Stem cell technologies have rapidly advanced across Asia, bringing regenerative medicine closer to clinical applications. Currently approved preclinical and clinical trials for stem cell‐derived therapies include treatments for macular degeneration, heart failure, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury, and type 1 diabetes [1]. Japan's early regulatory innovations, particularly the Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine (ASRM), demonstrate how structured oversight can accelerate the translation of research while maintaining public trust [2]. However, this momentum has also revealed sharp contrasts within the region. Southeast Asia, though increasingly active in biomedical research, faces uneven governance, ethical ambiguities, and the risk of premature commercialization. These challenges raise urgent questions about justice and responsibility while promoting scientific innovation and economic growth through stem cell technologies in the region.
Among Southeast Asian countries, Singapore presents one of the most comprehensive and ethically grounded models. The Human Biomedical Research Act (HBRA) mandates institutional review and informed consent for all human tissue research, while the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) regulates clinical applications through the Cell, Tissue, and Gene Therapy Product (CTGTP) framework [3, 4]. The system is internationally recognized for its rigor, though the extensive compliance and procedural demands may pose challenges for smaller biotechnology developers [5]. In contrast, Thailand regulates stem cell‐based therapies under the Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMP) framework through the Thai FDA and the Ministry of Public Health. Although the framework requires full phase I–III clinical approval, a dedicated stem‐cell law is still absent [6]. Efforts to establish a “regulatory sandbox” for advanced therapies, still under policy development, signal a promising attempt to balance innovation with oversight [6].
Malaysia maintains several overlapping instruments, including the Biosafety Act (2007) and the Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Therapy (2009) issued by the Ministry of Health [7]. While these documents align with international ethical standards, they lack legal enforceability and mechanisms for monitoring commercial use. Vietnam, meanwhile, continues to expand its research base but still operates without a formal classification system for stem cell derivation or application. Existing directives on tissue donation and transplantation provide partial ethical coverage. However, a comprehensive legal framework is still under development [8]. Together, these examples illustrate a landscape where regulation exists in varying degrees of maturity but often falls short of coordinated ethical governance.
This fragmented environment has tangible ethical consequences. Premature commercialization is widespread, especially within the private sector, where the unproven “stem cell rejuvenation” or anti‐aging therapies are being offered to local and international patients [9, 10]. Such practices blur the line between legitimate clinical translation and opportunistic marketing. Informed consent procedures are often superficial, and risk communication remains inconsistent, leaving patients vulnerable to misinformation and unrealistic expectations [11, 12]. Cross‐border medical tourism increases these risks, as patients from countries with stricter oversight travel to less regulated areas for unverified treatments, weakening both accountability and follow‐up care [13]. These practices challenge the ethical principles of beneficence, transparency, and justice.
The region's diversity, however, also offers opportunity. Adaptive, innovation‐driven governance can be developed from the existing ethical frameworks and regulations. Learning from Japan's conditional approval model, Southeast Asian regulators could adopt tiered systems that permit early‐stage therapies under close post‐market surveillance [14]. Strengthening public and private sectors through transparent GMP certification, centralized registries, and ethics committee oversight would further align commercialization with social responsibility. At the regional level, existing health policy mechanisms provide a practical foundation for harmonizing standards and deterring “ethics dumping.” Cross‐border collaboration on clinical trial registration, data sharing, and quality benchmarking could foster mutual trust and prevent regulatory arbitrage.
Public engagement must also be recognized as an ethical imperative. Many existing challenges stem from inadequate communication among regulators, researchers, and the public, rather than from regulation alone [10, 14]. Sustained outreach through patient education, public dialogues, and community‐based consent models can help rebuild trust in legitimate clinical innovation [15, 16]. A transparent approach to risk, cost, and expected outcomes would prevent the moral hazards associated with both unrealistic optimism and therapeutic misconception.
The ethical tension now confronting Southeast Asia lies between aspiration and protection. The region's scientific capacity and entrepreneurial energy are undeniable, but without adequate moral safeguards, the pursuit of progress risks deepening inequity and exploitation. Ethical governance must therefore evolve alongside technological advancement. Southeast Asia is uniquely placed to show how emerging economies can achieve innovation not by copying models from other developed countries, but by contextualizing global standards to local realities. The task ahead is to ensure that the benefits of stem cell innovations are fairly shared, their risks communicated transparently, and their practices reflect a commitment to human dignity.
Funding
The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Note
The views shared in this paper are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of their affiliated institutions.
Pichaya Toyoda and Sopak Supakul contributed equally to this work.
References
- 1. Kirkeby A., Main H., and Carpenter M., “Pluripotent Stem Cell–Derived Therapies in Clinical Trial: A 2025 Update,” Cell Stem Cell 32, no. 1 (2025): 10–37, 10.1016/j.stem.2024.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Azuma K. and Yamanaka S., “Recent Policies That Support Clinical Application of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell–Based Regenerative Therapies,” Regenerative Therapy 4 (2016): 36–47, 10.1016/j.reth.2016.01.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Bioethics Advisory Committee , Ethics Guidelines for Human Biomedical Research. 2021 Revised Edition (Bioethics Advisory Committee, 2021). [Google Scholar]
- 4. Health Sciences Authority , “Regulatory Overview of Cell, Tissue or Gene Therapy Products,” Health Sciences Authority, https://www.hsa.gov.sg.
- 5. Tan E. H. P., Chinchalongporn V., Dumadi F., et al., “Pursuing Cell Therapy Approvals in Apac: Your Guide to Navigating Regulations in Japan, South Korea, and Singapore,” Cytotherapy 27, no. 9 (2025): 1043–1059, 10.1016/j.jcyt.2025.03.504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Boonprasirt P., Nimvorapun S., Sawangjang C., Poonpolsub S., Yoongthong W., and Dunkum P., “Regulatory Frameworks for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products in Thailand,” Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 1430 (2023): 221–233, 10.1007/978-3-031-34567-8_13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Malaysian Medical Council, Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Therapy (Ministry of Health Malaysia, 2009). [Google Scholar]
- 8. Van Pham P., “Current Status of Stem Cell Transplantation in Vietnam,” Biomedical Research and Therapy 3, no. 4 (2016): 15, 10.7603/s40730-016-0015-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Berger I., Ahmad A., Bansal A., Kapoor T., Sipp D., and Rasko J. E. J., “Global Distribution of Businesses Marketing Stem Cell–Based Interventions,” Cell Stem Cell 19, no. 2 (2016): 158–162, 10.1016/j.stem.2016.07.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Velasco R. P., Chaikledkaew U., Myint C. Y., Khampang R., Tantivess S., and Teerawattananon Y., “Advanced Health Biotechnologies in Thailand: Redefining Policy Directions,” Journal of Translational Medicine 11, no. 1 (2013): 1, 10.1186/1479-5876-11-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Bin Abdul Aziz M. F., Morrison M., and Kaye J., “Regulating Human Stem Cell Research and Therapy in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries: Malaysian Perspectives,” New Genetics and Society 37, no. 1 (2017): 2–20, 10.1080/14636778.2017.1415137. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Imran S. A. M., M. Hamizul M. H. A., Khairul Bariah A. A. N., Wan Kamarul Zaman W. S., and Nordin F., “Regenerative Medicine Therapy in Malaysia: An Update,” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 10 (2022): 789644, 10.3389/fbioe.2022.789644. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Lyons S., Salgaonkar S., and Flaherty G. T., “International Stem Cell Tourism: A Critical Literature Review and Evidence‐Based Recommendations,” International Health 14, no. 2 (2022): 132–141, 10.1093/inthealth/ihab050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Sipp D., “Conditional Approval: Japan Lowers the Bar for Regenerative Medicine Products,” Cell Stem Cell 16, no. 4 (2015): 353–356, 10.1016/j.stem.2015.03.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Volarevic V., Markovic B. S., Gazdic M., et al., “Ethical and Safety Issues of Stem Cell–Based Therapy,” International Journal of Medical Sciences 15, no. 1 (2018): 36–45, 10.7150/ijms.21666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Moy A., Kamath A., Ternes S., and Kamath J., “The Challenges to Advancing Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell–Dependent Cell Replacement Therapy,” Medical Research Archives 11, no. 11 (2023): 4784, 10.18103/mra.v11i11.4784. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]