No Vacillation on HPV Vaccination.

Evidence of the safety and protective benefits of human papillomavirus virus (HPV) vaccines as an anti-cancer measure is overwhelming. However, vaccine uptake varies widely across countries and falls short of levels needed to achieve population immunity. We highlight policy measures that would help ensure greater worldwide coverage and save lives.

Challenges in the Regulation of Autologous Stem Cell Interventions in the United States.

The direct-to-consumer marketing of stem cells for unproven therapeutic uses has grown rapidly in the United States in recent years. This development is surprising since the marketing and distribution of human cell-based medical products is stringently regulated in the US. This essay describes ambiguities, gaps, and inconsistencies in the current regulatory system that have enabled such businesses to thrive. In addition to directly challenging the authority of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over autologous cell-based products in the courts, stem cell marketing firms have also identified and exploited regulatory loopholes, such as the same surgical procedure exception, which exempts from FDA oversight human cell-based products that are harvested and reimplanted in a single procedure. Many businesses also advertise stem cell clinical studies on a pay-to-participate basis, which requires patients to pay large sums to enroll in clinical research. This business model not only shifts many of the cost and risks of medical experimentation from providers to patients but may also indemnify sellers from fraud litigation. Lastly, stem cell advertisers borrow heavily from the language and concepts of science-based medicine in their marketing. The inaccurate promotion of autologous stem cell injections as a form of "personalized" medicine lends a veneer of credibility and precision that may encourage patients to undergo procedures of uncertain effectiveness and to sympathize with stem cell businesses in their efforts to evade oversight.

Cell Churches and Stem Cell Marketing in South Korea and the United States.

The commercial provision of putative stem cell-based medical interventions in the absence of conclusive evidence of safety and efficacy has formed the basis of an unregulated industry for more than a decade. Many clinics offering such supposed stem cell treatments include statements about the 'ethical' nature of somatic (often colloquially referred to as 'adult' stem cells) stem cells, in specific contrast to human embryonic stem cells (hESCs), which have been the subject of intensive political, legal, and religious controversy since their first derivation in 1998. Christian groups-both Roman Catholic and evangelical Protestant-in many countries have explicitly promoted the medical potential and current-day successes in the clinical application of somatic stem cells, lending indirect support to the activities of businesses marketing stem cells ahead of evidence. In this article, I make a preliminary examination of how the structures and belief systems of certain churches in South Korea and the United States, both of which are home to significant stem cell marketing industries, has complemented other factors, including national biomedical funding initiatives, international economic rivalries, permissive legal structures, which have lent impetus to a problematic and often exploitative sector of biomedical commerce.

Too little, too soon: Japan's experiment in regenerative medicine deregulation.

In 2013, Japan established a conditional approval pathway for cell and gene therapies. Our analysis of the four products approved via this pathway identifies evidence suggesting shortcomings in safety and efficacy data submitted by the sponsors and raises concerns about whether this pathway is delivering on its promise.

ISSCR Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation: The 2021 update.

The International Society for Stem Cell Research has updated its Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation in order to address advances in stem cell science and other relevant fields, together with the associated ethical, social, and policy issues that have arisen since the last update in 2016. While growing to encompass the evolving science, clinical applications of stem cells, and the increasingly complex implications of stem cell research for society, the basic principles underlying the Guidelines remain unchanged, and they will continue to serve as the standard for the field and as a resource for scientists, regulators, funders, physicians, and members of the public, including patients. A summary of the key updates and issues is presented here.

Stem cell research in Asia: a critical view.

Stem cell research stands as a high-priority field in many countries across the Asia-Pacific region, and the past decade has seen remarkable investment into facilities and programs intended to increase competitiveness in the drive to find clinical applications. In the years roughly framed by Korean cloner Woo-Suk Hwang's meteoric ascent and fall, speculation was rampant that Asia was poised to overtake the West in this field of science. But that potential remains unfulfilled. In this article, I will look at some of the deficits in infrastructure and governance that underlie the East-West stem cell gap, and suggest a number of measures that might be taken to remedy them.

Japan Strengthens Regenerative Medicine Oversight.

The Japanese government initiated sweeping reforms targeting regenerative medicine in 2014, accompanied by substantial investment into stem cell research and development. We survey the impact of these developments and discuss how the government is working to accelerate regenerative medicine while ensuring safety and efficacy.

Can civil lawsuits stem the tide of direct-to-consumer marketing of unproven stem cell interventions.

The sale of unproven stem cell interventions (SCIs) by commercial entities has proliferated in highly developed countries, most notably in the USA. Yet, there have been few criminal prosecutions and regulatory enforcement actions against providers who have violated laws and best practice standards due to the lack of resources and legal ambiguity. While the stem cell research community has invested much in protecting patients and preventing the growth of this industry, some patients are seeking remedies under civil law to hold stem cell clinics responsible for fraudulent practices. Several patients have filed lawsuits against providers demanding compensation for physical injuries caused by unproven treatments and financial losses due to fraud and false advertising. Lawsuits can be used as a tool not only to compensate plaintiffs but also to achieve positive public health and policy outcomes. In this paper, we explore the value of a public health litigation strategy as a countermeasure against the exploitative practices of the unproven SCI industry by analyzing stem cell lawsuits and comparing them with other major public health litigation efforts. We argue that stem cell lawsuits complement other approaches to reining in unsafe practices. In particular, stem cell lawsuits could intensify publicity and raise awareness of the harms of unproven treatments, set legal precedent, reshape the media narrative from one focused on the right to try or practice to one highlighting the need for adequate safety and efficacy standards, and encourage authorities to turn their attention to policy reform and enforcement.

Tackling Ethical Challenges of Premature Delivery of Stem Cell-Based Therapies: ISSCR 2018 Annual Meeting Focus Session Report.

Clinical uses of unproven stem cell-based interventions abound, yet many patients may be harmed by receiving them, raising complex ethical, economic, and societal concerns. Regulators, scientists, clinicians, professional societies, and patient advocacy groups need to collaboratively articulate expectations related to the proper development and delivery of stem cell-based therapies.

The malignant niche: safe spaces for toxic stem cell marketing.

Many tumors are sustained by microenvironments, or niches, that support and protect malignant cells, thus conferring a competitive advantage against both healthy cells and therapeutic interventions (for a brief review, see Yao and Link (Stem Cells 35: 3-8, 2017)). The global industry engaged in the commercial promotion of unproven and scientifically implausible cell-based "regenerative" therapies has developed a number of self-protective strategies that support its survival and growth in ways that are broadly analogous to the functions of the malignant niche.

Identity and ownership issues in the regulation of autologous cells.

Clinical application of autologous cells by businesses promoting unproven stem cell treatments represents the largest growth sector in this problematic industry, but also presents special challenges to regulators. Patients frequently identify autologous cells as personal property, using the language of 'ownership'. Through an analysis of comments submitted to the US FDA in 2016 in response to recent draft guidance documents, I show that a sense of ownership and identity in autologous cells is consistently expressed by stakeholders. In the USA and other countries, regulation of cell and tissue biologics as 'drugs' relies substantially on whether a given product has been modified in ways that alter its biological properties, which has direct implications for property and ownership rights. Competing views on property rights in 'natural' and modified autologous cells have profound implications for the future of regulation of marketed autologous cells.

Ethical and Regulatory Challenges with Autologous Adult Stem Cells: A Comparative Review of International Regulations.

Cell and tissue-based products, such as autologous adult stem cells, are being prescribed by physicians across the world for diseases and illnesses that they have neither been approved for or been demonstrated as safe and effective in formal clinical trials. These doctors often form part of informal transnational networks that exploit differences and similarities in the regulatory systems across geographical contexts. In this paper, we examine the regulatory infrastructure of five geographically diverse but socio-economically comparable countries with the aim of identifying similarities and differences in how these products are regulated and governed within clinical contexts. We find that while there are many subtle technical differences in how these regulations are implemented, they are sufficiently similar that it is difficult to explain why these practices appear more prevalent in some countries and not in others. We conclude with suggestions for how international governance frameworks might be improved to discourage the exploitation of vulnerable patient populations while enabling innovation in the clinical application of cellular therapies.