Question special
Lead Moderator

I wanted to shift focus to a statement in Charo's article: "It will take a concerted effort by researchers, journal editors,
companies, investors, and the media to find the fine line between
hope and hype and to keep explaining why the best way to find
safe, effective cures is through the careful steps of clinical trials and treatment monitoring."

Specifically, how much responsibility do we as scientists and clinicians have in reducing misinformation and stem cell tourism? Must we put greater emphasis on investigators and clinics to be better?

It seems to me that if perhaps industry and scientific/professional organizations put more effort into providing tools for patients to evaluate all potential treatments available and for enabling expedient ethical/compassionate access to the most promising therapies, there might be some real hope for patients and less tourism. Should professional societies be more rigorous in helping to put out the proper information for a given disease/field? Should regulatory authorities play a more active role in chasing claims that are inaccurate and ensuring there is a steadier stream of reliable data and information available?