Challenging the FDA's authority to regulate autologous adult stem cells for therapeutic use: Celltex therapeutics' partnership with RNL Bio, substantial medical risks, and the implications of United States v. Regenerative Sciences.

This Article examines the convergence of three corporations that have attempted to capitalize on translating emerging research into clinical procedures by manufacturing and facilitating the process for patients to obtain mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) injections. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has asserted its authority to regulate somatic cell therapy products like MSCs under the Public Health Service Act and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, some manufacturers have attempted to circumvent FDA regulation through various mechanisms and argue that their products do not fall within the definition of a biological product or drug. However, scientific knowledge of using MSCs for clinical therapy remains in its infancy, and MSCs pose a number of serious risks to patients. This Article focuses on the development of Celltex, a company based in Sugar Land, Texas that manufactures and facilitates the injection of autologous MSCs; RNL Bio, a company that licenses its operations technology to Celltex; and Regenerative Sciences, a company based in Broomfield, Colorado that was recently involved in litigation with the FDA. Corporate circumvention of intended regulatory oversight exposes patients to potentially inefficacious products that could contribute to serious medical injuries such as viruses, myocardial infarction, cancer, or death.

Reining in the pharmacological enhancement train: we should remain vigilant about regulatory standards for prescribing controlled substances.

This article challenges recent assumptions that physicians may ethically and legally prescribe psychopharmacological enhancement drugs to patients and the counterintuitive notion that in some cases ingesting an enhancement drug constitutes the more ethical choice than foregoing this option. Enhancement proponents have touted modafinil as an ideal mechanism to improve concentration, alertness, and forego sleep and keep pace with our society's demands. However, patients who use modafinil for these reasons risk potentially severe side effects and addiction, and face unintended consequences related to their cognitive, emotive, and physiological functioning. Importantly, prescribing a controlled substance such as modafinil for performance enhancement and sleep avoidance runs contrary to a physician's ethical duty to the patient and the standard of practice set forth in legal requirements governing the prescription of controlled substances.