Theses and Dissertations
This collection includes both ASU Theses and Dissertations, submitted by graduate students, and the Barrett, Honors College theses submitted by undergraduate students.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3
Filtering by
- Creators: Harrington Bioengineering Program
Description
This thesis explores and analyzes the emergence of for-profit stem cell clinics in the United States, specifically in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Stem cell therapy is an emerging field that has great potential in preventing or treating a number of diseases. Certain companies are currently researching the application of stem cells as therapeutics. At present the FDA has only approved one stem cell-based product; however, there are a number of companies currently offering stem cell therapies. In the past five years, most news articles discussing these companies offering stem cell treatments talk of clinics in other countries. Recently, there seems to be a number of stem cell clinics appearing in the United States. Using a web search engine, fourteen stem cell clinics were identified and analyzed in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Each clinic was analyzed by their four key characteristics: business operations, stem cell types, stem cell isolation methods, and their position with the FDA. Based off my analysis, most of the identified clinics are located in Scottsdale or Phoenix. Some of these clinics even share the same location as another medical practice. Each of the fourteen clinics treat more than one type of health condition. The stem clinics make use of four stem cell types and three different isolation methods to obtain the stem cells. The doctors running these clinics almost always treat health conditions outside of their expertise. Some of these clinics even claim they are not subject to FDA regulation.
ContributorsAmrelia, Divya Vikas (Author) / Brafman, David (Thesis director) / Frow, Emma (Committee member) / Harrington Bioengineering Program (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
The development of computational systems known as brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) offers the possibility of allowing individuals disabled by neurological disorders such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and ischemic stroke the ability to perform relatively complex tasks such as communicating with others and walking. BCIs are closed-loop systems that record physiological signals from the brain and translate those signals into commands that control an external device such as a wheelchair or a robotic exoskeleton. Despite the potential for BCIs to vastly improve the lives of almost one billion people, one question arises: Just because we can use brain-computer interfaces, should we? The human brain is an embodiment of the mind, which is largely seen to determine a person's identity, so a number of ethical and philosophical concerns emerge over current and future uses of BCIs. These concerns include privacy, informed consent, autonomy, identity, enhancement, and justice. In this thesis, I focus on three of these issues: privacy, informed consent, and autonomy. The ultimate purpose of brain-computer interfaces is to provide patients with a greater degree of autonomy; thus, many of the ethical issues associated with BCIs are intertwined with autonomy. Currently, brain-computer interfaces exist mainly in the domain of medicine and medical research, but recently companies have started commercializing BCIs and providing them at affordable prices. These consumer-grade BCIs are primarily for non-medical purposes, and so they are beyond the scope of medicine. As BCIs become more widespread in the near future, it is crucial for interdisciplinary teams of ethicists, philosophers, engineers, and physicians to collaborate to address these ethical concerns now before BCIs become more commonplace.
ContributorsChu, Kevin Michael (Author) / Ankeny, Casey (Thesis director) / Robert, Jason (Committee member) / Frow, Emma (Committee member) / Harrington Bioengineering Program (Contributor) / School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School for the Future of Innovation in Society (Contributor) / Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
Homeopathy is a brand of alternative medicine that has enjoyed a unique form of regulation for many years. This work aims to understand the regulation of homeopathic drugs in the United States by performing a literature review focused on three fronts: (i) homeopathy (theory, history in the United States and criticisms), (ii) U.S Food and Drug Administration (history and relationship to homeopathy), and (iii) interpretation of the law through reading guidance documents and the Code of Federal Regulations.
In 2015, the FDA began a process to reevaluate and update the regulations surrounding homeopathic products to better fit their present risk-based model. Past regulations were set in 1938; and as the world evolved, these have been found to set inadequate standards. By reviewing the agency’s guidance drafts and core regulatory documents, we come to understand that these changes are motivated by a desire for homeopathic remedies to follow high standards that apply to other products for the benefit of the U.S. consumers. FDA has made significant advances by proposing new Guidances on homeopathic products, listening to homeopathic community and consumers, and withdrawing the Compliance Policy Guide 400.400 issued in 1988.
We recommend for homeopathic manufacturers and practitioners to see the FDA as an ally and cooperate fully with the proposed changes for the regulation the agency gives out. Doing so will give the homeopathic community the best chance at continuing to sell their products and reach their consumers in the United States. In the same token, the FDA should do their best to involve homeopathic professionals in some way in this regulatory process, to encourage participation and compliance by the broader homeopathic community. Doing so ensures a climate of teamwork among different facets of the medical community in the United States.
In 2015, the FDA began a process to reevaluate and update the regulations surrounding homeopathic products to better fit their present risk-based model. Past regulations were set in 1938; and as the world evolved, these have been found to set inadequate standards. By reviewing the agency’s guidance drafts and core regulatory documents, we come to understand that these changes are motivated by a desire for homeopathic remedies to follow high standards that apply to other products for the benefit of the U.S. consumers. FDA has made significant advances by proposing new Guidances on homeopathic products, listening to homeopathic community and consumers, and withdrawing the Compliance Policy Guide 400.400 issued in 1988.
We recommend for homeopathic manufacturers and practitioners to see the FDA as an ally and cooperate fully with the proposed changes for the regulation the agency gives out. Doing so will give the homeopathic community the best chance at continuing to sell their products and reach their consumers in the United States. In the same token, the FDA should do their best to involve homeopathic professionals in some way in this regulatory process, to encourage participation and compliance by the broader homeopathic community. Doing so ensures a climate of teamwork among different facets of the medical community in the United States.
ContributorsRobayo, Juan Pablo (Author) / Pizziconi, Vincent (Thesis director) / Feigal, David (Committee member) / Frow, Emma (Committee member) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Harrington Bioengineering Program (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05