ISSCR 2026 serves as a vibrant platform for showcasing nearly 1,300 scientific posters and presentations that span the full spectrum of stem cell research. Attendees gain access to breakthrough discoveries, emerging technologies, and innovative methodologies shaping the future of biomedical science. The conference fosters interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists, clinicians, ethicists, and industry leaders, creating fertile ground for cross-pollination of ideas and accelerating translational impact.

The opening plenary, curated by ISSCR President Hideyuki Okano, set an inspiring tone by featuring pioneers whose research has fundamentally transformed the field. Nobel Laureate Shinya Yamanaka, whose identification of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) revolutionized regenerative medicine, underscored the transformative potential of reprogramming adult cells to a pluripotent state. This discovery laid the groundwork for novel approaches in personalized disease models and cell replacement therapies that continue advancing toward clinical application.

Another highlight included Madeline Lancaster’s presentation on brain organoids—three-dimensional cultures derived from stem cells that recapitulate human brain development. These models are invaluable for probing complex neurodevelopmental processes and uncovering mechanisms underlying neurological disorders, offering unprecedented insights into human brain evolution and pathology.

Yukiko Gotoh’s research shed light on the molecular circuits guiding neuronal specification and connectivity formation during mammalian brain development. Her findings contribute to an enhanced understanding of neurodevelopmental disorders, elucidating how disruptions to these pathways may lead to cognitive and behavioral phenotypes.

Feng Zhang, renowned for pioneering CRISPR genome-editing technologies, discussed innovations that enhance the precision and scope of genetic engineering in stem cell contexts. Such advancements open avenues for sophisticated gene-modulation therapies targeting neurological diseases, paving the way for personalized, cell-based interventions.

Throughout the conference, participants engage with state-of-the-art tools and emerging technologies showcased in the Exhibit and Poster Hall, offering a glimpse into next-generation platforms that promise to accelerate both basic research and clinical translation.

President Okano emphasized the ISSCR community’s shared commitment to advancing science responsibly, ensuring that transformative discoveries are ethically developed for global patient benefit. As stem cell science rapidly evolves, ISSCR 2026 exemplifies a critical nexus for innovation, dialogue, and collaboration essential to realizing the therapeutic promise of regenerative medicine.

For more details on the ISSCR 2026 meeting, visit www.isscr2026.org.

Subject of Research: Stem cell research, regenerative medicine, gene editing, neurodevelopmental biology
Article Title: ISSCR 2026 Unites Leading Minds to Drive Forward Stem Cell Science and Translational Innovation
News Publication Date: Not specified
Web References: www.isscr2026.org
Image Credits: ISSCR
Keywords: Stem cell research, regenerative medicine, induced pluripotent stem cells, brain organoids, CRISPR, neurodevelopment, translational medicine

The central thrust of the analysis is a sobering reassessment of how consciousness is operationalized and measured in laboratory settings. Common experimental strategies, such as binocular rivalry, visual masking, and perceptual threshold detection, conventionally distinguish conscious from nonconscious stimuli by manipulating sensory input visibility. However, Lau and colleagues argue that these manipulations not only suppress conscious awareness but also globally disrupt the brain’s capacity to process information related to those stimuli. This entanglement of awareness with general perceptual processing muddies the empirical waters and precludes clear inferences about consciousness per se.

One of the most striking insights revealed by the paper is the challenge in disentangling subjective experience—the phenomenological “what it is like” aspect of consciousness—from neural correlates of extensive information processing. Neural signals elicited during consciously perceived stimuli may well reflect robust processing of stimulus categories and other cognitive operations. Still, these responses might not unambiguously index conscious awareness, since similar patterns are often attenuated alongside the suppression of subjective experience. The authors emphasize this methodological confound as a critical obstacle that has yet to be adequately addressed by consciousness science.

Building on this critique, the paper highlights neuropsychological phenomena such as blindsight and hemispatial neglect, conditions where conscious experience is dissociated from perceptual input and behavioral response. Patients with blindsight, for instance, can successfully guess visual stimuli in their “blind” field without subjective awareness, suggesting that conscious perception can be decoupled from information processing pathways. These clinical cases offer potent natural experiments demonstrating that subjective experience and broader cognitive functions constitute separable neurobiological processes, underscoring the need for methodologies that respect this distinction.

The implications of this conceptual and methodological impasse extend far beyond laboratory confines. As AI systems become increasingly sophisticated in mimicking human-like perception and behavior, questions about machine consciousness ignite not only scientific curiosity but also profound ethical and societal debates. Concurrently, rising claims that animals, human fetuses, or stem-cell derived organoids possess some form of sentience hinge upon experimental markers that may predominantly capture cognitive operations rather than genuine conscious experience. The IBS-led team asserts that without more precise tools to isolate subjective awareness, such assertions risk premature or unwarranted conclusions, with significant ramifications for animal welfare policies, bioethics, and AI governance.

Historically, the field of consciousness research bears witness to similar cycles of exuberant claims followed by scientific backlash. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, poorly substantiated theories about conscious processes contributed to the eclipse of subjective inquiry, ushering in behaviorism and a protracted skepticism about the scientific study of consciousness. Lau’s team suggests that present-day researchers must heed these lessons by rigorously confronting methodological confounds and avoiding conflation of information processing with awareness.

To move the discipline forward, the authors recommend the development of experimental paradigms that selectively abolish subjective experience while preserving perceptual processing. Recent advances in neuroimaging and computational neuroscience might enable more refined dissociations between awareness and cognition, providing stringent tests for theories of consciousness. Such precision is vital not only for theoretical advancement but also for validating future claims regarding consciousness across diverse forms of biological and artificial systems.

The analysis also underscores the importance of conceptual clarity in consciousness science. Disentangling consciousness from related but distinct phenomena like attention, memory, and executive function is indispensable for constructing a coherent scientific framework. Without this, purported “neural correlates of consciousness” risk embodying conflated constructs that obscure the elusive nature of subjective experience rather than elucidate it.

Given the rapid expansion of consciousness science and its penetration into ethical, legal, and social domains, Lau and colleagues advocate for heightened methodological rigor and transparency. Achieving consensus on reliable markers of subjective experience will critically shape ongoing public discourse on the moral status of non-human animals, AI entities, and human developmental stages. As such, the stakes for foundational neuroscience have never been higher.

In synthesizing these intricate concerns, the paper by Lau’s interdisciplinary team serves as a timely and provocative call to action. It challenges the neuroscience community to confront uncomfortable questions about what current experimental results truly reveal and urges the design of novel investigative tools that honor the intrinsic complexity of consciousness. Ultimately, the pursuit of understanding subjective experience demands both humility regarding existing approaches and boldness in methodological innovation.

This seminal work was published on May 26, 2026, in Neuron, marking a pivotal moment in the evolving narrative of consciousness research. By spotlighting the enduring ethical impasses and scientific ambiguities, it galvanizes deeper reflection and paves the way for more rigorous and meaningful exploration of one of science’s most profound mysteries—the nature of conscious experience itself.

Subject of Research: People
Article Title: The Ethical Impasse of Current Consciousness Science
News Publication Date: 26-May-2026
Web References: 10.1016/j.neuron.2026.04.007
Image Credits: Institute for Basic Science
Keywords: Consciousness, Cognition, Cognitive psychology, Psychological science, Neuroscience, Physiology, Health and medicine, Social sciences

The phenomena of using cerebral organoids—three-dimensional, miniaturized versions of the brain derived from stem cells—has revolutionized the means by which researchers can model human brain disorders. This methodology is pivotal because it allows for the study of viral infections in a human-like environment, where the cellular architecture and microenvironment of brain tissue can be loosely replicated. The findings from the study demonstrate that HCoV-OC43 can effectively enter these organoids and elicit pathological responses, providing a competitive advantage in understanding how this virus can contribute to neurological disorders.

A key aspect that emerged from the research is the differential response of various cell types within the cerebral organoids to HCoV-OC43 infection. Neuronal cells showed varied susceptibility when exposed to the virus, which hints that certain types of neurons may be more vulnerable to the effects of the infection. This cellular heterogeneity may explain why some patients develop neurological symptoms, while others experience predominantly respiratory issues, emphasizing the complexity of host-pathogen interactions at the cellular level.

Furthermore, the organoid model revealed intriguing insights into the inflammatory pathways activated in response to HCoV-OC43 infection. The research documented an up-regulation of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, indicating that the immune response mounted by the neural tissue can exacerbate the infection effects. This inflammatory milieu can lead to neuronal cell death and contribute to the long-term consequences that viral infections may impose on brain health, a focus of increasing interest among neuroscientists and clinicians alike.

Implications of these findings extend to therapeutic strategies. As the study notes, understanding the molecular pathways activated during infection may help in identifying potential targets for intervention. For example, agents that could dampen the inflammatory response or direct antiviral strategies may offer promising avenues for reducing not only the acute impact of the viral infection but also the risk of long-term neurological decline.

The study’s results are particularly relevant in a world still grappling with the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic, as they highlight the necessity of understanding other coronaviruses beyond SARS-CoV-2. With COVID-19 variants continuing to emerge, researchers are keenly aware that historical viruses like HCoV-OC43 could also play undiscovered roles in exacerbating ongoing public health challenges. Thus, investing in this line of research may yield not only immediate clinical applications but also a broader understanding of viral impacts throughout human history.

Another fascinating aspect of the study is its potential to contribute to the development of vaccines and therapeutic interventions targeted explicitly for neurological effects linked to coronavirus infections. By uncovering the specific viral mechanisms and host interactions that lead to neurological manifestations, precise and effective therapeutic strategies could be designed. This could prove to be transformative for treating patients suffering from post-viral syndromes.

Moreover, the work of Liu et al. aligns with a growing body of evidence suggesting that viral infections can trigger neuroinflammatory conditions, and studying coronaviruses within neural contexts opens up avenues for understanding these phenomena. Diseases such as multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative disorders might share common threads with viral infections, further necessitating clarity in the pathogenesis of how coronaviruses affect the brain.

The use of cerebral organoids as a platform for studying HCoV-OC43 infection represents a pioneering approach. This study adds to the momentum of using such advanced platforms in virology, especially in understanding how zoonotic viruses adapt to human neural microenvironments. Continuing the research in this direction could unveil various other pathogens’ roles in closing the gap between viral infections and neurodegenerative diseases.

In conclusion, Liu et al.’s study paves the way for future investigations that could unravel the intertwined relationships between coronaviruses, immune responses, and neurodegenerative disorders. As our understanding of viral pathogenesis within the brain evolves, so too does our arsenal for combating the potential long-term effects of these infections. The need for innovative research in this field has never been more critical, especially considering the multifaceted nature of how viruses can affect human health.

In summary, the study invokes a clarion call for heightened awareness and research focus on how even mild viruses, like HCoV-OC43, can lead to severe consequences in human health, particularly concerning the brain. This foundation not only enriches our understanding of infectious diseases but also sets the stage for future therapeutic possibilities that leverage new biotechnologies to address longstanding healthcare challenges.

Subject of Research: Human coronavirus OC43 infection in human cerebral organoids.

Article Title: Human coronavirus OC43 infection in human cerebral organoids: novel insights on pathogenesis and potential therapeutic interventions.

Article References: Liu, J., Deng, Y., Huo, W. et al. Human coronavirus OC43 infection in human cerebral organoids: novel insights on pathogenesis and potential therapeutic interventions.
J Biomed Sci 32, 96 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12929-025-01193-z

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12929-025-01193-z

Keywords: Human coronavirus OC43, cerebral organoids, viral pathogenesis, neuroinflammation, therapeutic interventions.