Perspective | Published:

Ethical development of stem-cell-based interventions


The process of developing new and complex stem-cell-based therapeutics is incremental and requires decades of sustained collaboration among different stakeholders. In this Perspective, we address key ethical and policy challenges confronting the clinical translation of stem-cell-based interventions (SCBIs), including premature diffusion of SCBIs to clinical practice, assessment of risk in trials, obtaining valid informed consent for research participants, balanced and complete scientific reporting and public communications, regulation, and equitable access to treatment. We propose a way forward for translating these therapies with the above challenges in mind.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Thomas, E. D. A history of haemopoietic cell transplantation. Br. J. Haematol. 105, 330–339 (1999).

  2. 2.

    Thomas, E. D., Lochte, H. L. Jr., Lu, W. C. & Ferrebee, J. W. Intravenous infusion of bone marrow in patients receiving radiation and chemotherapy. N. Engl. J. Med. 257, 491–496 (1957).

  3. 3.

    Burt, R. K. et al. Clinical applications of blood-derived and marrow-derived stem cells for nonmalignant diseases. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 299, 925–936 (2008).

  4. 4.

    Copelan, E. A. Hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. N. Engl. J. Med. 354, 1813–1826 (2006).

  5. 5.

    The Goldwater Institute. Everyone Deserves The Right To Try: Empowering The Terminally Ill To Take Control Of Their Treatment. Goldwater Institute (2014).

  6. 6.

    The ALS Association. Right to try official statement. ALSA (2018).

  7. 7.

    Patients for Stem Cells. Mission statement. Patients for Stem Cells (2012).

  8. 8.

    Palacios-González, C. & Medina-Arellano, M. J. Mitochondrial replacement techniques and Mexico’s rule of law: on the legality of the first maternal spindle transfer case. J. Law Biosci. 4, 50–69 (2017).

  9. 9.

    Cyranoski, D. & Ledford, H. Genome-edited baby claim provokes international outcry. Nature 563, 607–608 (2018).

  10. 10.

    Bretzner, F., Gilbert, F., Baylis, F. & Brownstone, R. M. Target populations for first-in-human embryonic stem cell research in spinal cord injury. Cell Stem Cell 8, 468–475 (2011).

  11. 11.

    Konomi, K., Tobita, M., Kimura, K. & Sato, D. New Japanese initiatives on stem cell therapies. Cell Stem Cell 16, 350–352 (2015).

  12. 12.

    Marks, P. & Gottlieb, S. Balancing safety and innovation for cell-based regenerative medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 378, 954–959 (2018).

  13. 13.

    The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research 5–6 (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979).

  14. 14.

    Regulatory Considerations for Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products: Minimal Manipulation and Homologous Use: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff 3–4 (US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, 2017).

  15. 15.

    Knoepfler, P. S. From bench to FDA to bedside: US regulatory trends for new stem cell therapies. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 82-83, 192–196 (2015).

  16. 16.

    Munsie, M. & Pera, M. Regulatory loophole enables unproven autologous cell therapies to thrive in Australia. Stem Cells Dev. 23 (Suppl 1), 34–38 (2014).

  17. 17.

    Therapeutic Goods (Human Cells, Tissues and Organs) Determination (Australian Government Department of Health, 2018).

  18. 18.

    Turner, L. & Knoepfler, P. Selling stem cells in the USA: assessing the direct-to-consumer industry. Cell Stem Cell 19, 154–157 (2016).

  19. 19.

    Turner, L. Direct-to-consumer marketing of stem cell interventions by Canadian businesses. Regen. Med. 13, 643–658 (2018).

  20. 20.

    Munsie, M. et al. Open for business: a comparative study of websites selling autologous stem cells in Australia and Japan. Regen. Med. 12, 777–790 (2017).

  21. 21.

    Tiwari, S. S. & Desai, P. N. Unproven stem cell therapies in india: regulatory challenges and proposed paths forward. Cell Stem Cell 23, 649–652 (2018).

  22. 22.

    Berger, I. et al. Global distribution of businesses marketing stem cell-based interventions. Cell Stem Cell 19, 158–162 (2016).

  23. 23.

    Dlouhy, B. J., Awe, O., Rao, R. C., Kirby, P. A. & Hitchon, P. W. Autograft-derived spinal cord mass following olfactory mucosal cell transplantation in a spinal cord injury patient: Case report. J. Neurosurg. Spine 21, 618–622 (2014).

  24. 24.

    Perkins, K. M. et al. Notes from the field: infections after receipt of bacterially contaminated umbilical cord blood-derived stem cell products for other than hematopoietic or immunologic reconstitution - United States, 2018. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 67, 1397–1399 (2018).

  25. 25.

    Berkowitz, A. L. et al. Glioproliferative lesion of the spinal cord as a complication of “stem-cell tourism”. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 196–198 (2016).

  26. 26.

    Thirabanjasak, D., Tantiwongse, K. & Thorner, P. S. Angiomyeloproliferative lesions following autologous stem cell therapy. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 21, 1218–1222 (2010).

  27. 27.

    Amariglio, N. et al. Donor-derived brain tumor following neural stem cell transplantation in an ataxia telangiectasia patient. PLoS Med. 6, e1000029 (2009).

  28. 28.

    Connolly, R., O’Brien, T. & Flaherty, G. Stem cell tourism–a web-based analysis of clinical services available to international travellers. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 12(6 Pt B), 695–701 (2014).

  29. 29.

    Lau, D. et al. Stem cell clinics online: the direct-to-consumer portrayal of stem cell medicine. Cell Stem Cell 3, 591–594 (2008).

  30. 30.

    Murdoch, B., Zarzeczny, A. & Caulfield, T. Exploiting science? A systematic analysis of complementary and alternative medicine clinic websites’ marketing of stem cell therapies. BMJ Open 8, e019414 (2018).

  31. 31.

    Zarzeczny, A., Rachul, C., Nisbet, M. & Caulfield, T. Stem cell clinics in the news. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 1243–1246 (2010).

  32. 32.

    Sipp, D. Challenges in the regulation of autologous stem cell interventions in the United States. Perspect. Biol. Med. 61, 25–41 (2018).

  33. 33.

    Rettig, R.A., Jacobson, P.D., Farquhar, C.M. & Aubry, W.M. False Hope: Bone Marrow Transplantation for Breast Cancer (Oxford University Press, 2007).

  34. 34.

    Mello, M. M. & Brennan, T. A. The controversy over high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplant for breast cancer. Health Aff. (Millwood) 20, 101–117 (2001).

  35. 35.

    Stadtmauer, E. A. et al. Philadelphia Bone Marrow Transplant Group. Conventional-dose chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for metastatic breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 342, 1069–1076 (2000).

  36. 36.

    Lanthier, N. Haemopoietic stem cell therapy in cirrhosis: the end of the story? Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 3, 3–5 (2018).

  37. 37.

    Spahr, L. et al. Autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell transplantation in patients with decompensated alcoholic liver disease: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 8, e53719 (2013).

  38. 38.

    Newsome, P. N. et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and autologous CD133-positive stem-cell therapy in liver cirrhosis (REALISTIC): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 3, 25–36 (2018).

  39. 39.

    Turner, L., stem cells and ‘pay-to-participate’ clinical studies. Regen. Med. 12, 705–719 (2017).

  40. 40.

    Snyder, J., Turner, L. & Crooks, V. A. Crowdfunding for unproven stem cell-based interventions. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 319, 1935–1936 (2018).

  41. 41.

    Wenner, D. M., Kimmelman, J. & London, A. J. Patient-funded trials: opportunity or liability? Cell Stem Cell 17, 135–137 (2015).

  42. 42.

    Emanuel, E. J., Joffe, S., Grady, C., Wendler, D. & Persad, G. Clinical research: Should patients pay to play? Sci. Transl. Med. 7, 298ps16 (2015).

  43. 43.

    Sipp, D. Pay-to-participate funding schemes in human cell and tissue clinical studies. Regen. Med. 7, 105–111 (2012).

  44. 44.

    Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation (ISSCR, 2016).

  45. 45.

    Weinfurt, K. P. Value of high-cost cancer care: a behavioral science perspective. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 223–227 (2007).

  46. 46.

    Kwon, B. K., Ghag, A., Dvorak, M. F., Tetzlaff, W. & Illes, J. Expectations of benefit and tolerance to risk of individuals with spinal cord injury regarding potential participation in clinical trials. J. Neurotrauma 29, 2727–2737 (2012).

  47. 47.

    van Besien, K. et al. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation for sickle cell disease. A study of patients’ decisions. Bone Marrow Transplant. 28, 545–549 (2001).

  48. 48.

    DiMasi, J. A., Hansen, R. W. & Grabowski, H. G. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J. Health Econ. 22, 151–185 (2003).

  49. 49.

    DiMasi, J. A., Grabowski, H. G. & Hansen, R. W. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J. Health Econ. 47, 20–33 (2016).

  50. 50.

    Borlongan, C. V. Age of PISCES: stem-cell clinical trials in stroke. Lancet 388, 736–738 (2016).

  51. 51.

    Kimmelman, J. Gene Transfer and the Ethics of First-in-Human Research. (Cambridge University Press, 2009).

  52. 52.

    London, A. J., Kimmelman, J. & Emborg, M. E. Research ethics. Beyond access vs. protection in trials of innovative therapies. Science 328, 829–830 (2010).

  53. 53.

    Wilson, J. M. Medicine. A history lesson for stem cells. Science 324, 727–728 (2009).

  54. 54.

    Redmond, D. E. Jr. Cellular replacement therapy for Parkinson’s disease--where we are today? Neuroscientist 8, 457–488 (2002).

  55. 55.

    Kolata, G. Parkinson’s research is set back by failure of fetal cell implants. The New York Times A00001 (8th March 2001).

  56. 56.

    Wirth, E., Lebkowski, J. S. III & Lebacqz, K. Response to Frederic Bretzner et al. “Target populations for first-in-human embryonic stem cell research in spinal cord injury”.Cell Stem Cell 8, 476–478 (2011).

  57. 57.

    British Medical Journal Publishing Group. The Nuremberg Code (1947). Br. Med. J. 313, 1448 (1996).

  58. 58.

    World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. World Med. J. 54, 122–125 (2008).

  59. 59.

    Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45 Part 46: Protection of human subjects. (2017).

  60. 60.

    Quesenberry, P. J., Dooner, G., Dooner, M. & Abedi, M. Developmental biology: Ignoratio elenchi: red herrings in stem cell research. Science 308, 1121–1122 (2005).

  61. 61.

    Kimmelman, J. & Henderson, V. Assessing risk/benefit for trials using preclinical evidence: a proposal. J. Med. Ethics 42, 50–53 (2016).

  62. 62.

    Oransky, I. & Marcus, A. Harvard and the Brigham call for 31 retractions of cardiac stem cell research. STAT News (2018).

  63. 63.

    De Los Angeles, A. et al. Failure to replicate the STAP cell phenomenon. Nature 525, E6–E9 (2015).

  64. 64.

    Wagers, A. J., Sherwood, R. I., Christensen, J. L. & Weissman, I. L. Little evidence for developmental plasticity of adult hematopoietic stem cells. Science 297, 2256–2259 (2002).

  65. 65.

    Akyurekli, C. et al. A systematic review of preclinical studies on the therapeutic potential of mesenchymal stromal cell-derived microvesicles. Stem Cell Rev. 11, 150–160 (2015).

  66. 66.

    Lalu, M.M. et al. Evaluating mesenchymal stem cell therapy for sepsis with preclinical meta-analyses prior to initiating a first-in-human trial. eLife 5, e17850 (2016).

  67. 67.

    Kwon, B. K. et al. Demonstrating efficacy in preclinical studies of cellular therapies for spinal cord injury - how much is enough? Exp. Neurol. 248, 30–44 (2013).

  68. 68.

    Nigro, P. et al. Cell therapy for heart disease after 15 years: Unmet expectations. Pharmacol. Res. 127, 77–91 (2018).

  69. 69.

    Anderson, A. J., Piltti, K. M., Hooshmand, M. J., Nishi, R. A. & Cummings, B. J. Preclinical Efficacy Failure of Human CNS-Derived Stem Cells for Use in the Pathway Study of Cervical Spinal Cord Injury. Stem Cell Rep. 8, 249–263 (2017).

  70. 70.

    StemCells, Inc. former management. Reaction from StemCells, Inc. to Two Papers in Stem Cell Reports on the Efficacy of Human NSCs in Mouse Models of Alzheimer’s Disease and Spinal Cord Injury. Stem Cell Rep. 8, 194–195 (2017).

  71. 71.

    Kimmelman, J. et al. New ISSCR guidelines: clinical translation of stem cell research. Lancet 387, 1979–1981 (2016).

  72. 72.

    Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR).Recommendations for standards regarding preclinical neuroprotective and restorative drug development. Stroke 30, 2752–2758 (1999).

  73. 73.

    Ludolph, A. C. et al. Guidelines for preclinical animal research in ALS/MND: A consensus meeting. Amyotroph. Lateral Scler. 11, 38–45 (2010).

  74. 74.

    Hunsberger, J. G. et al. Accelerating stem cell trials for Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet Neurol. 15, 219–230 (2016).

  75. 75.

    Hey, S. P. & Kimmelman, J. The risk-escalation model: a principled design strategy for early-phase trials. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 24, 121–139 (2014).

  76. 76.

    Boulis, N. M. et al. Translational stem cell therapy for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 8, 172–176 (2011).

  77. 77.

    Boucher, A. A. et al. Long-term outcomes after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for metachromatic leukodystrophy: the largest single-institution cohort report. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 10, 94 (2015).

  78. 78.

    Djulbegovic, B. et al. Larger effect sizes in nonrandomized studies are associated with higher rates of EMA licensing approval. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 98, 24–32 (2018).

  79. 79.

    Glasziou, P., Chalmers, I., Rawlins, M. & McCulloch, P. When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. Br. Med. J. 334, 349–351 (2007).

  80. 80.

    Ribeil, J.-A. et al. Gene therapy in a patient with sickle cell disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 376, 848–855 (2017).

  81. 81.

    Sessa, M. et al. Lentiviral haemopoietic stem-cell gene therapy in early-onset metachromatic leukodystrophy: an ad-hoc analysis of a non-randomised, open-label, phase 1/2 trial. Lancet 388, 476–487 (2016).

  82. 82.

    Bryant, A. et al. Myasthenia Gravis Treated With Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. JAMA Neurol. 73, 652–658 (2016).

  83. 83.

    Freeman, T. B. et al. Use of placebo surgery in controlled trials of a cellular-based therapy for Parkinson’s disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 341, 988–992 (1999).

  84. 84.

    Kaptchuk, T. J. et al. Sham device v inert pill: randomised controlled trial of two placebo treatments. Br. Med. J. 332, 391–397 (2006).

  85. 85.

    Freed, C. R. et al. Transplantation of embryonic dopamine neurons for severe Parkinson’s disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 344, 710–719 (2001).

  86. 86.

    Perin, E. C. et al. Effect of transendocardial delivery of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells on functional capacity, left ventricular function, and perfusion in chronic heart failure: the FOCUS-CCTRN trial. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 307, 1717–1726 (2012).

  87. 87.

    Cohen, P. D. et al. Sham neurosurgical procedures: the patients’ perspective. Lancet Neurol. 11, 1022 (2012).

  88. 88.

    Frank, S., Kieburtz, K., Holloway, R. & Kim, S. Y. H. What is the risk of sham surgery in Parkinson disease clinical trials? A review of published reports. Neurology 65, 1101–1103 (2005).

  89. 89.

    Heldman, A. W. et al. Transendocardial mesenchymal stem cells and mononuclear bone marrow cells for ischemic cardiomyopathy: the TAC-HFT randomized trial. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 311, 62–73 (2014).

  90. 90.

    Makkar, R. R. et al. Intracoronary cardiosphere-derived cells for heart regeneration after myocardial infarction (CADUCEUS): a prospective, randomised phase 1 trial. Lancet 379, 895–904 (2012).

  91. 91.

    Liu, K. D. et al. Design and implementation of the START (STem cells for ARDS Treatment) trial, a phase 1/2 trial of human mesenchymal stem/stromal cells for the treatment of moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Ann. Intensive Care 4, 22 (2014).

  92. 92.

    Martin, P. J. et al. Prochymal Improves Response Rates In Patients With Steroid-Refractory Acute Graft Versus Host Disease (SR-GVHD) Involving The Liver And Gut: Results Of A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Phase III Trial In GVHD. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 16, S169–S170 (2010).

  93. 93.

    Hey, S. P. & Kimmelman, J. The questionable use of unequal allocation in confirmatory trials. Neurology 82, 77–79 (2014).

  94. 94.

    Roberts, T. G. Jr. et al. Trends in the risks and benefits to patients with cancer participating in phase 1 clinical trials. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 292, 2130–2140 (2004).

  95. 95.

    Anderson, J. A. & Kimmelman, J. Are phase 1 trials therapeutic? Risk, ethics, and division of labor. Bioethics 28, 138–146 (2014).

  96. 96.

    Li, M. D., Atkins, H. & Bubela, T. The global landscape of stem cell clinical trials. Regen. Med. 9, 27–39 (2014).

  97. 97.

    Sulmasy, D. P. et al. The culture of faith and hope: patients’ justifications for their high estimations of expected therapeutic benefit when enrolling in early phase oncology trials. Cancer 116, 3702–3711 (2010).

  98. 98.

    Rasiel, E. B., Weinfurt, K. P. & Schulman, K. A. Can prospect theory explain risk-seeking behavior by terminally ill patients? Med. Decis. Mak. 25, 609–613 (2005).

  99. 99.

    Appelbaum, P. S., Roth, L. H. & Lidz, C. The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 5, 319–329 (1982).

  100. 100.

    Horng, S. & Grady, C. Misunderstanding in clinical research: distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, and therapeutic optimism. IRB 25, 11–16 (2003).

  101. 101.

    Henderson, G. E. et al. Uncertain benefit: investigators’ views and communications in early phase gene transfer trials. Mol. Ther. 10, 225–231 (2004).

  102. 102.

    Henderson, G. E. et al. Therapeutic misconception in early phase gene transfer trials. Soc. Sci. Med. 62, 239–253 (2006).

  103. 103.

    Goel, A. Stem cell therapy in spinal cord injury: Hollow promise or promising science? J. Craniovertebr. Junction Spine 7, 121–126 (2016).

  104. 104.

    Fan, X., Wang, J.-Z., Lin, X.-M. & Zhang, L. Stem cell transplantation for spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis of treatment effectiveness and safety. Neural Regen. Res. 12, 815–825 (2017).

  105. 105.

    Scott, C. T., DeRouen, M. C. & Crawley, L. M. The language of hope: therapeutic intent in stem-cell clinical trials. AJOB Prim. Res. 1, 4–11 (2010).

  106. 106.

    Kimmelman, J. & Levenstadt, A. Elements of style: consent form language and the therapeutic misconception in phase 1 gene transfer trials. Hum. Gene Ther. 16, 502–508 (2005).

  107. 107.

    Fung, M., Yuan, Y., Atkins, H., Shi, Q. & Bubela, T. Responsible translation of stem cell research: an assessment of clinical trial registration and publications. Stem Cell Rep. 8, 1190–1201 (2017).

  108. 108.

    Clinical Trials Registration and Results Information Submission 42 CFR 11 (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2016).

  109. 109.

    Checklist for Evaluating Whether a Clinical Trial or Study is an Applicable Clinical Trial (ACT) Under 42 CFR 11.22(b) for Clinical Trials Initiated on or After January 18, 2017 (27th June 2018) (, accessed 21 March 2019).

  110. 110.

    Nowbar, A. N. et al. Discrepancies in autologous bone marrow stem cell trials and enhancement of ejection fraction (DAMASCENE): weighted regression and meta-analysis. Br. Med. J. 348, g2688 (2014).

  111. 111.

    Fisher, S. A., Doree, C., Mathur, A. & Martin-Rendon, E. Meta-analysis of cell therapy trials for patients with heart failure. Circ. Res. 116, 1361–1377 (2015).

  112. 112.

    Balolong, E., Lee, S., Nemeno, J. G. & Lee, J. I. Are they really stem cells? Scrutinizing the identity of cells and the quality of reporting in the use of adipose tissue-derived stem cells. Stem Cells Int. 2016, 2302430 (2016).

  113. 113.

    Kamenova, K. & Caulfield, T. Stem cell hype: media portrayal of therapy translation. Sci. Transl. Med. 7, 278ps4 (2015).

  114. 114.

    Jaklevic, M. C. In need of scrutiny: Misleading stem cell claims by academic medical centers. (2017).

  115. 115.

    Caulfield, T., Sipp, D., Murry, C. E., Daley, G. Q. & Kimmelman, J. SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. Confronting stem cell hype. Science 352, 776–777 (2016).

  116. 116.

    Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Andrews, A. & Stukel, T. A. Influence of medical journal press releases on the quality of associated newspaper coverage: retrospective cohort study. Br. Med. J. 344, d8164 (2012).

  117. 117.

    Sumner, P. et al. The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study. Br. Med. J. 349, g7015 (2014).

  118. 118.

    Nisbet, M. C. Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public Opin. Q. 68, 131–154 (2004).

  119. 119.

    Carpenter, D. Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA (Princeton University Press, 2010).

  120. 120.

    Carpenter, D. Confidence Games: How Does Regulation Constitute Markets? in Government and Markets (eds. Balleisen, E. & Moss, D.) 164–190 (Cambridge University Press, 2009).

  121. 121.

    Rathi, V. K., Krumholz, H. M., Masoudi, F. A. & Ross, J. S. Characteristics of clinical studies conducted over the total product life cycle of high-risk therapeutic medical devices receiving FDA premarket approval in 2010 and 2011. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 314, 604–612 (2015).

  122. 122.

    Fain, K., Daubresse, M. & Alexander, G. C. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act and postmarketing commitments. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 310, 202–204 (2013).

  123. 123.

    Pease, A. M. et al. Postapproval studies of drugs initially approved by the FDA on the basis of limited evidence: systematic review. Br. Med. J. 357, j1680 (2017).

  124. 124.

    Naci, H., Smalley, K. R. & Kesselheim, A. S. Characteristics of preapproval and postapproval studies for drugs granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 318, 626–636 (2017).

  125. 125.

    Okada, K., Sato, Y., Sugiyama, D. & Sawa, Y. Establishment of the national consortium for regenerative medicine and national regenerative medicine database in Japan. Clin. Ther. 40, 1076–1083 (2018).

  126. 126.

    Long Term Follow-Up After Administration of Human Gene Therapy Products: Draft Guidance for Industry (US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, 2018).

  127. 127.

    Guidance for Industry: Gene Therapy Clinical Trials – Observing Subjects for Delayed Adverse Events (US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, 2006).

  128. 128.

    Cyranoski, D. ‘Reprogrammed’ stem cells approved to mend human hearts for the first time. Nature 557, 619–620 (2018).

  129. 129.

    Servick, K. Under 21st Century Cures legislation, stem cell advocates expect regulatory shortcuts. Science (2016).

  130. 130.

    Expedited Programs for Regenerative Medicine Therapies for Serious Conditions: Guidance for Industry (US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, 2019).

  131. 131.

    Caplan, A. I. & West, M. D. Progressive approval: a proposal for a new regulatory pathway for regenerative medicine. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 3, 560–563 (2014).

  132. 132.

    Hwang, T. J. et al. Efficacy, safety, and regulatory approval of Food and Drug Administration-designated breakthrough and nonbreakthrough cancer medicines. J. Clin. Oncol. 36, 1805–1812 (2018).

  133. 133.

    Downing, N. S. et al. Postmarket Safety Events Among Novel Therapeutics Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration Between 2001 and 2010. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 317, 1854–1863 (2017).

  134. 134.

    London, A. J. & Kimmelman, J. Accelerated Drug Approval and Health Inequality. JAMA Intern. Med. 176, 883–884 (2016).

  135. 135.

    Nichols, K. & Galipeau, J. Speed versus safety for cell therapy. The Translational Scientist (2016).

  136. 136.

    ISSCR Opposes the REGROW Act. ISSCR (2016).

  137. 137.

    Gratwohl, A. et al. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a global perspective. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 303, 1617–1624 (2010).

  138. 138.

    Gratwohl, A. et al. One million haemopoietic stem-cell transplants: a retrospective observational study. Lancet Haematol. 2, e91–e100 (2015).

  139. 139.

    Majhail, N. S., Nayyar, S., Santibañez, M. E., Murphy, E. A. & Denzen, E. M. Racial disparities in hematopoietic cell transplantation in the United States. Bone Marrow Transplant. 47, 1385–1390 (2012).

  140. 140.

    Faden, R. R. et al. Public stem cell banks: considerations of justice in stem cell research and therapy. Hastings Cent. Rep. 33, 13–27 (2003).

  141. 141.

    Ballen, K. K. et al. Racial and ethnic composition of volunteer cord blood donors: comparison with volunteer unrelated marrow donors. Transfus. (Paris) 42, 1279–1284 (2002).

  142. 142.

    Kite’s YescartaTM (Axicabtagene Ciloleucel) Becomes First CAR T Therapy Approved by the FDA for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma After Two or More Lines of Systemic Therapy. Gilead Sciences (2017).

  143. 143.

    Mukherjee, S. Is $475,000 Too High a Price for Novartis’s ‘Historic’ Cancer Gene Therapy? Fortune (2017).

  144. 144.

    Tirrell, M. Spark Therapeutics’ Luxturna to cure rare blindness for $850,000. CNBC (2018).

  145. 145.

    Ylä-Herttuala, S. Glybera’s second act: the curtain rises on the high cost of therapy. Mol. Ther. 23, 217–218 (2015).

  146. 146.

    Lin, J.K. et al. Cost Effectiveness of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy in Relapsed or Refractory Pediatric B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. J. Clin. Oncol. 36, 3192–3202 (2018).

  147. 147.

    Hillman, A. L. et al. Avoiding bias in the conduct and reporting of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. N. Engl. J. Med. 324, 1362–1365 (1991).

  148. 148.

    Cossu, G. et al. Lancet Commission: Stem cells and regenerative medicine. Lancet 391, 883–910 (2018).

  149. 149.

    Hettle, R. et al. Exploring the assessment and appraisal of regenerative medicines and cell therapy products. (CRD and CHE Technology Assessment Group, University of York, 2015).

  150. 150.

    Cosh, E., Girling, A., Lilford, R., McAteer, H. & Young, T. Investing in new medical technologies: A decision framework. J. Commer. Biotechnol. 13, 263–271 (2007).

  151. 151.

    Bubela, T. & McCabe, C. Value-engineered translation for regenerative medicine: meeting the needs of health systems. Stem Cells Dev. 22 (Suppl 1), 89–93 (2013).

  152. 152.

    Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G., Alexiou, G. A., Gouvias, T. C. & Ioannidis, J. P. Medicine. Life cycle of translational research for medical interventions. Science 321, 1298–1299 (2008).

  153. 153.

    Nelson, A. L., Dhimolea, E. & Reichert, J. M. Development trends for human monoclonal antibody therapeutics. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9, 767–774 (2010).

  154. 154.

    Lu, D. R. et al. Stage I clinical trial of gene therapy for hemophilia B. Sci. China B 36, 1342–1351 (1993).

  155. 155.

    Machin, N., Ragni, M. V. & Smith, K. J. Gene therapy in hemophilia A: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Blood Adv. 2, 1792–1798 (2018).

  156. 156.

    Peters, R. & Harris, T. Advances and innovations in haemophilia treatment. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 17, 493–508 (2018).

  157. 157.

    Sipp, D., Robey, P. G. & Turner, L. Clear up this stem-cell mess. Nature 561, 455–457 (2018).

  158. 158.

    Jordan, C. T. Cancer stem cells: controversial or just misunderstood? Cell Stem Cell 4, 203–205 (2009).

  159. 159.

    Prockop, D. J. Repair of tissues by adult stem/progenitor cells (MSCs): controversies, myths, and changing paradigms. Mol. Ther. 17, 939–946 (2009).

  160. 160.

    Ährlund-Richter, L. et al. Isolation and production of cells suitable for human therapy: challenges ahead. Cell Stem Cell 4, 20–26 (2009).

  161. 161.

    Kalladka, D. et al. Human neural stem cells in patients with chronic ischaemic stroke (PISCES): a phase 1, first-in-man study. Lancet 388, 787–796 (2016).

  162. 162.

    Kimmelman, J. et al. Risk of surgical delivery to deep nuclei: a meta-analysis. Mov. Disord. 26, 1415–1421 (2011).

  163. 163.

    Fukuda, T. et al. Risks and outcomes of invasive fungal infections in recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants after nonmyeloablative conditioning. Blood 102, 827–833 (2003).

  164. 164.

    Clevers, H. Fetal tissue research is essential for scientific discovery and improving health. STAT News (2017).

  165. 165.

    Zhang, J. Y. Lost in translation? Accountability and governance of clinical stem cell research in China. Regen. Med. 12, 647–656 (2017).

  166. 166.

    Kim, S.-H. The Politics of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research in South Korea: Contesting National Sociotechnical Imaginaries. Sci. Cult. 23, 293–319 (2014).

  167. 167.

    Almeida-Porada, G., Atala, A. & Porada, C. D. In utero stem cell transplantation and gene therapy: rationale, history, and recent advances toward clinical application. Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 5, 16020 (2016).

  168. 168.

    Hyun, I., Wilkerson, A. & Johnston, J. Embryology policy: Revisit the 14-day rule. Nature 533, 169–171 (2016).

  169. 169.

    Aach, J., Lunshof, J., Iyer, E. & Church, G. M. Addressing the ethical issues raised by synthetic human entities with embryo-like features. eLife 6, e20674 (2017).

  170. 170.

    Doerflinger, R. M. The ethics of funding embryonic stem cell research: a Catholic viewpoint. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 9, 137–150 (1999).

  171. 171.

    Darnovsky, M. A slippery slope to human germline modification. Nature 499, 127 (2013).

  172. 172.

    Heneghan, C. et al. Lack of evidence for interventions offered in UK fertility centres. Br. Med. J. 355, i6295 (2016).

  173. 173.

    Zoon, K. C. Letter to Sponsors / Researchers - Human Cells Used in Therapy Involving the Transfer of Genetic Material By Means Other Than the Union of Gamete Nuclei. FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (2001).

  174. 174.

    Committee on the Ethical and Social Policy Considerations of Novel Techniques for Prevention of Maternal Transmission of Mitochondrial DNA Diseases, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Institute of Medicine & National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques: Ethical, Social, and Policy Considerations. (National Academies Press (US), 2016).

  175. 175.

    Cohen, I. G. & Adashi, E. Y. Preventing Mitochondrial DNA Diseases: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 316, 273–274 (2016).

  176. 176.

    Vogel, G. United Kingdom gives green light for mitochondrial replacement technique. Science (2016).

  177. 177.

    Cohen, I. G., Savulescu, J. & Adashi, E. Y. Medicine. Transatlantic lessons in regulation of mitochondrial replacement therapy. Science 348, 178–180 (2015).

  178. 178.

    Ishii, T. & Hibino, Y. Mitochondrial manipulation in fertility clinics: Regulation and responsibility. Reprod. Biomed. Soc. Online 5, 93–109 (2018).

  179. 179.

    Patient Handbook on Stem Cell Therapies (ISSCR, 2008).

  180. 180.

    The Australian Stem Cell Handbook (The National Stem Cell Foundation of Australia & Stem Cells Australia, 2015).

  181. 181.

    Stem Cell Education: Educational Resources & Teaching Tools (EuroStemCell, 2018);

  182. 182.

    Report and Recommendations of the Workgroup to Study Regenerative and Stem Cell Therapy Practices (Federation of State Medical Boards, 2018).

  183. 183.

    NIH Guidance on Informed Consent for Gene Transfer Research (NIH Office of Biotechnology Activities, 2004).

  184. 184.

    Victory, J. Journalists: 9 tips to combat stem cell hype in your news stories. (2016).

  185. 185.

    Knoepfler, P. The Niche: Knoepfler Lab Stem Cell Blog (accessed 23 October 2018);

  186. 186.

    Warning Letters (US FDA, accessed 23 October 2018);

  187. 187.

    Sipp, D. et al. Marketing of unproven stem cell–based interventions: A call to action. Sci. Transl. Med. 9, eaag0426 (2017).

Download references


We thank D. Sipp for helpful feedback on a draft of this manuscript; faults remain our own. We acknowledge the contributions of many scholars whose work we were unable to cite. This work was funded by CIHR grant PJT-148726.

Author information

Correspondence to Jonathan Kimmelman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

J.K. serves on a Data and Safety Monitoring Board in a remunerative capacity for Ultragenyx Inc. The trial involves a gene therapy (not a stem-cell-based intervention). Compensation is <10K USD/year.

Additional information

Editor recognition: Hannah Stower was the primary editor on this Perspective and managed its editorial process and peer review in collaboration with the rest of the editorial team.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark