Ethical issues and public communication in the development of cell-based treatments for COVID-19: Lessons from the pandemic

The significant morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) prompted a global race to develop new therapies. These include interventions using cell- or cell-derived products, several of which are being tested in well-designed, properly controlled clinical trials. Yet, the search for cell-based COVID-19 treatments has also been fraught with hyperbolic claims; flouting of crucial regulatory, scientific, and ethical norms; and distorted communication of research findings. In this paper, we critically examine ethical issues and public communication challenges related to the development of cell-based therapeutics for COVID-19. Drawing on the lessons learned from this ongoing process, we argue against the rushed development of cell-based interventions. We conclude by outlining ways to improve the ethical conduct of cell-based clinical investigations and public communication of therapeutic claims.

Reflection on the enactment and impact of safety laws for regenerative medicine in Japan

Japan's Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine (ASRM) created an innovative regulatory framework intended to safely promote the clinical development of stem cell-based interventions (SCBIs) while subjecting commercialized unproven SCBIs to greater scrutiny and accountability. This article reviews ASRM's origins, explains its unprecedented scope, and assesses how it envisions the regulation of SCBIs. This analysis is used to highlight three key insights that are pertinent to the current revision of the ASRM: clarifying how the concept of safety should be defined and assessed in research and clinical care settings; revisiting risk criteria for review of SCBIs; and taking stronger measures to support the transition from unproven interventions to evidence-based therapies. Finally, the article reflects on lessons drawn from Japanese experiences in dealing with unproven SCBIs for international endeavors to regulate SCBIs.

Adhering to Ethical Benchmarks in Neurology Clinical Trials Using iPSCs

We examine the ethics of using induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) in cell transplantation treatment of neurologic diseases and the essential types of ethical benchmarks required in clinical trials in neurology using iPSCs, including embryonic pluripotent stem cells. We focus on two issues: (1) comparison and (2) criticism of the two types of neuro-hype (neuro-purism and neuro-essentialism). In order to ensure that the dialog on ethical benchmarks continues to develop in a manner that promotes trust with society and research subjects, concerns about the clinical use of pluripotent stem cells (particularly iPSCs) in neurology must be at the forefront of any ethics discussion.

Ethical issues in living-related corneal tissue transplantation

The cornea was the first human solid tissue to be transplanted successfully, and is now a common procedure in ophthalmic surgery. The grafts come from deceased donors. Corneal therapies are now being developed that rely on tissue from living-related donors. This presents new ethical challenges for ophthalmic surgeons, who have hitherto been somewhat insulated from debates in transplantation and donation ethics. This paper provides the first overview of the ethical considerations generated by ocular tissue donation from living donors and suggests how these might be addressed in practice. These are discussed in the context of a novel treatment for corneal limbal stem cell deficiency. This involves limbal cell grafts which are transplanted, either directly or after ex vivo expansion, onto recipient stem cell-deficient eyes. Where only one eye is diseased, the unaffected eye can be used as a source of graft tissue. Bilateral disease requires an allogenic donation, preferably from a genetically related living donor. While numerous papers have dealt with the theory, surgical approaches and clinical outcomes of limbal stem cell therapies, none has addressed the ethical dimensions of this form of tissue donation.

Characteristics and Scope of Training of Clinicians Participating in the US Direct-to-Consumer Marketplace for Unproven Stem Cell Interventions

This study describes the credentials and scope of training of physician and nonphysician practitioners working for US companies marketing unproven stem cell procedures.

Conditional Approvals for Autologous Stem Cell-Based Interventions: Conflicting norms and institutional legitimacy

Demands from patients, health-care professionals, and industry to streamline the market approval process for promising new therapies has prompted the introduction of programs that can provide more rapid access to stem cell-based products before evidence of safety and efficacy has been demonstrated in clinical trials. These products may be approved for marketing under "conditional authorizations," while uncertainty around safety and efficacy is reduced through the collection of clinical data in observational trials or registries. The rationale for conditional approval programs assumes that patients with unmet medical needs will benefit with rapid access to novel stem cell therapies. It also assumes that data gathered in actual clinical contexts is inherently better at reducing uncertainty than conventional clinical trial methods of demonstrating safety and efficacy. These assumptions may be overly optimistic and do not account for the broader societal burdens of prematurely releasing high-cost therapies with uncertain safety risks and benefits on to health-care markets. This essay focuses on the introduction of conditional approval programs for autologous somatic stem cell therapies and argues that these programs may conflict with, and potentially undermine, the normative commitments of regulatory agencies charged with promoting population health and protecting vulnerable groups from harm and exploitation. It concludes with suggestions of how programs designed to accelerate access to potentially helpful but experimental interventions could be reconfigured to be more equitable.

The US Direct-to-Consumer Marketplace for Autologous Stem Cell Interventions

Hundreds of businesses and clinics in the United States are engaged in direct-to-consumer marketing of unproven and unlicensed stem cell-based interventions. This essay provides an overview of this marketplace, examines advertising techniques companies use to draw clients and legitimate marketing claims, and summarizes the roles the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies are supposed to play in regulating the direct-to-consumer marketplace for stem cell interventions. The essay also reviews federal regulations, describes how many businesses selling purported "stem cell treatments" appear to violate these standards, and considers ethical issues and harms associated with widespread promotion of unapproved stem cell products.

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.

Vulnerabilities and the Use of Autologous Stem Cells for Medical Conditions in Australia

Australia has a booming market of unproven autologous stem cell- based interventions (SCBIs) for a wide range of medical conditions. Multiple SCBIs are provided in private practices outside of formal clinical trials. Some defend the provision of unproven SCBIs on grounds of patient choice. This essay interrogates this argument for patient choice and explores patients' vulnerabilities in clinical practice with autologous SCBIs. While all patients are inherently vulnerable, the regulatory framework for autologous stem cells in Australia exacerbates the problems associated with inherent vulnerabilities and generates situational and pathogenic vulnerabilities. A just state ought to implement regulatory measures that mitigate vulnerabilities and foster patients' autonomy.

The Need for Beneficence and Prudence in Clinical Innovation with Autologous Stem Cells

The term innovation is frequently used as a justification for allowing clinicians to offer unproven autologous stem cell-based interventions (SCBIs) to their patients. Proponents of this kind of innovation (which we refer to as "clinical innovation") argue that physicians should be free to administer whatever interventions they choose, and informed consumers should be free to receive them. This article refutes the notion that clinician autonomy and consumer demand are a sufficient justification for offering patients unproven autologous SCBIs. We argue that, while clinician and consumer preferences need to be taken seriously, access to unproven SCBIs can only be fully justified when it is based on a commitment to beneficence and prudence. We also argue that there is a need for a clearer distinction between the definition of clinical innovation with autologous stem cells, which is morally neutral, and its justification, which entails a commitment to beneficence and prudence. Finally, we argue that regulation of clinical innovation with autologous stem cells needs to be based on a bioethics of innovation that attends to beneficence and prudence alongside other ethical principles.

The deadly business of an unregulated global stem cell industry

In 2016, the Office of the State Coroner of New South Wales released its report into the death of an Australian woman, Sheila Drysdale, who had died from complications of an autologous stem cell procedure at a Sydney clinic. In this report, we argue that Mrs Drysdale's death was avoidable, and it was the result of a pernicious global problem of an industry exploiting regulatory systems to sell unproven and unjustified interventions with stem cells.

Current and emerging global themes in the bioethics of regenerative medicine: the tangled web of stem cell translation

Probably the most serious problem facing the field of regenerative medicine today is the challenge of effective translation and development of viable stem cell-based therapies. Particular concerns have been raised over the growing market in unproven cell therapies. In this article, I explore recent developments in the stem cell therapy landscape and argue that while the sale of unproven therapies undoubtedly poses ethical concerns, it must be understood as part of a larger problem at the interface between biomedicine, healthcare, publics, policy and the market. Addressing this will require a broader perspective incorporating the shifting relationships between different stakeholder groups, the global politics of research and innovation, and the evolving role of publics and patients with respect to science.

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.

Responsible Translation of Stem Cell Research: An Assessment of Clinical Trial Registration and Publications

We assessed the extent to which the publication of clinical trial results of innovative cell-based interventions reflects International Society for Stem Cell Research best practice guidelines. We assessed: (1) characteristics and time to publication of completed trials; (2) quality of reported trials; and (3) results of published trials. We identified and analyzed publications from 1,052 novel stem cell clinical trials: 179 (45.4%) of 393 completed trials had published results; 48 trials were registered by known stem cell tourism clinics, none of which reported results. Completed non-industry-sponsored trials initially published more rapidly, but differences with industry-sponsored trials decreased over time. Most publications reported safety, and 67.3% (mainly early-stage trials) reported positive outcomes. A higher proportion of industry trials reported positive efficacy. Heightened patient expectations for stem cell therapies give rise to ethical obligations for the transparent conduct of clinical trials. Reporting guidelines need to be developed that are specific to early-phase clinical trials.

Some Ethical Concerns About Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

Human induced pluripotent stem cells can be obtained from somatic cells, and their derivation does not require destruction of embryos, thus avoiding ethical problems arising from the destruction of human embryos. This type of stem cell may provide an important tool for stem cell therapy, but it also results in some ethical concerns. It is likely that abnormal reprogramming occurs in the induction of human induced pluripotent stem cells, and that the stem cells generate tumors in the process of stem cell therapy. Human induced pluripotent stem cells should not be used to clone human beings, to produce human germ cells, nor to make human embryos. Informed consent should be obtained from patients in stem cell therapy.

Fraudsters operate and officialdom turns a blind eye: a proposal for controlling stem cell therapy in China

Stem cell tourism-the flow of patients from home countries to destination countries to obtain stem cell treatment-is a growing business in China. Many concerns have been raised regarding fraudsters that operate unsafe stem cell therapies and an officialdom that turns a blind eye to the questionable technology. The Chinese regulatory approach to stem cell research is based on Guidelines and Administrative Measures, rather than legislation, and may have no binding force on certain institutions, such as military hospitals. There is no liability and traceability system and no visible set of penalties for non-compliance in the stem cell legal framework. In addition to the lack of safety and efficacy systems in the regulations, no specific expert authority has been established to monitor stem cell therapy to date. Recognizing the global nature of stem cell tourism, this article argues that resolving stem cell tourism issues may require not only the Chinese government but also an international mechanism for transparency and ethical oversight. A stringent set of international regulations that govern stem cell therapies can encourage China to improve stem cell regulation and enforcement to fulfill its obligations. Through an international consensus, a minimum standard for clinical stem cell research and a central enforcement system will be provided. As a result, rogue clinics that conduct unauthorized stem cell therapies can be penalized, and countries that are reluctant to implement the reconciled regulations should be sanctioned.

Stem Cell and Related Therapies: Nurses and midwives representing all parties

Nurses and midwives are part of health care in all the stages of our lives from preconception to death. Recent scientific advances have introduced new techniques of screening and diagnosis linked to stem cell isolation and therapies. These could affect us at any age and therefore nurses will be involved as carers and patients advocates for these techniques. In this article stem cell techniques and therapies are outlined, as well as some of the ethical challenges faced by various nursing groups, whether in adult, learning difficulties, mental health, paediatric, primary care, public health or health visiting areas. Nurses have to understand the ethical issues and the rights of all parties (donor, recipient and families), which may conflict with each other, to be able to weigh up the benefits and costs to each group involved. Answers have to be found on a case-by-case basis within local moral frameworks and law. Nurses represent all parties in these therapies and act as advocates for every patient group. They need to act in an interprofessional environment to promote the best interests of all their clients, both clinically and ethically.

Adapting Preclinical Benchmarks for First-in-Human Trials of Human Embryonic Stem Cell-Based Therapies

: As research on human embryonic stem cell (hESC)-based therapies is moving from the laboratory to the clinic, there is an urgent need to assess when it can be ethically justified to make the step from preclinical studies to the first protocols involving human subjects. We examined existing regulatory frameworks stating preclinical requirements relevant to the move to first-in-human (FIH) trials and assessed how they may be applied in the context of hESC-based interventions to best protect research participants. Our findings show that some preclinical benchmarks require rethinking (i.e., identity, purity), while others need to be specified (i.e., potency, viability), owing to the distinctive dynamic heterogeneity of hESC-based products, which increases uncertainty and persistence of safety risks and allows for limited predictions of effects in vivo. Rethinking or adaptation of how to apply preclinical benchmarks in specific cases will be required repeatedly for different hESC-based products. This process would benefit from mutual learning if researchers included these components in the description of their methods in publications.

SIGNIFICANCE

To design translational research with an eye to protecting human participants in early trials, researchers and regulators need to start their efforts at the preclinical stage. Existing regulatory frameworks for preclinical research, however, are not really adapted to this in the case of stem cell translational medicine. This article reviews existing regulatory frameworks for preclinical requirements and assesses how their underlying principles may best be applied in the context of human embryonic stem cell-based interventions for the therapy of Parkinson's disease. This research will help to address the question of when it is ethically justified to start first-in-human trials in stem cell translational medicine.

Use of Embryonic Stem Cells to Treat Severe Eye Diseases

BACKGROUND

The use of stem cells in regenerative medicine has major therapeutic potential. Recent clinical trials using cells derived from human stem cells are showing encouraging results, although these should be assessed with the necessary caution.

DISCUSSION

Some media have reported the results of these trials without due care, perhaps creating expectations that do not match the reality of the facts. This paper describes some of the recent advances in the use of human stem cells, particularly those made in the area of ophthalmology, and more specifically, in Stargardt's disease and age-related macular degeneration (AMD). We also present promising studies with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS), aimed at obtaining retinal pigmented epithelium and light-sensitive retinal rods in the aforementioned ocular diseases, with encouraging preclinical and clinical results.

CONCLUSIONS

From a medical point of view, we must not forget that the transplanted retinal epithelium cells may cause tumours, since they have been obtained from Embryonic Stem cells, and may trigger immune rejection problems since they are heterologous. These considerations attest to the ethical uncertainty of the results of these clinical trials, but above all, it must be stressed that whenever Embryonic Stem cells are used, a human embryo must be destroyed to obtain them, which of course has objective ethical difficulties.

Inequality Issues in Stem Cell Medicine

As stem cell medicine advances, so too does the reality of potentially widening disparities in health care. With the recognition that socioeconomic conditions and their distribution within the population can impact health outcomes, stem cell researchers are urged to aspire to notions of social justice, ensuring research derives from and strives to cater to the genetic and socioeconomic diversity that is inherent in our population.

The Italian Way to Stem Cell Research: Rethinking the Role of Catholic Religion in Shaping Italian Stem Cell Research Regulations

Stem cell research regulations are highly variable across nations, notwithstanding shared and common ethical concerns. Dominant in political debates has been the so-called embryo question. However, the permissibility of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research varies among national regulatory frameworks. Scholars have explained differences by resorting to notions of political culture, traditions of ethical reasoning, discursive strategies and political manoeuvring of involved actors. Explanations based on the role of religion or other cultural structural variables are also employed. This paper analyses the emerging of the Italian regulatory framework on stem cell research using an analytical framework that considers the interplay between cultural structural features, political culture, traditions of ethical reasoning, institutional settings and the discursive and political agency of the actors involved. It aims also to explain the role of Roman Catholic Church in shaping the Italian stem cell research regulation not by treating religion as an autonomous causal factor, but through the analysis of the agency of Catholic and allied actors in the Italian political culture and institutional setting.

Personalised Multi-Criterial Online Decision Support for Siblings Considering Stem Cell Donation: An Interactive Aid

Person-centred decision support combines the best available information on the considerations that matter to the individual, with the importance the person attaches to those considerations. Nurses and other health professionals can benefit from being able to draw on this support within a clinical conversation. A case study and storyline on four siblings facing a transplant coordinator's call to donate stem cells to their brother [1] is 'translated' and used to demonstrate how an interactive multi-criteria aid can be developed for each within a conversational mode. The personalized dialogue and decision aid are accessible online for interaction. Each sibling's decision exemplifies the communication including physical and psychosocial complexities within any decision cascade from call-to-test and to donate, if compatible. A shared template can embrace the informational and ethical aspects of a decision. By interactive decision support within a clinical conversation, each stakeholder can gain a personalised opinion, as well as increased generic health decision literacy [2].

Ethical considerations when counseling patients about stem cell tourism

Worldwide, many clinics market stem-cell based interventions often touted as effective for many diseases including spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis (MS), and other neurodegenerative diseases. These clinics and their expensive, unproven treatments continue to fuel the practice of stem cell tourism. Given concerns about patient exploitation and safety, how should the physician engage a patient who wants to pursue such treatments? This article presents the case of a patient with neuromyelitis optica interested in pursuing expensive stem cell injections abroad. This article describes stem cell tourism along with some of the ethical issues physicians should consider, while also providing practical resources that physicians may employ to educate and engage patients in making an informed decision.

Untested, unproven, and unethical: the promotion and provision of autologous stem cell therapies in Australia

An increasing number of private clinics in Australia are marketing and providing autologous stem cell therapies to patients. Although advocates point to the importance of medical innovation and the primacy of patient choice, these arguments are unconvincing. First, it is a stark truth that these clinics are flourishing while the efficacy and safety of autologous stem cell therapies, outside of established indications for hematopioetic stem cell transplantation, are yet to be shown. Second, few of these therapies are offered within clinical trials. Third, patients with chronic and debilitating illnesses, who are often the ones who take up these therapies, incur significant financial burdens in the expectation of benefiting from these treatments. Finally, the provision of these stem cell therapies does not follow the established pathways for legitimate medical advancement. We argue that greater regulatory oversight and professional action are necessary to protect vulnerable patients and that at this time the provision of unproven stem cell therapies outside of clinical trials is unethical.

Ethical acceptability of research on human-animal chimeric embryos: summary of opinions by the Japanese Expert Panel on Bioethics

Human-animal chimeric embryos are embryos obtained by introducing human cells into a non-human animal embryo. It is envisaged that the application of human-animal chimeric embryos may make possible many useful research projects including producing three-dimensional human organs in animals and verification of the pluripotency of human ES cells or iPS cells in vivo. The use of human-animal chimeric embryos, however, raises several ethical and moral concerns. The most fundamental one is that human-animal chimeric embryos possess the potential to develop into organisms containing human-derived tissue, which may lead to infringing upon the identity of the human species, and thus impairing human dignity. The Japanese Expert Panel on Bioethics in the Cabinet Office carefully considered the scientific significance and ethical acceptability of the issue and released its "Opinions regarding the handling of research using human-animal chimeric embryos". The Panel proposed a framework of case-by-case review, and suggested that the following points must be carefully reviewed from the perspective of ethical acceptability: (a) Types of animal embryos and types of animals receiving embryo transfers, particularly in dealing with non-human primates; (b) Types of human cells and organs intended for production, particularly in dealing with human nerve or germ cells; and (c) Extent of the period required for post-transfer studies. The scientific knowledge that can be gained from transfer into an animal uterus and from the production of an individual must be clarified to avoid unnecessary generation of chimeric animals. The time is ripe for the scientific community and governments to start discussing the ethical issues for establishing a global consensus.

ABOUT PATIENTS, "INVENTORS", JOURNALISTS, SCIENTISTS AND IRBs (TO SAY NOTHING OF THE INSTITUTIONS): CCSVI AND MS

In this article, the Author analyzes her own experience as a member of the IRB that approved a trial to determine the efficacy of a disobstruction procedure of extracranial veins by means of angioplasty in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The so-called "liberation therapy" was proposed by an Italian vascular surgeon, who theorized a condition called "chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency" (CCSVI) as playing a role in the pathogenesis of MS. This approval, given after an animated discussion amongst IRB members, lacked any solid scientific evidence of a causal relationship between CCSVI and MS, and was accepted despite the concerns about potential risks associated with the proposed therapy. Undoubtedly, considerable pressure was exerted on IRB by MS sufferers, who rushed off to get the surgery from the many clinics who offered liberation therapy.The remaining sense of bitter has raised a reflection on how to prevent similar future cases.

Stem cell trials for cardiovascular medicine: ethical rationale

Stem cell-based interventions provide new treatment prospects for many disease conditions, including cardiovascular disorders. Clinical trials are necessary to collect adequate evidence on (long-term) safety and efficacy of novel interventions such as stem cells, but the design and launch of clinical trials, from first-in-human studies to larger randomized controlled trials (RCTs), is scientifically and ethically challenging. Stem cells are different from traditional pharmaceuticals, surgical procedures, and medical devices in the following ways: the novelty and complexity of stem cells, the invasiveness of the procedures, and the novel aim of regeneration. These specifics, combined with the characteristics of the study population, will have an impact on the design and ethics of RCTs. The recently closed JUVENTAS trial will serve as an example to identify the (interwoven) scientific and ethical challenges in the design and launch of stem cell RCTs. The JUVENTAS trial has investigated the efficacy of autologous bone marrow cells in end-stage vascular patients, in a double-blind sham-controlled design. We first describe the choices, considerations, and experiences of the JUVENTAS team. Subsequently, we identify the main ethical and scientific challenges and discuss what is important to consider in the design of future stem cell RCTs: assessment of risks and benefits, the choice for outcome measures, the choice for the comparator, the appropriate selection of participants, and adequate informed consent. Additionally, the stem cell field is highly in the spotlight due to the (commercial) interests and expectations. This warrants a cautious pace of translation and scrupulous set up of clinical trials, as failures could put the field in a negative light. At the same time, knowledge from clinical trials is necessary for the field to progress. We conclude that in the scientifically and ethically challenging field of stem cell RCTs, researchers and clinicians have to maneuver between the Skylla of hyper accelerated translation without rigorously conducted RCTs and the Charybdis of the missed opportunity of valuable knowledge.

The Ethics of Stem Cell-Based Aesthetic Surgery: Attitudes and Perceptions of the Plastic Surgery Community

BACKGROUND

The emerging field of stem cell-based aesthetics has raised ethical concerns related to advertising campaigns and standards for safety and efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to characterize the attitudes of plastic surgeons regarding the ethics of stem cell-based aesthetics.

METHODS

A cross-sectional electronic survey was distributed to 4592 members of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Statements addressed ethical concerns about informed consent, conflicts of interest, advertising, regulation, and stem cell tourism. An agreement score (AS) from 0 to 100 was calculated for each statement. Majority agreement was designated as ≥60 and majority disagreement as ≤40.

RESULTS

A total of 770 questionnaires were received (16.7%). The majority of respondents indicated that knowledge regarding the risks and benefits of stem cell procedures is insufficient to obtain valid informed consent (AS, 29) and that direct-to-consumer advertising for these technologies is inappropriate and unethical (AS, 23). Most respondents reported that patients should be actively warned against traveling abroad to receive aesthetic cell therapies (AS, 86) and that registries and evaluations of these clinics should be made publicly available (AS, 71). Even more respondents noted that financial conflicts of interest should be disclosed to patients (AS, 96) and that professional societies should participate in establishing regulatory standards (AS, 93).

CONCLUSIONS

The plastic surgeons surveyed in this study support a well-regulated, evidence-based approach to aesthetic procedures involving stem cells.

The decision on the "optimal" human pluripotent stem cell

Because of recent advances, the array of human pluripotent stem cells now contains embryonic stem cells, derived from "surplus" in vitro fertilization embryos or from cloned embryos; induced pluripotent stem cells; and amniotic fluid stem cells. Here, we compare these stem cell types regarding ethical and legal concerns, cultivation conditions, genomic stability, tumor developing potentials, and applicability for disease modeling and human therapy. This overview highlights that in the future appropriate methodological management must include a decision on the "optimal" stem cell to use before the specific application.

Whole-genome analysis, stem cell research, and the future of biobanks

The convergence of the genomic revolution and biobanking with rapid progress in stem cell research holds vast potential for personalized medicine and novel therapies. In this Forum, we explore social and ethical considerations emerging from strategies to realize the promise of these remarkable technologies.

Ethical, legal and practical issues of establishing an adipose stem cell bank for research

Access to human tissue is critical to medical research, however the laws and regulations surrounding gaining ethical and legal access to tissue are often poorly understood. Recently, there has been a huge increase in the interest surrounding the therapeutic application of adipose tissue, and adipose-derived stem cells. To facilitate our own research interests and possibly assist our local colleagues and collaborators, we established a Research Tissue Bank (RTB) to collect, store and distribute human adipose tissue derived cells with all the appropriate ethical approval for subsequent downstream research. Here we examine the legal, ethical and practical issues relating to the banking of adipose tissue for research in the UK, and discuss relevant international guidelines and policies. We also share our experiences of establishing an RTB including the necessary infrastructure and the submission of an application to a Research Ethics Committee (REC).

Transferring morality to human-nonhuman chimeras

Human-nonhuman chimeras have been the focus of ethical controversies for more than a decade, yet some related issues remain unaddressed. For example, little has been said about the relationship between the origin of transferred cells and the morally relevant capacities to which they may give rise. Consider, for example, a developing mouse fetus that receives a brain stem cell transplant from a human and another that receives a brain stem cell transplant from a dolphin. If both chimeras acquire morally relevant capacities as a result of transplantation, and if those capacities are indistinguishable, should the difference in cell origin matter to how we classify these creatures? I argue that if morally relevant capacities are easy to detect, cell origin is irrelevant to how the chimera ought to be treated. However, if such capacities are hard to detect, cell origin should play a role in considerations about how to treat the chimera.

[The embryonic stem cells research. Example of biotechnology progress under extra-scientific pressure]

The possibility to isolate, cultivate, preserve, characterize and differentiate Human Embryonic Stem Cells (ES) discovered by James Thomson and his colleagues in 1998 was a milestone in the history of Stem Cell Research. Immediately after this discovery many speculations were made about the therapeutic possibilities of ES, motivated by ideological, political and economic aspects. The episode made clear the lack of scientific rationality and ethics when assessing realities as meaningful as those of human embryos obtained by in vitro fertilization techniques (IVF) or human eggs. Therapeutic Cloning as a promise to produce ″tailored″ Stem Cells reported by Hwang and his team in 2004, ended up being a scandal within the scientific community. The technical difficulties and ethical controversies that arose from obtaining ES were insurmountable. In 2010 only two clinical trials were reported using these cells. Those trials were abandoned in late 2011 arguing financial reasons. The discovery of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell (iPS) in 2006 in mice and in 2007 in humans, represented the possibility of obtaining pluripotent stem cells without the need to destroy embryos. Today, the absence of clinical trials using ES, caused by financial difficulties as a result of its ineffectiveness, anticipates that the use of ES will be limited to certain experimental controls. Probably, the main contribution of Embryonic Stem Cells will be the understanding that biomedical research should follow an ethically and rationally based rigorous method that cannot be ignore.

Direct-to-consumer stem cell marketing and regulatory responses

There is a large, poorly regulated international market of putative stem cell products, including transplants of processed autologous stem cells from various tissues, cell processing devices, cosmetics, and nutritional supplements. Despite the absence of rigorous scientific research in the form of randomized clinical trials to support the routine use of such products, the market appears to be growing and diversifying. Very few stem cell biologics have passed regulatory scrutiny, and authorities in many countries, including the United States, have begun to step up their enforcement activities to protect patients and the integrity of health care markets.

The right to care and the expectations of society--controversial stem cell therapy in Italy

Claiming that a disease is incurable does not justify the use of unsafe or ineffective therapies. Instead, the process of drug approval as a whole should be improved, with all involved giving clear and honest answers to ensure the dignity of patients and quality of care.

Broadening the scope of debates around stem cell research

Over the last decade, stem cell research has generated an enormous amount of public, political and bioethical debate. These debates have overwhelmingly tended to focus on two moral issues: the moral status of human embryos and the duty to care for the sick and vulnerable. This preoccupation, especially on the question of moral status, has not only dichotomized the debate around two fundamentally incommensurable positions, it has come at the cost of other important issues largely being ignored. In highlighting some of the bioethical and regulatory deficiencies of this fixation, we draw on recent developments in the experimental use of autologous adult stem cells to argue for a more inclusive approach to the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research.

Stem cell treatments in China: rethinking the patient role in the global bio-economy

The paper looks in detail at patients that were treated at one of the most discussed companies operating in the field of untried stem cell treatments, Beike Biotech of Shenzhen, China. Our data show that patients who had been treated at Beike Biotech view themselves as proactively pursuing treatment choices that are not available in their home countries. These patients typically come from a broad variety of countries: China, the United Kingdom, the United States, South Africa and Australia. Among the patients we interviewed there seemed to be both an awareness of the general risks involved in such experimental treatments and a readiness to accept those risks weighed against the possible benefits. We interpret this evidence as possibly reflecting the emergence of risk-taking patients as 'consumers' of medical options as well as the drive of patients to seek treatment options in the global arena, rather than being hindered by the ethical and regulatory constraints of their home countries. Further, we found that these patients tend to operate in more or less stable networks and groups in which they interact and cooperate closely and develop opinions and assessments of available treatment options for their ailments. These patients also perform a multiple role as patients, research subjects, and research funders because they are required to pay their way into treatment and research activities. This new social dynamics of patienthood has important implications for the ethical governance of stem cell treatments.

Uncertain translation, uncertain benefit and uncertain risk: ethical challenges facing first-in-human trials of induced pluripotent stem (ips) cells

The discovery of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells in 2006 was heralded as a major breakthrough in stem cell research. Since then, progress in iPS cell technology has paved the way towards clinical application, particularly cell replacement therapy, which has refueled debate on the ethics of stem cell research. However, much of the discourse has focused on questions of moral status and potentiality, overlooking the ethical issues which are introduced by the clinical testing of iPS cell replacement therapy. First-in-human trials, in particular, raise a number of ethical concerns including informed consent, subject recruitment and harm minimisation as well as the inherent uncertainty and risks which are involved in testing medical procedures on humans for the first time. These issues, while a feature of any human research, become more complex in the case of iPS cell therapy, given the seriousness of the potential risks, the unreliability of available animal models, the vulnerability of the target patient group, and the high stakes of such an intensely public area of science. Our paper will present a detailed case study of iPS cell replacement therapy for Parkinson's disease to highlight these broader ethical and epistemological concerns. If we accept that iPS cell technology is fraught with challenges which go far beyond merely refuting the potentiality of the stem cell line, we conclude that iPS cell research should not replace, but proceed alongside embryonic and adult somatic stem cell research to promote cross-fertilisation of knowledge and better clinical outcomes.

Evaluating the first-in-human clinical trial of a human embryonic stem cell-based therapy

Phase I clinical trials generally raise greater ethical and human protection challenges than later stage clinical trials, suggesting a need to proceed cautiously. This is particularly the case for Phase I trials with a novel therapy being tested in humans for the first time, usually termed first-in-human (FIH) trials. In January 2009, the Food and Drug Administration approved the Investigational New Drug application of Geron Corporation, a small California-based biopharmaceutical company, to initiate a clinical trial to assess GRNOPC1, a human embryonic stem cell-derived candidate therapy for severe spinal cord injuries. This article evaluates the ethical and human subject protection issues raised by the Geron FIH trial. It identifies problems with the approval process and with the conduct of the trial, and then recommends ways to improve review of future proposed trials with novel and high-risk therapies.