Special Report

University of Florida Center for Regenerative Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA

Wellcome-MRC Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0AW, UK

Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, SE1 1UL, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Dmitry O Traktuev

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6757-512X

University of Florida Center for Regenerative Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Keith L March

*Author for correspondence: Tel.: +1 352 273 9064;

E-mail Address: kmarch@ufl.edu

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5677-0379

University of Florida Center for Regenerative Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:4 Aug 2022https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2022-0069

View article

Abstract

As it begins to enter the clinic, regenerative medicine has the potential to revolutionize healthcare. Although there exists a growing need for individuals well-versed in the practice of regenerative medicine, few undergraduate institutions offer opportunities to learn about the topic. This article highlights the conception of two novel undergraduate courses in regenerative medicine developed through collaboration between students and faculty at our University to fill this void in the undergraduate curriculum. Lectures from scientists, healthcare professionals, regulatory experts and biotechnology leaders introduced students to regenerative medicine research and the translational process, and a certificate program incorporating relevant coursework and research experience is in development. This pipeline will guide promising undergraduate students to the field of regenerative medicine.

Plain language summary

Regenerative medicine is a new medical discipline that aims to restore diseased or damaged tissue back to a healthy state. Stem cells, gene therapies and other regenerative approaches are now being used to treat patients, and, as a result, the field has recently entered the public eye. To implement these cutting-edge therapies, a well-trained workforce is required; however, regenerative medicine education, especially at the undergraduate level, is currently lacking. Faculty and students at our University worked together to address this issue by creating educational offerings that expose undergraduates to the work being done in the field, and opening opportunities for help them to engage in regenerative medicine-related research. Expanded utilization of this approach will encourage talented undergraduates to contribute to the development of safe, effective regenerative therapies.

Graphical abstract

Keywords:

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

References

1. Nelson TJ, Behfar A, Terzic A. Strategies for Therapeutic Repair: The “R3” Regenerative Medicine Paradigm. Clin. Transl. Sci. 1(2), 168–171 (2008).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Mason C, Dunnill P. A brief definition of regenerative medicine. Regen. Med. 3(1), 1–5 (2008). • Aims to provide a concise definition of regenerative medicine that takes into consideration the many diverse aspects of the relatively young field.
Google Scholar
3. Nerem RM. Regenerative medicine: the emergence of an industry. J. R. Soc. Interface. 7(Suppl. 6), S771–S775 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Dzobo K, Thomford NE, Senthebane DA et al. Advances in Regenerative Medicine and Tissue Engineering: Innovation and Transformation of Medicine. Stem Cells Int. 2018, e2495848 (2018). www.hindawi.com/journals/sci/2018/2495848/
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. 2020: Growth & Resilience in Regenerative Medicine. [Internet]. Alliance Regen. Med. https://alliancerm.org/sector-report/2020-annual-report/
Google Scholar
6. Jacques E, Suuronen EJ. The progression of regenerative medicine and its impact on therapy translation. Clin. Transl. Sci. 13(3), 440–450 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Gabay M. 21st Century Cures Act. Hosp. Pharm. 52(4), 264–265 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Marks P, Gottlieb S. Balancing safety and innovation for cell-based regenerative medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 378(10), 954–959 (2018). •• This article by FDA leadership outlines the agency's approach to regulating regenerative therapies, which is designed to ensure patient safety while still allowing for innovation.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Qiu T, Hanna E, Dabbous M, Borislav B, Toumi M. Regenerative medicine regulatory policies: a systematic review and international comparison. Health Policy 124(7), 701–713 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. Terzic A, Folmes CD, Martinez-Fernandez A, Behfar A. Regenerative medicine: on the vanguard of health care. Mayo Clin. Proc. 86(7), 600–602 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Johnson S, Atala A. Regenology: Time for a New Specialty? Stem Cells Transl. Med. 8(1), 4–6 (2018). • Argues for the creation of a new medical specialty that encompasses all of regenerative medicine in order to facilitate widespread understanding and support for the discipline.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Knoepfler PS. Call for fellowship programs in stem cell-based regenerative and cellular medicine: new stem cell training is essential for physicians. Regen. Med. 8(2), 223–225 (2013).
CASGoogle Scholar
13. Fu W, Smith C, Turner L, Fojtik J, Pacyna JE, Master Z. Characteristics and Scope of Training of Clinicians Participating in the US Direct-to-Consumer Marketplace for Unproven Stem Cell Interventions. JAMA. 321(24), 2463–2464 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Schulman IH, Suncion V, Karantalis V, Balkan W, Hare JM, Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network. Clinical research skills development program in cell-based regenerative medicine. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 4(2), 118–122 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Wyles SP, Terzic A. Building the regenerative medicine workforce of the future: an educational imperative. Regen. Med. 14(7), 613–615 (2019). •• Advocates for increased efforts to support regenerative medicine education in order to adequately prepare the future workforce to deliver regenerative care solutions.
CASGoogle Scholar
16. Bussel II, Stupple A, Moody KJ, Lefkowitz DM. Call to Action: Medical Students for Regenerative Medicine. Rejuvenation Res. 13(1), 1–2 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Wyles SP, Hayden RE, Meyer FB, Terzic A. Regenerative medicine curriculum for next-generation physicians. Npj Regen. Med. 4(1), 1–5 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Beginning College Students Who Change Their Majors Within 3 Years of Enrollment. [Internet]. U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). https://nces.ed.gov/datapoints/2018434.asp#:∼:text=About%20one%2Dthird%20of%20students,percent%20of%20bachelor's%20degree%20students
Google Scholar
19. Effects of an Undergraduate Career Class on Men's and Women's Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy and Vocational Identity - Anne B. Scott, Keith D. Ciani. 2008. [Internet]. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0894845307311248
Google Scholar
20. Bajek A, Drewa T. Should we teach regenerative medicine during undergraduate education? Stem Cell Stud. 1(1), e14–e14 (2011).
Google Scholar
21. Buzzetto-Hollywood N. Social networking in undergraduate education. Interdiscip. J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. 7, 63–90 (2012).
Google Scholar
22. Morlock HC, Gaeddert WP, McCormick NB, Merrens MR, Shaffer LC, Zandi T. A rotational format for team teaching introductory psychology. Teach. Psychol. 15(3), 144–145 (1988).
Google Scholar
23. Moravec M, Williams A, Aguilar-Roca N, O'Dowd DK. Learn before lecture: a strategy that improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. CBE – Life Sci. Educ. 9(4), 473–481 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. de Silva C. Using primary and secondary literature to introduce interdisciplinary science to undergraduate students. Bioscene J. Coll. Biol. Teach. 44(2), 24–28 (2018).
Google Scholar
25. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP. Biology in bloom: implementing bloom's taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE – Life Sci. Educ. 7(4), 368–381 (2008).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26. Collet C, Wyatt D. “Bioneering” – teaching biotechnology entrepreneurship at the undergraduate level. Educ. Train. 47(6), 408–421 (2005).
Google Scholar
27. Faculty Evaluations. [Internet]. GatorEvals. https://gatorevals.aa.ufl.edu/
Google Scholar
28. Question Set Rationale. [Internet]. GatorEvals. https://gatorevals.aa.ufl.edu/resources--policies/question-set/question-set-rational/
Google Scholar
29. Public Results. [Internet]. GatorEvals. https://gatorevals.aa.ufl.edu/public-results/
Google Scholar
30. Zhang Q. Assessing the effects of instructor enthusiasm on classroom engagement, learning goal orientation, and academic self-efficacy. Commun. Teach. 28(1), 44–56 (2014).
Google Scholar
31. Brown JM, Guy BS, Henderson DX, Ebert CE, Harp J, Markert CD. Regenerative medicine: a vehicle to infuse laboratory-bench modules into an exercise physiology curriculum. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 42(1), 32–42 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
32. Waples LM, Ropella KM. University-industry partnerships in biomedical engineering. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 22(4), 118–121 (2003).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. HittNov. 7 E, 2008, Am 5:00. Sprouting a career in regenerative medicine. [Internet]. Sci. AAAS (2008). www.sciencemag.org/features/2008/11/sprouting-career-regenerative-medicine
Google Scholar
34. Russell SH, Hancock MP, McCullough J. Benefits of Undergraduate Research Experiences. Science 316(5824), 548–549 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Lopatto D. Undergraduate Research Experiences Support Science Career Decisions and Active Learning. CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 6(4), 297–306 (2007).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Peluso M, Takizawa P. Student involvement in the development of integrated curricula. Med. Educ. 44(11), 1120–1121 (2010). •• Describes the benefits of actively involving students during the design of a medical school curriculum to better understand a student's perspective and encourage positive learning outcomes.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Tavakol DN, Broshkevitch CJ, Guilford WH, Peirce SM. Design and implementation of a student-taught course on research in regenerative medicine. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 42(2), 360–367 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
38. Wyles SP, Meyer FB, Hayden RE, Scarisbrick IA, Terzic A. Digital regenerative medicine and surgery pedagogy for virtual learning in the time of COVID-19. Regen. Med. [Internet]. (2020). www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/rme-2020-0106
Google Scholar
39. Wyles SP, Monie DD, Paradise CR, Meyer FB, Hayden RE, Terzic A. Emerging workforce readiness in regenerative healthcare. Regen. Med. [Internet]. (2021). www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/rme-2020-0137 • This article details the design and implementation of a novel educational program in regenerative medicine delivered to medical trainees at Mayo Clinic, serving as a prototype for other institutions to learn from.
Google Scholar
40. Hogan TP, Norcross JC, Cannon JT, Karpiak CP. Working with and training undergraduates as teaching assistants. Teach. Psychol. 34(3), 187–190 (2007).
Google Scholar
41. Asgari S, Carter F. Peer mentors can improve academic performance: a quasi-experimental study of peer mentorship in introductory courses. Teach. Psychol. 43(2), 131–135 (2016).
Google Scholar
42. Cossu G, Fears R, Griffin G, ter Meulen V. Regenerative medicine: challenges and opportunities. The Lancet 395(10239), 1746–1747 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
43. Armstrong JPK, Keane TJ, Roques AC et al. A blueprint for translational regenerative medicine. Sci. Transl. Med. 12(572) (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
44. Gardner J, Faulkner A, Mahalatchimy A, Webster A. Are there specific translational challenges in regenerative medicine? Lessons from other fields. Regen. Med. 10(7), 885–895 (2015).
CASGoogle Scholar
45. Mason C, Manzotti E. ‘The Little Purple Book’: BSI Glossary of Regenerative Medicine. Regen. Med. 4(4), 483–484 (2009).
Google Scholar
46. Edwards J, Thomas R, Guilliatt R. Regenerative medicine: from the laboratory looking out. Palgrave Commun. 3(1), 1–8 (2017).
Google Scholar
47. Ryan KA, Sanders AN, Wang DD, Levine AD. Tracking the rise of stem cell tourism. Regen. Med. 5(1), 27–33 (2009).
Google Scholar
48. Knoepfler PS. Rapid change of a cohort of 570 unproven stem cell clinics in the USA over 3 years. Regen. Med. 14(8), 735–740 (2019).
CASGoogle Scholar
49. Lau D, Ogbogu U, Taylor B, Stafinski T, Menon D, Caulfield T. Stem Cell Clinics Online: the direct-to-consumer portrayal of stem cell medicine. Cell Stem Cell. 3(6), 591–594 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
50. Marcon AR, Murdoch B, Caulfield T. Fake news portrayals of stem cells and stem cell research. Regen. Med. 12(7), 765–775 (2017).
CASGoogle Scholar
51. Kamenova K, Caulfield T. Stem cell hype: Media portrayal of therapy translation. Sci. Transl. Med. 7(278), 278ps4–278ps4 (2015). • Details how stem cell treatments can often be misrepresented in the media, leading to misinformation and distrust of regenerative medicine among the public.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
52. Murdoch CE, Scott CT. Stem cell tourism and the power of hope. Am. J. Bioeth. 10(5), 16–23 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
53. Bauer G, Elsallab M, Abou-El-Enein M. Concise review: a comprehensive analysis of reported adverse events in patients receiving unproven stem cell-based interventions. STEM CELLS Transl. Med. 7(9), 676–685 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
54. Berkowitz AL, Miller MB, Mir SA et al. Glioproliferative lesion of the spinal cord as a complication of “stem-cell tourism”. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(2), 196–198 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
55. Sipp D. The unregulated commercialization of stem cell treatments: a global perspective. Front. Med. 5(4), 348–355 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
56. Lindeman A, Pepine CJ, March KL. Cardiac stem cell therapy among Clinics of Uncertain Regulatory Status (COURS): under-regulated, under-observed, incompletely understood. J. Transl. Med. 18(1), 285 (2020). • Coins the term COURS to define under-regulated clinics operating without FDA approval and suggests potential solutions to address this issue.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
57. Master Z, Zarzeczny A, Rachul C, Caulfield T. What's missing? Discussing stem cell translational research in educational information on stem cell “tourism”. J. Law. Med. Ethics. 41(1), 254–268 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
58. Rosenthal N, Badylak S. Regenerative medicine: today's discoveries informing the future of medical practice. Npj Regen. Med. 1(1), 1–3 (2016).
Google Scholar
59. United States Department of Health and Human Services. 2020: A New Vision - A Future for Regenerative Medicine. [Internet]. United States Department of Health and Human Services. https://web.archive.org/web/20070910192400/https://www.hhs.gov/reference/FutureofRegenerativeMedicine.pdf
Google Scholar

Vol. 17, No. 10

Metrics

Downloaded 65 times

History

Received 22 April 2022

Accepted 21 July 2022

Published online 4 August 2022

Published in print October 2022

Information

Keywords

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the lecturers who volunteered their time, Dr Mark Law for his input in setting up the undergraduate courses within the Honors Program, and Dr Peter Sayeski, Dr Charlie Wood, and Dr Marta Wayne for their advice in planning the undergraduate certificate program. The authors wish to thank Dr Katelyn Bruno for her assistance with producing and finalizing the graphical abstract.

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

Development of a student-driven undergraduate program in regenerative medicine

Abstract

Plain language summary

Graphical abstract

References