» Articles » PMID: 25431534

Governing Stem Cell Therapy in India: Regulatory Vacuum or Jurisdictional Ambiguity?

Overview
Journal New Genet Soc
Specialty Biotechnology
Date 2014 Nov 29
PMID 25431534
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Stem cell treatments are being offered in Indian clinics although preclinical evidence of their efficacy and safety is lacking. This is attributed to a governance vacuum created by the lack of legally binding research guidelines. By contrast, this paper highlights jurisdictional ambiguities arising from trying to regulate stem cell therapy under the auspices of research guidelines when treatments are offered in a private market disconnected from clinical trials. While statutory laws have been strengthened in 2014, prospects for their implementation remain weak, given embedded challenges of putting healthcare laws and professional codes into practice. Finally, attending to the capacities of consumer law and civil society activism to remedy the problem of unregulated treatments, the paper finds that the very definition of a governance vacuum needs to be reframed to clarify whose rights to health care are threatened by the proliferation of commercial treatments and individualized negligence-based remedies for grievances.

Citing Articles

Exploring Partial Disclosure in Research: Challenges, Justifications, and Recommendations for Ethical Oversight.

Akuma I, Vaswani V Asian Bioeth Rev. 2025; 17(1):21-41.

PMID: 39896087 PMC: 11785864. DOI: 10.1007/s41649-024-00311-7.


Regulation of Stem Cell Technology in Malaysia: Current Status and Recommendations.

Gopalan N, Nor S, Mohamed M Sci Eng Ethics. 2019; 26(1):1-25.

PMID: 31123979 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-019-00111-5.


Stem cell/cellular interventions in human spinal cord injury: Is it time to move from guidelines to regulations and legislations? Literature review and Spinal Cord Society position statement.

Chhabra H, Sarda K, Jotwani G, Gourie-Devi M, Kaptanoglu E, Charlifue S Eur Spine J. 2019; 28(8):1837-1845.

PMID: 31098715 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-019-06003-3.


Report: Stem cell applications in neurological practice, an expert group consensus appraisal.

Devi M, Sharma A, Mohanty S, Jain N, Verma K, Padma M Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2016; 19(3):367-73.

PMID: 27570390 PMC: 4980961. DOI: 10.4103/0972-2327.186825.

References
1.
Jayaraman K . Indian regulations fail to monitor growing stem-cell use in clinics. Nature. 2005; 434(7031):259. DOI: 10.1038/434259a. View

2.
Padma T . Unchecked by guidelines, Indian stem cell scientists rush ahead. Nat Med. 2006; 12(1):4. DOI: 10.1038/nm0106-4b. View

3.
Jasanoff S . In the democracies of DNA: ontological uncertainty and political order in three states. New Genet Soc. 2006; 24(2):139-55. DOI: 10.1080/14636770500190864. View

4.
Salter B, Cooper M, Dickins A, Cardo V . Stem cell science in India: emerging economies and the politics of globalization. Regen Med. 2007; 2(1):75-89. DOI: 10.2217/17460751.2.1.75. View

5.
Peters D, Muraleedharan V . Regulating India's health services: to what end? What future?. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 66(10):2133-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.037. View