You may have seen one of the many news reports this week about an “adult” stem cell treatment gone bad. In it, doctors, not working in regulated industry or in the bounds of a clinical trial, injected stem cells derived from a person’s fatty tissue into the eyeballs of three people in an attempt to treat a vision-destroying condition called macular degeneration—and all three lost what remaining vision they had. T
In a separate experience, two people received “reprogrammed” stem cells, also called “induced pleuripotent stem cells” or “iPSCs,” for the same condition, and they did not appear harmed, and may have been showing early signs of improvement, one year later. In this second case, the cells are described as having undergone rigorous quality testing before being injected into the patients’ eyeballs.
The two cases are described in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine. The links above are to those reports; subscription may be required to read them. NEJM makes some of its editorials and perspective pieces generally available, other articles not. Two such articles, one from FDA and one from a physician at Boston Childrens’ Hospital, address these cases. In both opinion articles, the authors argue that careful regulation and quality control of stem cell studies is critical to their ethical testing.
To say this position is hard to argue with is a gross understatement. I will confess that on this blog, in the past, I have wondered whether some use of “adult” or “somatic” stem cells is over-regulated, as, for example, when such cells are obtained from a woman’s fatty tissue, and reinjected into her in an attempt at breast reconstruction after surgery.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.