Jeremy Snyder1, Leigh Turner2. 1. Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada. 2. Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota, N-302 Boyn HS, 410 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To better understand how prospective customers interpret claims of businesses marketing unproven stem cell products that they are engaging in research activities. MATERIALS & METHODS: The authors examined 408 crowdfunding campaigns for unproven stem cell interventions for references to research activities. RESULTS: The authors identified three overarching themes: research as a signifier of scientific credibility; the experimental nature of stem cells as a rationale for noncoverage by insurers; and contributing to the advancement of science by engaging in research. CONCLUSION: The NIH, US FDA and others should be concerned about being co-opted to misrepresent the nature of these businesses' activities. Efforts are also needed to better inform those considering purchasing unproven stem cell interventions about their relationship to legitimate research.
AIM: To better understand how prospective customers interpret claims of businesses marketing unproven stem cell products that they are engaging in research activities. MATERIALS & METHODS: The authors examined 408 crowdfunding campaigns for unproven stem cell interventions for references to research activities. RESULTS: The authors identified three overarching themes: research as a signifier of scientific credibility; the experimental nature of stem cells as a rationale for noncoverage by insurers; and contributing to the advancement of science by engaging in research. CONCLUSION: The NIH, US FDA and others should be concerned about being co-opted to misrepresent the nature of these businesses' activities. Efforts are also needed to better inform those considering purchasing unproven stem cell interventions about their relationship to legitimate research.
Authors: Iain R Murray; Jorge Chahla; Rachel M Frank; Nicolas S Piuzzi; Bert R Mandelbaum; Jason L Dragoo Journal: Bone Joint J Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 5.082