STEM cell treatments are often discussed in terms of what they might restore: movement in patients with degenerative diseases, faster healing for difficult wounds, or developmental gains in children with autism.
But for the doctors behind the Philippine Society for Regenerative Medicine (PSRM), a more pressing question is whether the country has the research capacity to determine which treatments actually work, for whom, and at what risk.
The Philippines has clinicians and young researchers interested in the field, but limited facilities for cell-based research, insufficient funding and a shortage of large, rigorous clinical studies are holding back progress, PSRM leaders told BusinessMirror in an exclusive interview.
‘We are really frank about these things,’ said Dr. Daryl Joel C. Dumdum, PSRM co-founder and vice president.
Given the high cost of regenerative therapies, patients need to understand whether a treatment is likely to help them and whether it is safe, he added.
The gap between scientific possibility and proven medical benefit was central to the society’s first annual convention on October 21 to 22 in Makati City, under the theme ‘Leading Innovation in Philippine Regenerative Medicine.’
Research is not clinical readiness
DUMDUM estimated that the Philippines is among about 30 percent of the level of more advanced countries in regenerative medicine, although he did not identify a formal benchmark or measurement system for that figure.
For her part, PSRM President and co-founder Dr. Quincy P. Raya drew a distinction between producing research papers and conducting robust clinical trials that can establish a therapy’s safety and effectiveness.
She also pointed to the absence of a strong research culture in medical training, where research can become a requirement to complete rather than a pursuit that continues throughout a physician’s career.
‘There is no financial support,’ Raya said, adding that medical research also needs stronger legal and technical support.
Without these resources, the PSRM head added that local doctors risk remaining dependent on findings generated overseas rather than building evidence suited to Philippine patients and healthcare conditions.
Meanwhile, Dumdum said the country has genomic research capabilities, including a genome center at the University of the Philippines, but noted that its work is different from facilities that culture and expand cells for regenerative research.
For PSRM, a professional society could help researchers coordinate studies, develop protocols and subject projects to ethical review. The challenge is building the financial and institutional support to make that work possible.
Promising does not mean proven
REGENERATIVE medicine covers a broad range of approaches, including the study of mesenchymal stromal cells, which researchers are investigating for their potential effects on inflammation and tissue repair.
Other emerging technologies include induced pluripotent stem cells, which can be reprogrammed to behave like stem cells capable of developing into different cell types.
These technologies offer research possibilities, but their clinical uses differ in maturity. A biological mechanism that appears plausible does not automatically translate into a treatment that has demonstrated meaningful benefits in people.
billboards do the job socmed
Raya identified osteoarthritis and diabetes as areas worth investigating.
In osteoarthritis, researchers can measure outcomes-such as pain, joint function and cartilage changes.
Studies involving diabetes could examine measures such as glycated hemoglobin, which reflects average blood sugar levels over time.
Dumdum also cited wound healing as an area where changes may be observable, alongside research into skin rejuvenation and chronic neurological conditions.
But these should not be mistaken for established indications for stem cell therapy. The doctors’ discussion of possible applications does not establish that such treatments are proven or approved for those conditions.
Raya herself emphasized that regenerative therapies are not standard diabetes care, for instance, and should not be presented as replacements for established treatment.
The danger of testimonials
THE distinction becomes particularly important in conditions such as autism, where families may be searching for interventions that could improve communication, behavior or daily functioning.
Raya said small improvements can mean a great deal to parents, but claims of benefit need to be measured against defined developmental and functional assessments.
Evaluations by independent specialists can help reduce the risk that expectations or the involvement of the treating provider influence the results.
‘If you’re given a free trial, of course, your testimony is good,’ Raya said, pointing to the influence that sponsored or free treatments can have on how patients and families perceive outcomes.
Anecdotes can help explain why people pursue a treatment, but they cannot reliably establish that the treatment caused an improvement.
Changes may reflect other therapies, natural development, differences in assessment or other factors. Controlled studies and independent evaluation are needed to distinguish those possibilities.
Dumdum, meanwhile, stressed that regenerative medicine is not a one-size-fits-all intervention, particularly for autism, a spectrum condition with varied developmental and support needs.
He described stem cell treatment as a possible adjunct rather than a cure, while emphasizing that patients should continue appropriate therapies.
The same caution applies to other conditions: a treatment may help some patients without benefiting everyone, and claims of guaranteed results should raise questions rather than inspire confidence.
From promise to evidence
THE PSRM’s immediate challenge is to help build the research and clinical infrastructure needed to evaluate regenerative therapies responsibly.
Its outlook for 2026 to 2030 includes expanding institutional partnerships, physician education, specialized training and collaborative research, with patient safety and evidence-based standards as priorities.
The society’s briefing document lists illustrative targets for 2030, including 30 to 50 institutional partners, 10 to 15 qualified training or referral sites and five to 10 collaborative research projects. These are planning scenarios, not established national commitments or forecasts.