Search

Prompted by an increased interest of both research participants and the patient advocacy community in obtaining information about research outcomes and on the use of their biological samples; the international community has begun to debate the emergence of an ethical ‘duty’ to return research results to participants. Furthermore, the use of new technologies (e.g., whole-genome and -exome sequencing) has revealed both genetic data and incidental findings with possible clinical significance. These technologies together with the proliferation of biorepositories, provide a compelling rationale for governments and scientific institutions to adopt prospective policies. Given the scarcity of policies in the context of stem cell research, a discussion on the scientific, ethical and legal implications of disclosing research results for research participants is needed. We present the International Stem Forum Ethics Working Party’s Policy Statement and trust that it will stimulate debate and meet the concerns of researchers and research participants alike.

Research suggests that the representation of scientific and medical issues in the traditional media such as newspapers, TV and radio is an important determinant of public opinion and related public policy outcomes, particularly with regard to attitudes toward stem cell research. With the emergence of social media, the discursive space around public policy issues has expanded to include a new demographic of media consumer who is directly involved in political action. However, little is known about the influence of social media on scientific public policy conversations. We analyzed Twitter posts on two topics relating to stem cell science and policy according to the originator and tone of the tweet, and whether the tweet was intended to be neutral or to further a stated policy position. This analysis provides a means for clarifying the role of social media in influencing public opinion of policy issues such as stem cell research and offers organizations a better understanding of how to more effectively apply social media to advancing their stem cell policy positions.

In 2009 the International Stem Cell Banking Initiative (ISCBI) contributors and the Ethics Working Party of the International Stem Cell Forum published a consensus on principles of best practice for the procurement, cell banking, testing and distribution of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines for research purposes [1] , which was broadly also applicable to human induced pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC) lines. Here, we revisit this guidance to consider what the requirements would be for delivery of the early seed stocks of stem cell lines intended for clinical applications. The term 'seed stock' is used here to describe those cryopreserved stocks of cells established early in the passage history of a pluripotent stem cell line in the lab that derived the line or a stem cell bank, hereafter called the 'repository'. The seed stocks should provide cells with suitable documentation and provenance that would enable them to be taken forward for development in human therapeutic applications. WHO recommendations for the evaluation of animal cell cultures as substrates for the manufacture of biologicals and for the characterization of cell banks were updated in 2010 and provide a number of definitions and guiding principles that may apply to stem cells. The term 'cell bank' is used to describe a stock of vials or other containers of cells with consistent composition aliquoted from a single pool of cells of the same culture history (for other specific definitions see PAS 84 [2] and WHO [3] ).Three important assumptions have been made in the preparation of this document. First, that seed stocks of hPSCs are used as starting materials to make cell banks for use in clinical trials. The cell banks made within a clinical trial would need to be established according to Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) in a facility with a relevant product manufacturing license. These banks would need additional risk assessment focused on the new banking process/reagents and the specific intended clinical application. Second, it has been assumed that undifferentiated pluripotent stem cells would not be inoculated into patients. Third, where feeder cells are used to culture hPSC lines, their cellular nature and intimate contact with the therapeutic cells means that they should be subject to similar risk assessment and banking procedures as applied to the hPSC cells.It is important to note that responsibility for establishing and updating national regulations for medicinal products relies on National Regulatory Authorities. Therefore, national requirements for cell therapy may vary considerably. Accordingly, it is not intended that this international consensus provides comprehensive guidance that will ensure compliance with requirements in any given jurisdiction. Rather, it is designed to aid the development of clinical grade materials by providing points to consider in the preparation of seed stocks of stem cell lines for use in cell therapy. It may arise that there are circumstances where it is not reasonably possible to meet specific procedures presented in this document. Where this is the case any alternative procedures should be justified and mitigate against any adverse consequences. Finally, this document could also serve as a useful reference to assist in the evaluation of potential sources of candidate cell lines for the development of cell-based medicines, and provide the links necessary to identify some of the key differences in regulatory requirements between countries.

Stem cell repositories, similar to many areas in human scientific research, must balance the interests of the individuals who donate their time and samples to science with the interests of scientific progress. This article seeks to explore how sustained interaction with stem cell donors can advance key donor interests (autonomy and privacy) while also increasing the scientific utility of stem cell lines. The ability to trace stem cell lines to their respective donors – underpinned by robust informed consent – enables donors to gain access to information regarding research outcomes and the uses of their biological samples, while also supporting basic and clinical research by providing a means for quality and safety controls. Measures to recontact donors and also to enable donors to withdraw from research should be well designed to ensure donors’ preferences are respected while mitigating negative consequences resulting from limited data availability or compromised sample quality. To guarantee the integrity of research while respecting donors’ autonomy and preferences, stem cell repositories require a prospective approach to informed consent.