Punks view on this ethical dilemma?

Hi so I’m going to try word this to make the most sense but please bear with me. Firstly I want to preface this by saying that I am asking this out of genuine curiosity as someone who I would say has many punk or punk adjacent views and as someone who is currently studying a combination of research specific neuroscience, psychology and micro biology. I am currently taking a class called “ethical dilemmas in the sciences”, and today a really interesting topic was brought up and I kept thinking to myself “what would the punk stance be on the dilemma?”. I haven’t managed to reach a definitive answer myself so I thought I would ask other punks for their input. The dilemma itself is about the use of brain/cerebral organoids in medical research and the ethics behind it. For those who need it here is the wiki definition of it: “A neural, or brain organoid, describes an artificially grown, in vitro, tissue resembling parts of the human brain. Neural organoids are created by culturing pluripotent stem cells into a three-dimensional culture that can be maintained for years.” Now comes to my question more specifically, there is no set and comprehensive definition of what consciousness is and we currently don’t have any definite way of measuring consciousness. Scientists don’t think brain organoids are conscious, but again because we can’t define or measure that, we don’t really know. Would punks be for or against medical testing on them?

For a more personal perspective the reasons I’m struggling to come to a conclusion is the following: - If we were to argue that brain organoids possibly are conscious and therefore it would be unethical to test on them because they aren’t giving consent. Then why is it that we it would be ethical to test on animals when some would argue that some are conscious too and aren’t giving consent to be tested on. - If we then say that it’s not ethical to test animals either, then would punks believe that medical research and testing that has an opportunity to save lives is not morally ethical. - If we say that the organoids aren’t currently conscious (to our knowledge) but there is a possibility that they may become conscious or we might find out later on that they are. And therefore argue that it’s not ethical to test on them. Why would it not be ethical to say test on newborn human babies as we could agree that they aren’t necessarily conscious yet (or that they are less conscious then say an adult orangutan, which would be ok to test)? - If we argue that the reason we can’t test on organoids and babies that are possibly conscious/ might become conscious, is because they are inherently human. Would that not then just be speciesism and idk if that would particularly line with punk ideals.

Would love to hear your insights! Please keep this as academic as possible and feel free to debunk/ counter any of the arguments I listed. Also please be kind and civil, I am asking because I’m genuinely interested about where punks would stand in this debate, and I’m not tryna get bashed. Also sorry this is so long

Edit: realized I forgot to add another argument that I thought was also interesting and complicated things a bit: if one says that even if organoids are conscious, they aren’t humans, therefore it’s ok to test on them. Would that not be abilist because the difference is that one has the body of a human and the other doesn’t?

Edit 2: I’m seeing a couple people argue that the organoid is not a living organism and therefore it’s fine. Technically it is living because it’s a system of living cells (which can reproduce under the right conditions as that’s how the organoid is made), so that point isn’t entirely true from a purely biological definition of living. Hence the question of consciousness being so heavily emphasized.