Numerous clinics, in the United States and abroad, have publicized stem cell–based intervention (SCBI) to treat a variety of illnesses and injuries.1–4  Unfortunately, very few of these published “investigators” have conducted the clinical research necessary to ensure safety and efficacy.5  Unproven SCBIs pose serious problems for the public and for the field of regenerative medicine itself. These clinics prey on individuals who are desperate for treatments and cures—offering hope to people with autism, human immunodeficiency virus, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson disease, to cite a few examples.1,6  Marketing their procedures on websites via videos and testimonials from patients, they play on emotions rather than clinical facts.3,7  Treatments cost from $3,500 to more than $400,000.5,8 

In the United States, unproven SCBI clinics typically use a patient's own stem cells, moving cells from one location to another in the body (injecting adipose cells into an injured knee, for instance).1,9  Using high-quality cells and the optimal dosage for a specific treatment probably leads to the best clinical outcomes.3  Yet SCBI clinics often do not check the consistency, viability, or number of cells, nor do they use specific biological markers or physical metrics to measure outcomes.1–3,10  Moreover, they do not perform follow-up evaluations for prolonged periods of time, unless they are trying to get patients to return for regular treatments.

Scientists, regulators, patients, and patient advocates are all stakeholders. But because each perceives the risks, benefits, priorities, and goals differently, each promotes different SCBI practices and policies. To develop an effective policy for SCBIs, stakeholders must collaborate to distinguish between their different perspectives and to reach compromises that best meet competing demands and best respond to the growing number of unproven SCBI clinics.

Scientists as Stakeholders

In recent years, many papers and guidelines have been written in an effort to reduce the risks of unproven SCBIs.11–16  In the absence of reliable preclinical and clinical research, SCBIs should not be used widely. Instead, research should be conducted to advance knowledge and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new interventions.2  Allowing unscrupulous clinics to persist can harm the reputation of the field and render more difficult the pursuit of legitimate research to move regenerative medicine forward.17,18 

Scientists might believe that public education and outreach are the answers. The assumption is that educating patients about the risks of unproven SCBIs will keep them from using these clinics.19  Although scientists should indeed continue to speak out against inaccurate information, education alone is unlikely to end the application of unproven SCBIs. Education alone has limits to its usefulness, as we have seen in regard to public attitudes toward vaccinations.20  To shape new policies that minimize the risk both to patients and to research, scientists must also engage policymakers.

Patients and Patient Advocates as Stakeholders

Many patients pursue these unproven SCBIs because they suffer a debilitating disease or injury and see no alternative.2,7,21–23  Some patients report positive effects after cell injections, but few data in peer-reviewed journals validate their claims.24  A few report no change, while others have experienced side effects or death.5 

Patients tend to judge risks and potential benefits differently than do regulators and scientists.25  For patients, the risks of unproven SCBIs might seem justified because they feel they have nothing to lose after exhausting all other options.19,23,26,27  They are concerned mostly with risks and potential benefits for themselves as individuals, and not with broader applications to later generations. In the absence of miracle cures, even modest improvements are judged worthwhile.7 

Moreover, patients tend to believe in the power of SCBIs and are excited to see progress in the field.26  They might think that they are helping to advance treatment by pursuing unproven SCBIs and by sharing their experiences.26  Furthermore, the excitement surrounding SCBIs—followed by the perceived sluggish pace of science—has left many patients frustrated with scientists and regulators.2,7,21–23  Patients have been pushing for increased access to potential interventions that are under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as for new classifications of cell therapies that will make them easier to get on the market.5,27–29  Patients who are pursuing unproven SCBIs could well be telling us that they have waited long enough for scientists to deliver on their promises.

Engaging All Stakeholders in Policy Development

Given the risks associated with the increasing number of unregulated SCBI clinics, new FDA policy is warranted.5,18,30  New research and regulatory strategies must be responsive to the interests and priorities of scientists, regulators, and patients—and to representatives of the clinics that offer unproven SCBIs.5  Collaboration could yield important insights about what priorities must be met, how they can be met, and which compromises will be acceptable in balancing individual and social interests and needs. The FDA started this process in 2016 by holding discussions with bioethicists, scientists, industry leaders, clinic representatives, and patient advocates.31  The agency heard feedback on the impact of its proposed rules. New rules have yet to be released, and they are likely to be delayed as we await action by the new FDA Commissioner. Moreover, it is unclear how these guidelines will be affected, given President Trump's executive order that two old regulations need to be removed for every regulation that is added.32 

Regulatory goals should include protecting the public in the short and long terms by promoting rigorous research while facilitating access to potential therapies. The process should respond to the needs of patients while protecting the public good. Curbing unproven SCBIs requires recognition that different stakeholders are making claims about the appropriate use of unproven SCBIs on the basis of their own values, priorities, and goals.33  Without facilitating access to rigorously tested therapies and engaging patients, we can expect unproven SCBI clinics to flourish and expand. Without listening to scientists, we are likely to push SCBIs into the market too early—negatively affecting research, public health, and the long-term potential and hope of regenerative medicine.

Acknowledgments

We thank the George and Mary Josephine Hamman Foundation for support of the Baker Institute–Texas Heart Institute event “Stem Cell Tourism Near and Far: Achieving a Compromise for the Patient.”

References

References
1.
Turner
L
,
Knoepfler
P.
Selling stem cells in the USA: assessing the direct-to-consumer industry
.
Cell Stem Cell
2016
;
19
(
2
):
154
7
.
2.
Lau
D
,
Ogbogu
U
,
Taylor
B
,
Stafinski
T
,
Menon
D
,
Caulfield
T.
Stem cell clinics online: the direct-to-consumer portrayal of stem cell medicine
.
Cell Stem Cell
2008
;
3
(
6
):
591
4
.
3.
Regenberg
AC
,
Hutchinson
LA
,
Schanker
B
,
Mathews
DJ.
Medicine on the fringe: stem cell-based interventions in advance of evidence
.
Stem Cells
2009
;
27
(
9
):
2312
9
.
4.
Kiatpongsan
S
,
Sipp
D.
Offshore stem cell treatments. Nature Reports Stem Cells [Internet]
;
2008
. .
5.
Matthews
KR
,
Iltis
AS.
Unproven stem cell-based interventions and achieving a compromise policy among the multiple stakeholders
.
BMC Med Ethics
2015
;
16
(
1
):
75
.
6.
Zarzeczny
A
,
Clark
M.
Unproven stem cell-based interventions & physicians' professional obligations; a qualitative study with medical regulatory authorities in Canada
.
BMC Med Ethics
2014
;
15
:
75
.
7.
Petersen
A
,
Seear
K
,
Munsie
M.
Therapeutic journeys: the hopeful travails of stem cell tourists
.
Sociol Health Illn
2014
;
36
(
5
):
670
85
.
8.
Zarzeczny
A
,
Rachul
C
,
Nisbet
M
,
Caulfield
T.
Stem cell clinics in the news
.
Nat Biotechnol
2010
;
28
(
12
):
1243
6
.
9.
Matthews
KR
,
Cuchiara
ML.
U.S. National Football League athletes seeking unproven stem cell treatments
.
Stem Cells Dev
2014
;
23
Suppl 1
:
60
4
.
10.
Ogbogu
U
,
Rachul
C
,
Caulfield
T.
Reassessing direct-to-consumer portrayals of unproven stem cell therapies: is it getting better?
Regen Med
2013
;
8
(
3
):
361
9
.
11.
Kimmelman
J
,
Hyun
I
,
Benvenisty
N
,
Caulfield
T
,
Heslop
HE
,
Murry
CE
,
et al
.
Policy: global standards for stem-cell research
.
Nature
2016
;
533
(
7603
):
311
3
.
12.
Daley
GQ
,
Hyun
I
,
Apperley
JF
,
Barker
RA
,
Benvenisty
N
,
Bredenoord
AL
,
et al
.
Setting global standards for stem cell research and clinical translation: the 2016 ISSCR guidelines
.
Stem Cell Reports
2016
;
6
(
6
):
787
97
.
13.
International Society for Stem Cell Research
.
Guidelines for the clinical translation of stem cells (2008) [Internet]
.
Available from: http://www.isscr.org/home/publications/ClinTransGuide [cited 2017 Jan 25]
.
14.
International Society for Stem Cell Research
.
Guidelines for stem cell research and clinical translation (2016) [Internet]
.
Available from: http://www.isscr.org/home/publications/2016-guidelines [cited 2017 Jan 25]
.
15.
Caulfield
T
,
Zarzeczny
A
;
Toronto Stem Cell Working Group
.
Stem cell tourism and Canadian family physicians
.
Can Fam Physician
2012
;
58
(
4
):
365
8
,
e182
5
.
16.
Lindvall
O
,
Hyun
I.
Medical innovation versus stem cell tourism
.
Science
2009
;
324
(
5935
):
1664
5
.
17.
Check
E
,
Cyranoski
D.
Korean scandal will have global fallout
.
Nature
2005
;
438
(
7071
):
1056
7
.
18.
Fink
DW
Jr
.
FDA regulation of stem cell-based products
.
Science
2009
;
324
(
5935
):
1662
3
.
19.
Master
Z
,
Robertson
K
,
Frederick
D
,
Rachul
C
,
Caulfield
T.
Stem cell tourism and public education: the missing elements
.
Cell Stem Cell
2014
;
15
(
3
):
267
70
.
20.
Nyhan
B
,
Reifler
J
,
Richey
S
,
Freed
GL.
Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial
.
Pediatrics
2014
;
133
(
4
):
e835
42
.
21.
Caplan
A
,
Levine
B.
Hope, hype and help: ethically assessing the growing market in stem cell therapies
.
Am J Bioeth
2010
;
10
(
5
):
24
5
.
22.
Levine
AD.
Insights from patients' blogs and the need for systematic data on stem cell tourism
.
Am J Bioeth
2010
;
10
(
5
):
28
9
.
23.
Ryan
KA
,
Sanders
AN
,
Wang
DD
,
Levine
AD.
Tracking the rise of stem cell tourism
.
Regen Med
2010
;
5
(
1
):
27
33
.
24.
Sipp
D.
Pay-to-participate funding schemes in human cell and tissue clinical studies
.
Regen Med
2012
;
7
(
6 Suppl
):
105
11
.
25.
Downey
R
,
Geransar
R.
Stem cell research, publics' and stakeholder views [Internet]
.
Health Law Rev
2008
;
16
(
2
):
69
85
. .
26.
Rachul
C.
“What have I got to lose?”: an analysis of stem cell therapy patients' blogs [Internet]
.
Health Law Rev
2011
;
20
(
1
):
5
12
. .
27.
Murdoch
CE
,
Scott
CT.
Stem cell tourism and the power of hope
.
Am J Bioeth
2010
;
10
(
5
):
16
23
.
28.
Epstein
RA.
The erosion of individual autonomy in medical decisionmaking: of the FDA and IRBs [Internet]
.
Georgetown Law J
2007
;
96
:
559
82
. .
29.
Servick
K.
Under 21st Century Cures legislation, stem cell advocates expect regulatory shortcuts [Internet]
.
Science Insider
. .
30.
Lysaght
T
,
Campbell
AV.
Regulating autologous adult stem cells: the FDA steps up
.
Cell Stem Cell
2011
;
9
(
5
):
393
6
.
31.
Eisenstein
M.
Regulation: rewriting the regenerative rule-book
.
Nature
2016
;
540
(
7632
):
S64
S67
.
32.
Kaplan
S.
Trump considers an entrepreneur with sweeping reform plans to run the FDA [Internet]
.
STAT News
.
Available from: https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/23/trump-fda-gulfo/ [2017 Jan 23; cited 2017 Jan 27]
.
33.
Adebamowo
C
,
Bah-Sow
O
,
Binka
F
,
Bruzzone
R
,
Caplan
A
,
Delfraissy
JF
,
et al
.
Randomised controlled trials for Ebola: practical and ethical issues
.
Lancet
2014
;
384
(
9952
):
1423
4
.

Author notes

From: Center for Health and Biosciences at the Baker Institute for Public Policy (Dr. Matthews), Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005; and Department of Philosophy and Center for Bioethics, Health and Society (Dr. Iltis), Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109; and History of Medicine, National History and Culturology Department (Dr. Iltis), I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow 119048, Russia

Research funding was provided by the Baker Institute International Stem Cell Policy Endowment.