Review

*Author for correspondence:

Centre for Law and Ethics in Science and Technology (CELEST), Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Centre for Health, Law and Ethics of Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Michael Morrison

Centre for Health, Law and Ethics of Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Jane Kaye

Centre for Health, Law and Ethics of Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:15 Dec 2021https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2021-0068

View article

Abstract

Malaysia aspires to develop regenerative medicine through stem-cell technology. It needs a regulatory system that could facilitate development and prevent unethical practices. A comparative legal analysis on the regulation of stem-cell technology, with a focus on stem-cell research in Malaysia and selected Commonwealth countries that are experienced in regulating this complex technology, demonstrates that the selected Commonwealth countries have adopted a hybrid of different regulatory mechanisms. This paper argues that Malaysia should consider adopting a similar approach to equip relevant authorities with different regulatory mechanisms that are able to promote innovation in stem-cell research activities and cultivate a successful and profitable regenerative medicine industry in the future. Such a strategic action can produce an optimal regulatory outcome and help Malaysia to realize its aspiration.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Academy of Sciences Malaysia. Advisory report on stem cells ageing and regenerative medicine (2013). https://www.akademisains.gov.my/asm-publication/stem-cells-medicine/
Google Scholar
2. Salter B. State strategies and the geopolitics of the global knowledge economy: China, India and the case of regenerative medicine. Geopolitics 14(1), 47–78 (2009). • Examines the global competition between emerging jurisdictions in the stem-cell race.
Google Scholar
3. Hogarth S, Salter B. Regenerative medicine in Europe: global competition and innovation governance. Reg. Med. 5(6), 971–985 (2010).
Google Scholar
4. Salter B, Salter C. Governing innovation in the biomedicine knowledge economy: stem cell science in the USA. Sci. Public Policy 37(2), 87–100 (2010).
Google Scholar
5. Chen H. Reflection on the governance of clinical stem cell research and applications in China. Reg. Med. 12(6), 593–597 (2017).
CASGoogle Scholar
6. Lysaght T. Accelerating regenerative medicine: the Japanese experiment in ethics and regulation. Reg. Med. 12(6), 657–668 (2017). • Further provides an analysis on the global competition, which has resulted in an expedited pathway to promote regenerative medicine.
CASGoogle Scholar
7. The Rt Hon David Willetts’ speech. Eight Great Technologies.(2013). https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eight-great-technologies
Google Scholar
8. Bin Abdul Aziz MF, Morrison M, Kaye J. Regulating human stem cell research and therapy in low-and middle-income countries: Malaysian perspectives. New Genet. Soc. 37(1), 2–20 (2018). •• Provides findings based on empirical interviews on how stakeholders perceive stem cell regulation in Malaysia and highlights the concerns shared among the stakeholders.
Google Scholar
9. Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution: White Paper. HM Government, London, UK (2019). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/807792/regulation-fourth-industrial-strategy-white-paper-web.pdf
Google Scholar
10. OECD. Public consultation on the draft OECD Recommendation for Agile Regulatory Governance to Harness Innovation (2021). https://www.oecd.org/mcm/Recommendation-for-Agile-Regulatory-Governance-to-Harness-Innovation.pdf
Google Scholar
11. Mclaren A. Where to draw the line. Presented at: The Royal Institution. UK, 56, 101–121 (1984).
Google Scholar
12. Lockwood M. When does a life Begin? Moral Dilemmas in Modern Medicine. M. Lockwood (Ed.). Oxford University Press, NY, USA (1995).
Google Scholar
13. Walters L. Ethics and new reproductive technologies: an international review of committee statements. Hastings Cent. Rep. 17(3), 3–9 (1987).
Google Scholar
14. Braude P, Johnson M. Embryo research: yes or no? BMJ 299(6712), 1349–1351 (1989).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15. Ford NM. When did I begin?: Conception of the Human Individual in History, Philosophy and Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, (1991).
Google Scholar
16. Holland S, Lebacqz K, Zoloth L. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy. MIT Press, Cambridge, UK, (2001).
Google Scholar
17. Welin S. Ethical issues in human embryonic stem cell research. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 81(5), 377–382 (2002).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Knowles LP. Religion and stem cell research. Stem Cell Network. (2009). http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/uploads/File/whitepapers/Religion-and-Stem-Cell-Research.pdf
Google Scholar
19. Caulfield T, Zarzeczny A, Mccormick J et al. The stem cell research environment: a patchwork of patchworks. Stem Cell Rev. Rep. 5(2), 82–88 (2009). •• Provides an examination on the different regulatory approaches at the global level and its influence in the development of stem-cell research.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. Eurobarometer. Special Eurobarometer: biotechnology (2010). https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/755
Google Scholar
21. Zarzeczny A, Caulfield T. Emerging ethical, legal and social issues associated with stem cell research & and the current role of the moral status of the embryo. Stem Cell Rev. Rep. 5(2), 96–101 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Kakuk P. The legacy of the Hwang case: research misconduct in biosciences. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 15(4), 545–562 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Wade N, Sang-Hun C. Researcher faked evidence of human cloning, Koreans report. The New York Times (2006). https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/science/10clone.html
Google Scholar
24. Gottweis H, Triendl R. South Korean policy failure and the Hwang debacle. Nat. Biotechnol. 24(2), 141–143 (2006). •• Addresses the scandal in the stem-cell arena and argues for the importance of good governance.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25. Clay AS. South Korea’s bioethics and biosafety act (2005). Embryo Project Encyclopedia (2013). https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/south-koreas-bioethics-and-biosafety-act-2005
Google Scholar
26. Caulfield T, Rachul C, Zarzeczny A. The evolution of policy issues in stem cell research: an international survey. Stem Cell Rev. Rep. 8(4), 1037–1042 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
27. Colen BD. ‘Stem cell tourism’ growing trend (2015). http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/11/the-rise-of-stem-cell-tourism/
Google Scholar
28. Einsiedel EF, Adamson H. Stem cell tourism and future stem cell tourists: policy and ethical implications. Dev World Bioeth. 12(1), 35–44 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Master Z, Resnik DB. Stem-cell tourism and scientific responsibility. Embo. Rep. 12(10), 992–995 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. Peterson A, MacGregor C, Munsie M. Stem cell tourism exploits people by marketing hope (2015). http://theconversation.com/stem-cell-tourism-exploits-people-by-marketing-hope-29146
Google Scholar
31. Tenebaum T. ‘Stem cell tourism’ takes advantage of patients, says law professor (2015). http://news.wisc.edu/22660
Google Scholar
32. Lysaght T, Kerridge I, Sipp D, Porter G, Capps BJ. Oversight for clinical uses of autologous adult stem cells: lessons from international regulations. Cell Stem Cell. 13(6), 647–651 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33. Mclean AK, Stewart C, Kerridge I. Untested, unproven, and unethical: the promotion and provision of autologous stem cell therapies in Australia. Stem Cell. Res. Ther. 6(1), 1–8 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
34. Berger I, Ahmad A, Bansal A, Kapoor T, Sipp D, Rasko JE. Global distribution of businesses marketing stem cell-based interventions. Cell Stem Cell. 19(2), 158–162 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Erikainen S, Couturier A, Chan S. Marketing experimental stem cell therapies in the uk: biomedical lifestyle products and the promise of regenerative medicine in the digital era. Sci. Cult. (Lond.) 29(2), 219–244 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Fujita M, Hatta T, Ozeki R, Akabayashi A. The current status of clinics providing private practice cell therapy in Japan. Regen. Med. 11(1), 23–32 (2016).
CASGoogle Scholar
37. Turner L, Knoepfler P. Selling stem cells in the USA: assessing the direct-to-consumer industry. Cell Stem Cell. 19(2), 154–157 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38. Master Z, Resnik DB. Stem-cell tourism and scientific responsibility: stem-cell researchers are in a unique position to curb the problem of stem-cell tourism. Embo. Rep. 12(10), 992–995 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
39. Petersen A, Munsie M, Tanner C, Macgregor C, Brophy J. Stem Cell Tourism and the Political Economy of Hope: Health, Technology & Society. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK (2017).
Google Scholar
40. Faulkner A, Geesink I, Kent J, Fitzpatrick D. Human tissue engineered products – drugs or devices?: Tackling the regulatory vacuum. BMJ-BRIT MED J. 326(7400), 1159 (2003).
Google Scholar
41. Kiatpongsan S, Sipp D. Monitoring and regulating offshore stem cell clinics. Science 323(5921), 1564–1565 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
42. Mertes H, Pennings G. Oocyte donation for stem cell research. Hum. Reprod. 22(3), 629–634 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
43. Salter B. Governing stem cell science in China and India: emerging economies and the global politics of innovation. New Genet. Soc. 27(2), 145–159 (2008).
Google Scholar
44. Salter B, Cooper M, Dickins A, Cardo V. Stem cell science in India: emerging economies and the politics of globalization. Regen. Med. 2, 75–89 (2007).
Google Scholar
45. Webster A, Eriksson L. Governance-by-standards in the field of stem cells: managing uncertainty in the world of “basic innovation”. New Genet. Soc. 27(2), 99–111 (2008).
Google Scholar
46. Sithole S. Stem cell research-the regulatory framework in South Africa: forum. S. Afr. J. Bioeth. Law. 4(2), 55–57 (2011).
Google Scholar
47. Baldwin R. Regulation: after command and control. In: The Human Face of Law: Essays in Honour of Donald Harris. Hawkins KHarris D (Eds). Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, xvi–299 (1997).
Google Scholar
48. Gunningham N, Grabosky P. Smart Regulation. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK (1998).
Google Scholar
49. Hood C, Rothstein H, Baldwin R. The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2001).
Google Scholar
50. Morgan B, Yeung K. An Introduction to Law and Regulation: Text and Materials. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2007).
Google Scholar
51. Baldwin R, Cave M, Lodge M. Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice, (2nd Edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 106 (2012). •• Provides a detailed analysis of the different types of regulatory techniques and compliance strategies.
Google Scholar
52. Ayres I, Braithwaite J. Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1992).
Google Scholar
53. Isasi RM, Knoppers BM. Beyond the permissibility of embryonic and stem cell research: substantive requirements and procedural safeguards. Hum. Reprod. 21(10), 2474–2481 (2006).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
54. Murray A, Scott C. Controlling the new media: hybrid responses to new forms of power. Mod. 65(4), 491–516 (2002).
Google Scholar
55. Hutter BM. Compliance: Regulation and Environment. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK (1997).
Google Scholar
56. Braithwaite J. Enforced self-regulation: a new strategy for corporate crime control. Mich. Law Rev. 80 (7 )1466–1507 (1982).
Google Scholar
57. Ayres I, Braithwaite J. Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1992).
Google Scholar
58. Schnieke A, Mcshir J, Kind A, Campbell K, Wilmut I. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2(124), 276 (1997).
Google Scholar
59. Thomson JA, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Shapiro SS et al. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 282(5391), 1145–1147 (1998).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
60. Morgan R. A tight fit? Deficiencies in the human fertilisation and embryology (research purposes) regulations 2001. Statut. 28(3), 199–217 (2007).
Google Scholar
61. UK, Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2001. HM Government, London, UK. (2001). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/188/contents/made
Google Scholar
62. UK, Chief Medical Officer’s Expert Group ‘Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility’. HM Government, London, UK (2000). http://www.doh.gov.uk/cegc/stemcellreport.htm
Google Scholar
63. Mintrom M. Policy entrepreneurs and controversial science: governing human embryonic stem cell research. J. Eur. Public Policy 20(3), 442–457 (2013).
Google Scholar
64. Australia, NHMRC Embryo Research Licensing Committee – Information Kit. NHMRC, Canberra, Australia (2018). https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/embryo-research-licensing-committee-information-kit
Google Scholar
65. ASSCR. Australia, The Australasian Society for Stem Cell Research (2014). http://www.asscr.org/about-us/about-us/
Google Scholar
66. Tanner C, Woodward-Kron R, Stewart C, Munsie M. Selling stem cells in Australia: assessing the impact of new advertising standards on business practices. Cytotherapy. 21(5), S22 (2019).
Google Scholar
67. Notebook P. How young Korean researchers helped unearth a scandal…. (2006). https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/file/cogem/cogem_t4513d647_001.pdf
Google Scholar
68. Resnik DB, Shamoo AE, Krimsky S. Commentary: fraudulent human embryonic stem cell research in South Korea: lessons learned. Account. Res. 13(1), 101–109 (2006).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
69. Jhalani M. Protecting egg donors and human embryos-the failure of the South Korean Bioethics and Biosafety Act. Pac. Rim L. & Pol’y J. 17, 707 (2008).
Google Scholar
70. Mandel GN. Regulating emerging technologies. Law Innov. Technol. 1(1), 75–92 (2009). •• Offers a helpful overview of how regulation can be flexible to deal with the risks and benefits of emerging technologies.
Google Scholar
71. Brownsword R, Somsen H. Law, innovation and technology: before we fast forward – a forum for debate. Law Innov. Technol. 1(1), 1–73 (2009). •• Provides a helpful overview of the interplay between the role of law and technological innovation.
Google Scholar
72. Source: BSI. New guide to help UK to be global leader in stem cell research. Press release: https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/about-bsi/media-centre/press-releases/2006/11/New-guide-to-help-UK-to-be-Global-leader-in-stem-cell-research/
Google Scholar
73. Bernama. Malaysia ranks top 5 globally in mobile social media penetration, highest in region. New Straits Times (2019). https://www.bernama.com/en/news.php?id=1690477
Google Scholar
74. Kepios. Digital 2020: Malaysia. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-malaysia
Google Scholar
75. Digital Influence Lab. Malaysia Digital Marketing Statistics (2020). https://digitalinfluencelab.com/malaysia-digital-marketing-stats/
Google Scholar

Vol. 17, No. 2

Metrics

Downloaded 48 times

History

Received 21 May 2021

Accepted 29 November 2021

Published online 15 December 2021

Published in print February 2022

Information

Keywords

Author contributions

M Bin Abdul Aziz was responsible for the main research work from the acquisition of literature, comparative legal analysis to drafting and revision of the manuscript after editorial decision. M Morrison and J Kaye were responsible for guiding the preparation of the manuscript.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download

Creative regulatory practices to develop stem-cell technology: the way forward for Malaysia

Abstract

References