, which are relatively cheap and easy to handle (Schutgens & Clevers, 2020). This stifles research leading to many knowledge gaps in the field. Furthermore, these restrictions limit modeling larger systems. Potential treatments tested in smaller organoids could have unpredictable impacts on a larger system when prescribed. Concerns around this limits applications of organoids, creating Theory-Application Voids.

There are also many population gaps in organoid research as certain demographics are underrepresented in the stem cells used to create the organoids. These stem cells are often pulled from stem cell donor registries which have significant demographic, systemic, and behavioral biases. Further development into organoids and increased diversity in biobanks can increase organoid capabilities and applications.

Concerns
There are also current concerns surrounding organoid research that need to be addressed. While organoid models no longer rely on stem cells taken from embryos, they are still used in organoids modeling traditional embryo frameworks. These models use STEM cells to study the process of early embryonic development and can be very useful in identifying gestation concerns or potential risks to a fetus (Pereira et al., 2020). Once again, the line of when a zygote becomes a person however, gets blurry. Multiple public figures and many private citizens are debating if the creation of an embryo, even as a limited organoid, for study is ethical.

There are also concerns about neurological organoid models used for neurological diseases (Lavazza and Massimini, 2018). Current models can only imitate parts of the human brain. However, as models more closely resemble a human brain with increased functionality, ethical questions surrounding the creation and experimentation of something than can think and feel will only grow. The line being living, sentient, and sapient is hard to discern, especially with limited structures that might not have the ability to communicate mental facilities.

Future implementations of organoid models also raise ethical concerns regarding their financial exploitation and patient consent. People’s cell matter must be collected and added to databases to be used in organoid research (Bredenoord et al., 2017). Active patient involvement in organoid development is essential when considering this process. Their participation in cell donation must remain voluntary and properly compensated, and this is currently not guaranteed.

The implementation of organoids in personalized medicine could also have complications on the healthcare system (Stefanicka-Wojtas & Kurpas, 2023). While organoids could improve personalized medicine, the increased specificity of treatments could lead to decreased procedure lifespans and certainty. The underrepresentation and price of organoid backed research could also exacerbate existing disparities in healthcare and lead to an increase in general healthcare costs or dropped plans due to cost-shifting (What’s Behind Rising Health Insurance Costs? | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2025).

Scientists in organoid research have repeatedly advocated for remaining cautious and careful in this relatively unexplored ethical field.

Potential Applications
Despite all of that dour news, organoids are still having a positive impact on millions of people with the potential to aid millions more. Unfortunately we only have time for two of these here: Regenerative Medicine and Transplantation.

Regenerative Medicine is the field of science dedicated to the regeneration and restoration of human tissue based in Stem cells. Many different animals have regenerative properties from the regrowth and axolotl limbs to sea cucumbers regrowing internal organs to flatworms regrowing entire heads. Throughout history scientists have been inspired by these properties and researched the mechanisms behind them, leading to the field of regenerative medicine. While the study of artificial organs has been around since the 1930s, the modern idea of regenerative medicine centered around Stem cells started in the 1990s (Sampogna et al., 2015).

As mentioned in my first article, the very purpose of Stem cells is to replace damaged, specialized cells. By comprehending the properties behind their functions, scientists can apply them to other areas. It is organoids that allow scientists to grow the cell cultures and tissue samples that are behind regenerative research. If someone has a large wound or damaged organ, an organoid of that structure could be applied and integrated into the person’s natural system. The organoid could be made from the person’s own cells, bypassing an immune response that comes with many non-biomaterials or transplants. This has already been proven promising. In one study, organoids made from the stem cells of mice suffering from inflammation and damage of their colon lining were successfully transferred onto the mice’s injured tissue. The cultured tissue covered the damage leading to a decrease in inflammation and harmful symptoms (Babak Arjmand et al., 2022). There are currently limitations, such as the delivery of nutrients mentioned above that directly challenge this field, but with more research scientists can find better ways for organoids to improve people’s lives through regenerative medicine.

Transplantation is a great example of the applications of regenerative medicine. As mentioned above, tissues and cell cultures can be grown using organoids. This is not the extent of their potential however. As organoid research develops, scientists are working to make larger and more complex models. Through assembloids, the combinations of different types of organoid (a topic for a later article), lab made organs or entire organ systems could be created from a single stem cell. In 2025, scientists were able to successfully transplant pig kidneys made from organoids (SMC Spain, 2025). In the future organoids could be used to transplant an entire human heart or cardiovascular system. An even farther yet still plausible possibility would be the creation of entire limbs for transplants with scientists already researching limb organoids (Tsutsumi & Mototsugu Eiraku, 2023). Approximately 5,600 people in the U.S. die each year simply waiting for a transplant in addition to the 30% of recipients who die within 10 years of a transplant due to complications such as transplant rejection (What Are the Complications of Transplantation?, 2019). Organoids have the potential to prevent these deaths, and while there are still complications due to the price and longevity of organoids, they will only improve with continued exploration.

Conclusion
Organoids are amazing. They have the ability to impact almost every field of biomedical science and save millions of lives. While this article does take a much more nuanced look at organoids, diving into their limitations and complications, scientists are aware of these issues and taking careful approaches to research. Improvements in organoids, especially to their limitations, can only be made if research is supported and continued. There is still so much potential for organoids that we have only just scratched the surface of and so many more applications that we haven’t even considered yet. Organoids have even been proven to work with many other biomedical instruments and tools, aiding in their development as well. The possibilities are endless.

Organoids are my passion, I’ve been interested in them for years now. Yet no one knew what I was going on and on about. I hope that these articles inspire curiosity and spread the wonders of organoids to others.

————————————————————————————————

Works Cited:

Title Image: Illustration created by Alexandra Marshall

Andrews, M. G., & Kriegstein, A. R. (2022). Challenges of Organoid Research. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 45(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-111020-090812

Babak Arjmand, Rabbani, Z., Faezeh Soveyzi, Akram Tayanloo-Beik, Mostafa Rezaei-Tavirani, Mahmood Biglar, Adibi, H., & Bagher Larijani. (2022). Advancement of Organoid Technology in Regenerative Medicine. Regenerative Engineering and Translational Medicine, 9(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40883-022-00271-0

Bredenoord, A. L., Clevers, H., & Knoblich, J. A. (2017). Human tissues in a dish: The research and ethical implications of organoid technology. Science, 355(6322). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf9414

Lavazza, A., & Massimini, M. (2018). Cerebral organoids: ethical issues and consciousness assessment. Journal of Medical Ethics, 44(9), 606–610. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2017-104555

Pereira, A. M., Popovic, M., Dondorp, W. J., Bustos, M. T., Bredenoord, A. L., Chuva, S. M., Susanne, Roelen, B. A. J., Guido, & Björn Heindryckx. (2020). Modelling human embryogenesis: embryo-like structures spark ethical and policy debate. Human Reproduction Update, 26(6), 779–798. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmaa027

Sampogna, G., Guraya, S. Y., & Forgione, A. (2015). Regenerative medicine: Historical roots and potential strategies in modern medicine. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, 3(3), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmau.2015.05.002

Spain, S. (2025, October 31). For the first time, pig kidneys modified with human renal organoids are transplanted into pigs. SMC España. https://sciencemediacentre.es/en/first-time-pig-kidneys-modified-human-renal-organoids-are-transplanted-pigs#:~:text=Pig%20kidneys%20modified%20with%20human%20renal%20organoids

Schutgens, F., & Clevers, H. (2020). Human Organoids: Tools for Understanding Biology and Treating Diseases. Annual Review of Pathology: Mechanisms of Disease, 15(1), 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pathmechdis-012419-032611

Simian, M., & Bissell, M. J. (2016). Organoids: A historical perspective of thinking in three dimensions. The Journal of Cell Biology, 216(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201610056

Stefanicka-Wojtas, D., & Kurpas, D. (2023). Personalised Medicine—Implementation to the Healthcare System in Europe (Focus Group Discussions). Journal of Personalized Medicine, 13(3), 380. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13030380

Tsutsumi, R., & Mototsugu Eiraku. (2023). How might we build limbs in vitro informed by the modular aspects and tissue-dependency in limb development? Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 11, 1135784–1135784. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2023.1135784

What are the complications of transplantation? (2019, April). National Kidney Federation. https://www.kidney.org.uk/what-are-the-complications-of-transplantation#:~:text=Within%20one%20year%20of%20any,ten%20years%20after%20a%20transplant.

 

Tags:
0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

Articles, Field Notes
A Pocket Guide to Smokable Herbs
Articles, Story Time, today i learned (til)
The Science Behind Dyeing My Hair (with cool pics!)
Articles, Story Time, today i learned (til), vintage science
Don’t Fall for the Galileo Gambit
Articles, vintage science
Sleep Well: Your Psychological Health Depends On It

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.