Due to their contested ethical and legal status, human cerebral organoids (HCOs) have become the subject of one of the most rapidly expanding debates in the recent bioethics literature. There is no doubt that their potential scientific usefulness is immense. Human cerebral organoids constitute 3D biological cultures grown in a lab to work as a placeholder model for the human brain, and their similarity can allow us to engage in research that would otherwise not be possible. Yet, it is precisely this similarity that raises ethical issues. That is, if these organoids resemble human brains, might they deserve similar protections?This dilemma was introduced by Greely ( 2021), who argued that as these surrogate systems are becoming more similar to the human brain there is also an increased chance that the same moral considerations apply as to work with human subjects; the same considerations that prompted a move to use of a surrogate system in the first place. With the rapid pace of progression in this field, the ethical issue is one that should be considered with urgency. Primarily, this is because cerebral organoids could develop consciousness, and thus could have moral status, especially if they are able to feel positively and negatively valenced states. In their recent target article, Zilio and Lavazza (2023) draw on work in consciousness studies, in addition to ethical theory, in order to evaluate the moral status of potentially conscious cerebral organoids.