Note: Since their integration into medical science, stem cells have precipitated significant advancements alongside substantial challenges. Tissue regeneration through stem cells has elicited both support and opposition. Informed judgment amid these debates necessitates distinguishing this modality from comparable approaches, such as gene therapy. Accordingly, Contemporary Jurisprudence interviewed Dr. Fatemeh Ardestani, professor at the Tehran Seminary and holder of a PhD in Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Law from the University of Tehran. With extensive research in stem cell therapeutics—including her doctoral dissertation on the subject—she asserts that, notwithstanding evident differences from alternative methods, definitive pronouncements on this therapy’s benefits and risks remain premature. This seminary and university scholar contends that the emergent nature of stem cell therapy renders many potential harms and risks hitherto unidentified by researchers. The complete exclusive interview with this distinguished professor and researcher follows:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Broadly speaking, what therapeutic and medical applications are conceivable for stem cells?

Ardestani: In the realm of treatment and medical applications of stem cells, the following principal uses may be enumerated:

First: treating hematological disorders such as leukemia, thalassemia, and hereditary conditions akin to thalassemia. Second: managing neurological diseases including Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Third: addressing cardiovascular conditions, where stem cells prove particularly efficacious—especially post-myocardial infarction. Fourth: treating neuromuscular disorders like muscular dystrophy. Fifth: ameliorating autoimmune diseases, wherein stem cells offer substantial assistance. Additional applications encompass skin tissue regeneration, cancer therapy (with considerable potential benefit), cartilaginous tissue repair (highly valuable in osteoarthritis), and metabolic disorders via regeneration of defective cells. While further applications exist, these represent the core practical domains.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Does stem cell therapy differ from gene therapy?

Ardestani: Indeed, the two modalities are distinct. Stem cell therapy leverages cellular differentiation capacity for repairing and replacing damaged tissues—stem cells integrate and differentiate into requisite types, sourced autologously or otherwise, thereby facilitating tissue repair. By contrast, gene therapy directly intervenes at the genetic level: modifying, correcting, or substituting defective genes while eliminating faulty ones. Healthy genes, once introduced, enable continued cellular function or replace defective cells entirely. Thus, gene therapy resolves underlying genetic anomalies, adopting an approach divergent from cellular therapy.

The principal differences are as follows: stem cell therapy focuses on tissue replacement, gene therapy on genetic defect rectification; the former prioritizes the cell as a functional entity, the latter genetic material; tissue diseases predominate in stem cell applications, genetic disorders in gene therapy.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What advantages does stem cell therapy offer over alternative methods?

Ardestani: While diverse treatments target specific, refractory, or complex diseases, stem cell therapy possesses distinctive advantages unattainable to the same degree in comparable modalities. Notably, it enables natural bodily regeneration and repair—unavailable in conventional medicine—for conditions like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s lacking established cures, or otherwise intractable/terminal illnesses. It also addresses certain genetic disorders.

Stem cell therapy reduces reliance on high-risk invasive surgeries, minimizes rejection risks (though not eliminating them entirely), and elicits fewer immune responses. It facilitates root-cause interventions; its regenerative paradigm suits complex pathologies, with research progressing rapidly. These attributes portend a promising future in medicine.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Does stem cell utilization pose harms to the individual body or human society?

Ardestani: Modern therapies invariably entail side effects, particularly advanced ones whose broad scope amplifies potential adverse outcomes—tangible across varied applications. Stem cell therapy is no exception: beneficial yet challenging, capable of engendering additional complications.

Although rejection risk is diminished compared to alternatives, it persists—especially with allogeneic sources. Pluripotent cells heighten tumorigenesis and oncogenesis risks through uncontrolled proliferation. Infection transmission arises from inadequate cell handling or storage. Unknown long-term sequelae remain under investigation; the therapy’s relative novelty precludes definitive long-term safety assessments, potentially revealing serious delayed harms.

These constitute primary physical risks: rejection, tumorigenesis, contamination, and unidentified chronic effects.

Beyond somatic concerns, social and ethical implications warrant scrutiny. Embryonic stem cell sourcing raises profound ethical dilemmas—harvesting often destroys embryos, prompting questions of permissible human intervention. Genetic engineering manipulation risks, though more germane to gene therapy, intersect here via bodily alteration.

Socially, prohibitive costs exacerbate inequality, restricting access to affluent individuals. Commercial exploitation enables ineffective or fraudulent treatments by certain entities.

Further research is imperative, alongside public education on risks, benefits, and safety. Given efficacy in severe conditions, prospects appear expansive—yet risks must be meticulously weighed to determine whether benefits preponderate or harms render the approach untenable. Prudent, evidence-based advancement is essential.