The possibility of modifying disease through regenerative medicine applications, particularly stem cell therapies, raises ethical and regulatory challenges in orthopedics. This review article provides historical context of stem cell research, ethical issues such as informed consent, therapeutic misconception, and equitable access, emphasizing the responsibilities of providers offering investigational treatments. It also examines the evolving role of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in regulating regenerative therapies through frameworks like the Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) designation, and more point-of-care enforcement discretion policies for therapies such as autologous micro-fragmented adipose tissue and bone marrow aspirate concentrate. The authors underscore the importance of innovative therapies to address unmet needs in musculoskeletal healthcare while acknowledging the need for more rigorous basic and clinical research. They call for a continuous refinement of regulatory and ethical standards as regenerative medicine advances.
JayaramPIkpeamaURothenbergJB, et al. Bone marrow–derived and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell therapy in primary knee osteoarthritis: a narrative review. PM&R. 2019;11:177–191.
2.
WhittleSLJohnstonRVMcDonaldS, et al. Stem cell injections for osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025;4:CD013342.
3.
ZhiduSYingTRuiJChaoZ. Translational potential of mesenchymal stem cells in regenerative therapies for human diseases: challenges and opportunities. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2024;15:266.
4.
SharkisSJ. Canadian stem cell scientists take the prize. Cell. 2005;122:817–819.
YuJVodyanikMASmuga-OttoK, et al. Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells. Science. 2007;318:1917–1920.
7.
TakahashiKYamanakaS. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell. 2006;126:663–676.
8.
DavisonS. Influencing NIH policy over embryonic stem-cell research: an administrative tug-of-war between Congress and the President. J Nat’l Ass’n Admin L Judges. 2002;22:405.
9.
VarkeyB. Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Med Princ Pract. 2021;30:17–28.
10.
BydonMQuWMoinuddinFM, et al. Intrathecal delivery of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells in traumatic spinal cord injury: Phase I trial. Nat Commun. 2024;15:2201.
11.
MaleckiM. “Above all, do no harm”: safeguarding pluripotent stem cell therapy against iatrogenic tumorigenesis. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2014;5:73.
12.
KingNMPerrinJ. Ethical issues in stem cell research and therapy. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2014;5:85.
13.
Ashok KumarPGhimireKHarounE, et al. Utilization and outcome disparities in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant in the United States. Eur J Haematol. 2024;112:328–338.
14.
RobertsonJA. Human embryonic stem cell research: ethical and legal issues. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2:74–78.
15.
ThurairajahKBriggsGDBaloghZJ. Stem cell therapy for fracture non-union: the current evidence from human studies. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2021;29:23094990211036545.
16.
HenonPR. Human embryonic or adult stem cells: an overview on ethics and perspectives for tissue engineering. In: ElçinYM, ed. Tissue Engineering, Stem Cells, and Gene Therapies. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2005:27–45.
17.
MoradiSMahdizadehHŠarićT, et al. Research and therapy with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs): social, legal, and ethical considerations. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2019;10:341.
18.
LomaxGPTorresAMillanMT. Regulated, reliable, and reputable: protect patients with uniform standards for stem cell treatments. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2020;9:547–553.
19.
BretznerFGilbertFBaylisFBrownstoneRM. Target populations for first-in-human embryonic stem cell research in spinal cord injury. Cell Stem Cell. 2011;8:468–475.
20.
SuttonLBErlenJAGladJMSiminoffLA. Recruiting vulnerable populations for research: revisiting the ethical issues. J Prof Nurs. 2003;19:106–112.
CharnoffJRothmanRAndres BergosJRodeoSCaseyEChengJ. Variability in patient-incurred costs and protocols of regenerative medicine procedures for musculoskeletal conditions in the United States. HSS J. 2023;19:77–84.
32.
TurnerL. The American stem cell sell in 2021: U.S. businesses selling unlicensed and unproven stem cell interventions. Cell Stem Cell. 2021;28:1891–1895.
33.
BerkowitzALMillerMBMirSA, et al. Glioproliferative lesion of the spinal cord as a complication of “stem-cell tourism.”N Engl J Med. 2016;375:196–198.
34.
MurrayIRChahlaJFrankRM, et al. Rogue stem cell clinics. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B:148–154.
35.
PeanCAKingeryMTStraussEBoscoJAHalbrechtJ. Direct-to-consumer advertising of stem cell clinics: ethical considerations and recommendations for the health-care community. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101:e103.
36.
TurnerL. The US direct-to-consumer marketplace for autologous stem cell interventions. Perspect Biol Med. 2018;61:7–24.
37.
CaulfieldTMcGuireA. Athletes’ use of unproven stem cell therapies: adding to inappropriate media hype?Mol Ther. 2012;20:1656–1658.
38.
MatthewsKRWCuchiaraML. U.S. National Football League athletes seeking unproven stem cell treatments. Stem Cells Dev. 2014;23(Suppl 1):60–64.
39.
Watson-LevingsRSPalmerGDLevingsPPDacanayEAEvansCHGhivizzaniS. Gene therapy in orthopaedics: progress and challenges in pre-clinical development and translation. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10:901317.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
