Current Stem Cell Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 240–247 | Cite as

Perspectives on the New ISSCR Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation

  • Erica C. JonlinEmail author
Ethics in Stem/Progenitor Cell Therapeutics (S Latham, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Ethics in Stem/Progenitor Cell Therapeutics


Purpose of Review

This review seeks to highlight key elements of the ISSCR 2016 Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation, describe apparent influences on the Guidelines, provide an analysis of the utility and the potential impact of the Guidelines on the field of stem cell research, and propose considerations for the future versions of the Guidelines.

Recent Findings

Part ethical code of conduct, part “how-to” instructions, and part policy declaration, this version of the Guidelines forms ISSCR’s most up-to-date recommendations and guidance on the topic of stem cell clinical translation.


In the revised set of Guidelines, ISSCR has asserted the imperative of maintaining the highest ethical standards for clinical translation of stem cell research. The Guidelines set a sound foundation for self-regulation, not only communicating the Society’s position on what is legitimate stem cell research/treatment and what is not, but also fulfilling ISSCR’s mission of providing professional (and public) education regarding the specific steps that should be taken to translate basic research findings to the clinic. Future versions would benefit from more extensive references, including hyperlinks to regulatory authority guidance documents; and improved clarity of the writing style, including avoidance of vague descriptions and the addition of flow charts and/or tables.


Clinical translation Code of ethics Stem cell research Scientific society Guidelines 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Erica C. Jonlin declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    •• International Society for Stem Cell Research. Guidelines for stem cell research and clinical translation. 2016. These are the Guidelines that this paper is about.
  2. 2.
    •• Daley GQ, Hyun I, Apperley JF, Barker RA, Benvenisty N, Bredenoord AL, et al. Setting global standards for stem cell research and clinical translation: the 2016 ISCCR guidelines. Stem Cell Rep. 2016a;6:787–97. This paper summarizes the Guidelines and describes the process involved to compose, receive comments on, edit, and finalize the Guidelines. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kimmelman J, Heslop HE, Sugarman J, Studer L, Benvenisty N, Caulfield T, et al. New ISSCR guidelines: clinical translation of stem cell research. Lancet. 2016a;387:1979–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kimmelman J, Hyun I, Benvenisty N, Caulfield T, Heslop HE, Murry CE, et al. Global standards for stem-cell research. Nature. 2016b;533:311–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frati P, Scopetti M, Santurro A, Gatto V, Fineschi V. Stem cell research and clinical translation: a roadmap about good clinical practice and patient care. Hindawi Stem Cells Int. 2017;2017: Article ID 5080259, 8 pages.
  6. 6.
    The Role of Professional Societies. In: Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine; 2005.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Macrina FL. Scientific societies and promotion of the responsible conduct of research: codes, policies, and education. Acad Med. 2007;82(4):865–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perlis C, Shannon N. Role of professional organizations in setting and enforcing ethical norms. Clin Dermatol. 2012;30:156–9. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berkowitz AL, Miller MB, Mir SA, Cagney D, Chavakula V, Guleria I, et al. Glioproliferative lesion of the spinal cord as a complication of “stem-cell tourism”. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:196–8. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuriyan AE, Albini TA, Townsend JH, Rodriguez M, Pandya HK, Leonard RE, et al. Vision loss after intravitreal injection of autologous “stem cells” for AMD. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1047–53. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sage WM. Will embryonic stem cells change health policy? J Law Med Ethics. 2010;38(2):342–51. Scholar
  12. 12.
    National Academies’ Guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research 2005, amended 2007, 2008, 2010.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gottweis H, Kim B. Explaining Hwang-Gate: South Korean identity politics between bionationalism and globalization. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2010;35(4):501–24. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kitzinger J. Questioning hype, rescuing hope? The Hwang stem cell scandal and the reassertion of hopeful horizons. Sci Cult. 2008;17(4):417–34. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cyranoski D. Research integrity: cell-induced stress: as a much-hailed breakthrough in stem-cell science unravelled this year, many have been asking: ‘where were the safeguards?’. Nature. 2014a;511(7508):140–3. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cyranoski D. Stem-cell pioneer blamed media ‘bashing’ in suicide note: lawyer for Yoshiki Sasai’s family reveals motive of Japanese researcher’s act following STAP controversy. Nature. 13 August 2014b, Clarified: 15 August 2014
  17. 17.
    Zhang J, Liu H, Luo S, Chavez-Badiola A, Liu Z, Yang M, et al. First live birth using human oocytes reconstituted by spindle nuclear transfer for mitochondrial DNA mutation causing Leigh syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(3 Suppl):3375–e376.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alikani M, Bauser BCJ, Garcia-Valesco JA, Simpson JL, Johnson MH. Editorial: first birth following spindle transfer for mitochondrial replacement therapy: hope and trepidation. Reprod BioMed Online. April 2017;34(4):333–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    International Summit on Genome Editing: A Global Discussion. Accessed April 30, 2018
  20. 20.
    Hyun I, Wilkerson A, Johnston J. Embryology policy: revisit the 14-day rule. Nature. 2016b;533(7602):169–71. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Giorgini V, Mecca JT, Gibson C, Medeiros K, Mumford MD, Connelly S, et al. Researcher perceptions of ethical guidelines and codes of conduct. Account Res. 2015;22:123–38. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Master Z, McDonald M, Paciulli D, Longstaff H. A primer on ethics education for stem cell and biomedical scientists. Curr Stem Cell Rep. 2016;2:336–48. Scholar
  23. 23.
    EDITORIAL. May 2, 2018 Announcement: stem-cell policy—nature journals formalize ethics standards for human-embryo and stem-cell papers. Nature. 2018;557:6.
  24. 24.
    Abbott L, Grady C. A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011;6(1):3–19. Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    • Frankel MS. Professional codes: why, how, and with what impact? J Bus Ethics. 1989;8:109–15. Frankel explains the purpose, functions, philosophy, and implementation of professional codes. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27. Accessed May 10, 2018.
  28. 28.
    Dunbar CE, High KA, Joung JK, Kohn DB, Ozawa K, Sadelain M. Science. 2018;359(6372):eaan4672.
  29. 29. Accessed May 10, 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative MedicineUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations