It started with this parody song about placebos, by anesthetist Dr. Suman Biswas, which The BMJ posted on X in two parts. I thought maybe it was time for a light parody post, so I was looking for one link that I could share. This led me to The BMJ’s “Creating a healthier world” YouTube page, which features podcasts, explainer videos, webcasts, and more.

And that sent me down a different rabbit hole: how do we know whether the health information we encounter online is trustworthy?

Turning to social media for health information

I was immediately enticed to watch “How the Internet Hijacked Our Health” since this topic dovetails with my interest in misinformation and disinformation. BMJ editor Kamran Abbasi interviewed author Dr. Deborah Cohen about her new book of the same name (Bad Influence: How the Internet Hijacked Our Health), marketed by the publisher as follows: “When did we start trusting influencers over doctors? You used to see a doctor. Now you go online.” The short answer to the question above is: during the COVID pandemic. For a more nuanced answer, read Cohen’s book, shortlisted for the 2026 Royal Society Science Book Prize.

I don’t think it will surprise you to read that tens of millions of Americans now turn to social media to obtain health information, according to the Pew Research Center. Canadians do as well.

The ISSCR’s Stem Cell Reports has covered the rise of health information on social media, in this case focusing on YouTube. Authors Anders Grundtvig, University of Copenhagen, and Megan Munsie, University of Melbourne, write about “Stem cells in your YouTube feed: The complex landscape and unexpected mediators of online information” and rightly point to the concerns that “authority, reliability, and accuracy” may be sacrificed.

Focusing on stem cell treatments on YouTube, they note that “misinformation already abounds online about unproven stem cell procedures,” so their analysis instead focused on mapping these videos and identifying the mediators and content creators behind them. They collected metadata from 4,481 YouTube videos across 1,734 YouTube channels. There was lots of engagement (comments and likes) and over 134 million views. Read their analysis here.

Drs. Grundtvig and Munsie found that “one influencer, above all others, appeared to have the most impact – Joe Rogan.” I’m not surprised. In 2019, I wrote an open letter to podcaster Joe Rogan about his endorsement of unproven stem cell therapy. In the stem cell space, he is a prominent and problematic advocate. In 2023, I blogged about him a second time. You can read my “interview” with Joe Rogan.

The source matters

Obtaining health information from the internet and social media isn’t necessarily problematic, depending on who you are following and trusting. For example, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) has developed social media policies prohibiting doctors from posting false or deceptive information. The CPSO also provides advice to Ontario physicians about their use of social media, and outlines what it considers unprofessional behaviour. If doctors are making claims that contradict established, evidence-based public health guidelines without providing reliable sources, that should be a red flag.

Of course, many health and wellness influencers are not doctors, nor do they have to abide by a professional code of conduct. Some have enormous audiences despite having little or no relevant scientific or medical expertise. For example, while some call actress and Goop founder Gwyneth Paltrow a wellness guru, a Toronto-based nutritionist described her as the “reigning queen of problematic wellness misinformation and disinformation.”

Timothy Caulfield, a Canadian professor, health law expert and science communicator known for debunking medical myths and addressing misinformation, went so far as to title his 2015 book Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything: When Celebrity Culture and Science Clash.

More recently, Caulfield and University of Alberta law colleagues Alessandro R. Marcon and Blake Murdoch published an article in the Canadian Journal of Bioethics titled “Influencers and Unproven Health Claims: Curbing Misleading Promotion in the United States and Canada.” They examine the state of legal prohibitions and enforcement relating to misleading advertising – such as for unapproved stem cell treatments – which the authors deem “inadequate,” and they describe the public health harms and how health misinformation erodes trust in public institutions, among other things. They suggest that artificial intelligence could assist with enforcement.

Online sources to keep you healthy

So, what are some reputable sources of health information? There are many! I’ve already mentioned The BMJ’s “Creating a healthier world” above. Naturally, there are medical institutions, hospitals, health charities, government agencies, and other organizations whose mandate is to provide evidence-based information. If you like to watch videos, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has its “healthcare for real” site, and it includes videos.  In the stem cell field, visit Dr. Paul Knoepfler’s website. With blogs, videos, and educational materials, his site is a great resource.

Spending time online has its benefits. It turns out that the lighthearted parody song led me to a serious question about whom to trust with our health. In the end, it was a healthy distraction.

The CMA asked physicians to recommend sources for accurate health information. You can watch this video posted to Instagram. Add your own recommendations in the comments below.

Article #1: Raising awareness of endometriosis

A teen from Vancouver, Elize Nocente, is attempting to raise awareness of endometriosis in schools so young people can identify the signs of this complex, chronic disease and seek care earlier. She lives with endometriosis and believes other young people do as well; after all, The Endometriosis Network Canada estimates two million Canadians are affected with this inflammatory disease, in which tissue similar to the lining of the uterus grows outside of it and can cause chronic pelvic pain, painful periods, painful sexual intercourse, bowel and bladder symptoms, and infertility.

For too long, painful periods have been dismissed as something people who menstruate simply have to endure. But severe or persistent menstrual pain is not something that should automatically be normalized. For someone who develops symptoms in adolescence, the years before diagnosis can represent decades of recurring pain, disrupted education and work, and reduced quality of life. According to an article in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, a survey found “it takes an average of 7-10 years to receive a diagnosis and treatment for the condition.” That’s not a typo.

Part of the broader problem is that women’s health has historically received insufficient research attention. Researchers from the University of Toronto and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health reviewed 11 years of grant funding (2009-2020) from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and found that only 6 per cent of funding dollars went to female-specific research and the number fell to 4 per cent when female-specific cancer research was excluded. A recent report from MaRS Discovery District states that women were omitted from clinical trials in Canada until 1997 and today make up only 30 per cent of participants. Research funding and clinical-trial participation shape which diseases we understand, which treatments we develop and how well those treatments work for different populations.

Treating endometriosis through regenerative medicine

Dr. Peace Chukwu, who blogs for Signals, has written about the therapeutic potential of menstrual blood-derived stem/stromal cells in endometriosis.  In summary, menstrual stem cells (MenSC) may offer a promising new avenue for understanding and treating endometriosis. Researchers are studying how these cells and the substances they release may help identify endometriosis earlier and, in the future, potentially reduce the inflammation, abnormal cell growth and blood-vessel formation that allow endometriosis lesions to develop and persist. While early laboratory research is encouraging, MenSC-based diagnosis and treatments are still experimental and require further research before they can become part of routine care.

A registered clinical study is now investigating menstrual stem cells in endometriosis, illustrating how this field is beginning to move from laboratory research toward clinical investigation.

Article #2: AbCellera looking to solve a common menopause symptom

The second article that caught my attention was about Vancouver-based antibody developer AbCellera and its work on hot flashes, a menopause symptom that up to 80 per cent of women suffer from. AbCellera’s new investigational antibody medicine, called ABCL635, could become, according to AbCellera, “a best-in-class non-hormonal therapy for women in menopause or undergoing hormone-suppressing cancer treatments.” Fingers crossed. You can learn about ABCL635 and hot flashes on AbCellera’s website.

While the results of the trial of 92 women conducted across Canada are very exciting – an investment analyst called the results “practically off the chart on everything measured” – also exciting is the implication that this breakthrough has positioned AbCellera to become Canada’s first homegrown Big Pharma giant. Solving an unmet women’s health problem can become a significant drug-development opportunity.

Why women’s health innovation matters

Closing Canada’s women’s health gap could potentially add $37 billion to Canada’s GDP annually by 2040, according to the McKinsey Health Institute. Further, “Whereas Canada ranks among the top ten countries globally for gender equality and is the ninth-largest economy, it represents the fifth-worst women’s health-related economic gap as a share of its projected 2040 GDP, behind Australia, France, Germany, and Japan. This means Canada has an opportunity to build a stronger economy based on healthier women [bolding is mine].” McKinsey also points out that its $37-billion estimate does not include emerging areas such as endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome.

The Menopause Foundation of Canada says that unmanaged symptoms of menopause cost the Canadian economy an estimated $3.5 billion per year through health care costs, absenteeism, lost productivity ($237 million) and other impacts.

Canada’s femtech sector is rapidly emerging as the world’s third-largest femtech ecosystem, driven by over 170 companies (tracked by Femtech Canada) addressing critical gaps in women’s health. According to an article in Canadian Healthcare Technology, the ecosystem has created more than 1,200 jobs across Canada and “generated over $250 million in private-sector investment.” Femtech Canada says the ecosystem has filed 75 new patents (as of December 2024).

These numbers suggest that women’s health is not simply an underserved health care market. It is becoming an important innovation sector.

Women’s biology has created opportunities for entirely new diagnostics, therapeutics, devices and care models.  Watch the TEDx Talks below, by Loulia Kassem, on “Why women’s health is the future of healthcare.” Kassem is the Co-founder and CEO of Rea Diagnostics, a Swiss medtech startup that has developed the first at-home, self-test for preterm births.

Her talk focuses on the need for modern medical technologies for women (not ones created in 1845!), painless ones (think uncomfortable mammogram equipment), and dignified (she references endometriosis). She reminds us that the women’s health gap is not only a health care problem. It is also a research gap, a data gap, a clinical-development gap and an innovation gap. Canada has both a problem to solve and a growing ecosystem capable of solving it.

This blog first appeared on CCRM Australia’s website and is reposted here, with permission. It contains some minor edits from the original.

CCRM, a leader in developing and commercializing regenerative medicine-based technologies and cell and gene therapies (CGTs), has long supported early-stage technologies. One of the key ways for doing this has been through a program of technology evaluation and incubation, with the end goal of creating companies that can propel promising advanced therapies into the clinic.

Traditional models of company creation often begin with a promising technology. While this approach has produced many notable successes, it is also resource‑intensive, inefficient at scale, and yields only a low number of compelling investable ventures. In a nutshell, starting with technology and then searching for a market can be a risky strategy.

CCRM’s venture studio model, Venture by Design, was developed to complement existing frameworks by introducing a more explicitly market‑driven entry point. The process differs in that it begins with clearly articulated unmet needs (which could be technical, clinical, manufacturing, or operational), and then deliberately assembles the science, intellectual property (IP) and capabilities needed to address them. This framing shifts attention from developing specific individual technologies to building the overall configuration required for a viable company.

From technology push to company readiness

In the few years since we launched our venture studio, we’ve witnessed firsthand that proto companies that originate from clearly defined bottlenecks and problem statements meet commercialization readiness standards both faster and more often. Viable ventures are those designed with credible answers to questions such as: How might we best solve the problem? Who will adopt this approach? How will it be paid for? Can it be made at scale? And why this solution now?

Our shift from asking “Is the science interesting and can it be applied to a certain problem?” to “Does this configuration support a workable company?” has proven to be one of the most consequential aspects of the model.

Emerging patterns across venture studio cycles

Running repeated venture studio cycles has revealed additional patterns that separate viable company creation from stalled efforts:

1. Market pull is non‑negotiable.
   Companies born from the desire to address clear unmet needs (e.g. underserved patient groups, manufacturing constraints, delivery gaps, etc.) create more compelling propositions than those built around unanchored science. Early end-user and partner conversations should be used as design inputs.

2. Initial de‑risking must happen before incorporation.
   Wet‑lab diligence, application-driven feasibility work, manufacturability assessments and freedom‑to‑operate thinking are most powerful when done before a company is set up. This early exploratory work enables the concept and strategy to be refined in an expedited, capital-efficient manner. CCRM’s specialized laboratories and academic collaborator network are hugely beneficial for this.

3. Early external engagement is not optional.
   Programs that engage pharma, clinicians, or health systems early don’t just validate the need, they also shape the product. Even tentative early engagement can benefit downstream development. It may be surprising to some, but these stakeholder groups are predominantly very willing to engage and advise, for which we are very grateful.

4. IP strategy must be intentional, not reactive.
   Successful Venture by Design projects treat technology components and IP as design variables. Being overly prescriptive or fixated upon specific solutions early in the concept-building stage can stall progress.

5. Teams matter earlier than you may expect.
   A recurring challenge is the availability (and bandwidth) of leadership in pre‑financed companies. Ventures that allocate a leader to drive fundraising, partnerships and execution, even if only in the interim, outperform those trying to manage the early stages by committee. 

Reflections on the Venture by Design model

One surprising aspect of working in this model is how much of company creation is about trying to remain objective about emerging concepts, and how challenging this is. Venture by Design is as much about pivoting from ideas early as it is about nurturing them. That can be difficult when accustomed to championing novelty, but it’s entirely necessary.

Another lesson is that incubating concepts inside a larger organization has drawbacks. Our deep infrastructure, expertise and networks are powerful accelerants, but they can also slow decision‑making if not managed deliberately. The ventures that progress fastest are the ones that selectively decouple to some degree and adopt startup‑appropriate processes early while still leveraging institutional strengths.

Further, we’ve found from running our model that process and infrastructure alone are not the advantage, but rather their orchestration is. Access to manufacturing, capital, talent and partners only creates value when it’s deliberately sequenced. The Venture Studio’s strength is not just in structured ideation but also in its integration. 

Why Venture by Design works

Venture by Design is not simply an ideation workshop; it’s a company formation system. It integrates:

• An ideation process grounded in market need
• Structured, stage-gated diligence with objective scoring
• Early partner and customer signals
• Intentional governance, IP, and incubation design
• Capital‑efficient paths to value inflection

The belief is that this combination will increase the probability that a spun‑out entity is more financeable, partner‑ready and resilient to occasional pivots. For the regenerative medicine sector, where timelines are long and capital efficiency matters, an ordered and disciplined “bench to bedside and back again” approach is a necessity. If we want more companies to reach patients, we must spend time designing the company as well as developing the science.

Venture by Design works because it treats company creation as a system, integrating science, diligence, partners and capital into a coherent whole. As our venture studio continues to evolve (incorporating quicker early validation, stronger external engagement and deeper advanced computing), I’m convinced this type of model will be shown to be one of the most effective paths for translating complex biological innovation into durable, scalable companies.

The takeaway is simple: while great science and technologies are of course necessary, viable, high-impact companies happen by design.

Peptides are chains of molecules called amino acids that link together; they are smaller versions of proteins. Thousands of naturally occurring peptides have been identified in the human body. They perform a wide variety of biological functions, although scientists continue to discover new peptides and learn more about their roles. Many peptides act as signalling molecules, allowing cells to communicate with one another, while others are hormones that bind to receptors on cells and regulate processes such as appetite, metabolism, growth, inflammation and tissue repair. Insulin is widely recognized as the first peptide hormone to be isolated and became the first peptide drug used successfully in modern medicine.

Why does it feel like they are suddenly everywhere? Between advertising and marketing campaigns, celebrity endorsements and social media, peptides are having a moment. Ozempic, a semaglutide used to treat diabetes, hit the market in 2017, following approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Health Canada and the European Medicines Agency approved it in 2018. Before semaglutide received formal approval for chronic weight management, some physicians were prescribing it off-label for obesity. In 2021, the FDA and Health Canada approved the higher-dose formulation (Wegovy) specifically for weight management. Since then, awareness has grown. Celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, Rosie O’Donnell and tennis star Serena Williams, and many others, have spoken openly about using semaglutides for weight loss. Semaglutide mimics a natural gut hormone named glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1).

Hailey Bieber and Gwyneth Paltrow have launched skincare products that feature peptides to keep them and us looking young. Jennifer Aniston and Kate Hudson like to drink their peptides by adding collagen peptide supplements to their daily smoothies to keep their skin looking young and glowing.

Peptides have important functions in the body but, like stem cells, they are not a magic bullet for all that ails us. In the case of using collagen peptides for skincare, Joe Schwarcz, at McGill University’s Office for Science and Society, says their efficacy is “debatable.” He writes, “The contention is that once these are absorbed, they will assemble to produce of [sic] collagen in the skin. Evidence for this is sketchy, but in any case, collagen peptides are effective moisturizing agents so they can improve the appearance of the skin.”

Despite mild to sometimes serious side effects from taking GLP-1 medications for weight loss, they are approved medications with well-established safety profiles when prescribed appropriately. Likewise, collagen peptides are generally considered safe, although evidence for many of the cosmetic claims remains limited. You can read about the many uses of peptides in this WebMD article.

Peptides are being used in other ways that may have dangerous side effects. Dietary supplements* and other products marketed for fitness purposes may promise muscle growth and injury recovery, or make anti-aging claims. Not all of these wellness products are regulated or have completed the rigorous clinical testing required for authorized medications.

Health Canada is warning Canadians against injecting peptides bought online. Products labelled “For Research Use Only – Not for Human Consumption” are ones to watch for. “Unauthorized drug products are illegal in Canada and have not been assessed for safety, efficacy, and quality by Health Canada. They have not been demonstrated, through scientific trials, to provide the health benefits that they claim.

Consumers taking unauthorized peptide drugs are exposed to a variety of risks, including, but not limited to, hormonal imbalance, mood swings, blood sugar imbalance, liver or kidney damage, blood clots, and growth of cancerous tumours.”

Health Canada lists examples of unauthorized injectable peptide drugs, additional possible side effects, and what you should do if you have used one and feel unwell. Find more information on Health Canada’s website.

At the top of Health Canada’s list is BPC-157, a synthetic peptide originally isolated from human gastric juice that is popular among athletes. While BPC-157 has shown regenerative properties across animal models, human data are “extremely limited.” This means data regarding safety and associated side effects are also limited. In 2022, the World Anti-Doping Agency first banned BPC-157 under the S0 Non-Approved Substances category, prohibiting its use in both competition and training due to its lack of human clinical approval. It is still on the list, as of January 2026.

As interest in peptides continues to grow, it’s worth remembering that not all peptide products are created equal. Some are evidence-based medicines that have transformed patient care, while others remain unapproved products with little or no evidence of safety or effectiveness.

CBC’s The National went undercover to investigate the use of, and how to access, unauthorized peptides. Watch Idil Mussa’s report, which includes an interview with Timothy Caulfield, University of Alberta.

*People should exercise caution when taking any supplement and discuss the potential benefits and risks with a doctor beforehand.

A scientist at work in CCRM’s Centre for Advanced Therapeutic Cell Technologies. Photo credit: CCRM

“Regulatory approval does not translate to dollars for a company, nor does it lead to patients being treated. Without reimbursement, all of the efforts of translation and development are lost.”

My former colleague, Mark Curtis, wrote these words back when he blogged for Signals and worked as a business development analyst for CCRM.  At the time, he was reflecting on a significant obstacle facing regenerative medicine: getting innovative therapies to patients after they receive regulatory approval. A quick search of topics we have covered on Signals shows that reimbursement has remained a recurring theme for well over a decade. In that time, how much has actually changed?

In May 2026, Bettina Hamelin, President & CEO of Innovative Medicines Canada, wrote “The Cost of Red Tape: Why Canadians Have Slow and Limited Access to New Medicines.” Hamelin says that Canadians now experience the longest wait among G7 countries to obtain new and innovative medicines, a gap she believes will continue to widen as global companies prioritize markets with more predictable pricing and reimbursement environments.

Hamelin goes on to explain that how prices are determined in Canada often undermines “the financial case for bringing new medicines to Canada.” Following Health Canada approval, most medicines undergo health technology assessment and separate price negotiations before provinces decide whether to publicly fund them, creating multiple sequential steps between approval and patient access. While rigorous review is essential, the process is so laborious that “even scientifically promising therapies can become commercially unsustainable to launch here.”

The consequences of these policy and pricing challenges extend well beyond industry investment decisions. They can affect whether patients are able to benefit from emerging treatments in a timely manner.

This delay plays out in ways that hurt Canadian patients. Kelly Grant recently wrote in The Globe and Mail that “there is a 2 ½-year gap, on average, between when new medications are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] and when they’re publicly funded in at least one Canadian province.”

Grant was writing about Evan Armit, a 22-year-old with metastatic melanoma, who died in 2025 while the tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy that might have been an option for him was still undergoing regulatory review in Canada. The FDA approved Iovance Biotherapeutics’ Lifileucel, to treat metastatic melanoma, in 2024. Health Canada’s authorization came after he passed away.

TIL therapy is a cellular immunotherapy that harnesses a patient’s own immune cells to seek out and destroy cancer. It illustrates both the promise and problem of advanced therapies. It is highly personalized, complex to manufacture and potentially transformative for individuals with advanced cancers, which are characteristics that make existing reimbursement and health system pathways difficult to navigate. Laszlo Radvanyi, President and Scientific Director of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (OICR), and the founding Chief Scientific Officer of Lion Biotechnologies before it became Iovance Biotherapeutics, says that TIL therapy “is truly a life-saving therapy, and it will help make metastatic melanoma a survivable disease.” (Read the full interview with Dr. Radvanyi on OICR’s website.)

But breakthrough science alone isn’t enough if proven treatments aren’t available to people like Evan.

Jon Draper, Vice President, Research & Training with the Stem Cell Network, argues that our system is the bottleneck and “delivery systems are the defining challenge for regenerative medicine today.”

Dr. Draper says that we are looking at a global coordination problem. Other countries are also trying to adapt to the regulatory and reimbursement issues posed by very expensive cell and gene therapies that are more complicated to produce and distribute, particularly if you reside in less densely populated regions and low- and middle-income countries.

As I wrote in 2022, one reason the industry continues to face coverage hurdles is that payer landscapes vary considerably across countries. Health care systems differ in how funding decisions are made, the evidence required to demonstrate value, and the organizations responsible for reimbursement.

For example, a country with a predominantly publicly funded health care system, such as Canada, faces different reimbursement considerations than the United States, where payment decisions are made across a fragmented mix of public and private insurers. As well, traditional reimbursement pathways were designed around chronic therapies with ongoing costs, making it difficult to evaluate and fund one-time treatments with high upfront costs, like cell and gene therapies, whose benefits may extend over decades or could be “one and done.”

There will be no one-size-fits-all solution.

Four years on, progress has been slower than many anticipated. While reimbursement frameworks have evolved and payers have gained experience with advanced therapies, many of the fundamental challenges identified in 2022 remain. You can read “Unpacking talent and reimbursement issues at Advanced Therapies Week 2022” on Signal’s website. It mentions payment models that were emerging at that time, such as treatment milestones and subscription-based plans. Canada has made relatively limited use of managed access agreements and conditional or time-limited reimbursement arrangements compared with some other jurisdictions.

In Canada and around the world, we have an expanding number of transformative cell and gene therapies; now we need to build health systems that can deliver them to patients.

The Stem Cell Network is spearheading a “Made-in-Canada designation and prioritized pathway for advanced therapeutics” that would integrate all the steps into a predictable process, encompassing the regulatory review, health technology assessment and reimbursement model. Efforts like this suggest that workable solutions are beginning to emerge, with collaboration from regulators, payers, industry, clinicians, patients and governments. Success will ultimately be measured by whether patients can access effective advanced therapies in a timely, equitable and sustainable way.

Actor Sam Neill, well-known for his role in the Jurassic Park franchise, announced in April 2026 that he was cancer-free after undergoing CAR T-cell therapy, a form of cancer immunotherapy, to treat his stage-three blood cancer. He had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, which he said he’d been living with for five years and was treating with chemotherapy.

Eventually, the chemotherapy stopped working and the Australian actor was enrolled in a clinical trial that was the focus of his type of lymphoma. Now Neill is advocating for Australia’s state and federal governments to expand the availability of CAR T-cell therapy for more cancer patients. He is working with the Snowdome Foundation, a not-for-profit.

Neill is not the only actor whose health journey has recently drawn attention to a serious disease. In May 2026, actor Russell Andrews (Grey’s Anatomy) revealed he has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Andrews’ co-star, Eric Dane, passed away in February 2026 from ALS. He was 53. There is currently no cure for ALS, although gene therapy is a promising area of research for the 20 per cent of cases arising from genetic factors. As well, researchers from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have published research in Nature Communications demonstrating that a gene therapy significantly slowed motor function loss in mice with ALS.

Celebrities being diagnosed with chronic and even fatal illnesses is nothing new, but they can have an unexpected benefit. Recall the attention around actor Bruce Willis and aphasia, and the announcement 10 months later by his family that he had frontotemporal dementia, a degenerative brain disease. Awareness of the rare neurodegenerative condition increased substantially. As one research paper noted, “the Willis family’s disclosure was a courageous act that helped bring much-needed attention to this disease.”

Celebrities also contribute directly by fundraising, donating and establishing charitable foundations. Their public profile and large followings can attract donors, corporate partners and media attention, benefiting health charities, hospitals, universities, research institutions and patient advocacy organizations.

Perhaps the most influential celebrity-led medical charity is the Michael J. Fox Foundation. Since being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease at age 29, Fox has transformed his personal experience into one of the world’s largest private funders of Parkinson’s research. The foundation has committed more than US$2.5 billion toward developing better treatments and ultimately a cure, including research into cell and gene therapies.

Another example is Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder, who, with his wife Jill Vedder and others, co-founded the EB Research Partnership (EBRP) in 2010 after learning that a friend’s son had epidermolysis bullosa (EB), a devastating genetic skin disease that affects children from birth. (Signals’ bloggers have written about EB many times.)

So far, the EBRP has raised US$80 million. EBRP funds research into gene-editing approaches, including CRISPR-Cas9, that aim to correct the genetic mutations responsible for certain forms of EB. Early studies are advancing rapidly and offer considerable promise, although further clinical research is needed before these therapies become widely available.

While celebrity health news often begins as entertainment headlines, its impact can be far-reaching. Public disclosures, such as Angelina Jolie’s revelation that she had a preventative double mastectomy, can encourage earlier diagnosis and screening, reduce stigma, stimulate research funding, influence health policy and accelerate support for patients and families. Combined with the work of scientists, clinicians and advocacy organizations, celebrity voices can help bring promising treatments and, ultimately, cures closer to reality.

Learn more about EB and the work of EBRP in the video below. You will hear from CEO Michael Hund, Eddie Vedder, Drs. Anthony Oro and Jean Y. Tang, and celebrities Olivia Rodrigo and Tom Holland. As an aside, Tom Holland has his own charity – The Brother’s Trust (TBT) – that raises funds and awareness for charities that “struggle to be heard” among other better-known not-for-profit organizations. With his brothers, TBT runs special events to “create memorable and distracting experiences for children suffering with overwhelming physical and mental hardships.” EBRP seems like an ideal fit.

Image created by Google Gemini Pro

Patients diagnosed with degenerative eye disorders, such as retinitis pigmentosa (RP) or choroideremia, face a gradual loss of light-sensing cells that eventually leads to blindness. Historically, most treatments could only aim to slow disease progression; however, bioengineering is changing toolkits, allowing scientists and doctors to do more. Optogenetics is an excellent example of this, and it has already ushered in a paradigm shift: Clinicians are being empowered to aim for stem cell-free restoration of vision, rather than degenerative delay.

If this sounds familiar, maybe you remember my top pick in the Spring 2025 edition of Regenerative Medicine News Under the Microscope. I’ve also covered this story on my YouTube channel. However, there have since been both significant progress and shifts in the competitive landscape, with another major player emerging in the race to restore functional vision using optogenetics.

The tool

To recap: Optogenetic tools enable us to engineer cells and molecules so that aspects of their activity can be controlled using pulses of light. In the case of vision repair, a gene encoding a light-sensitive protein, called an opsin, is virally delivered directly into the neurons of the eye, which weren’t otherwise photosensing themselves. Because these neurons are already patched into the central nervous system (CNS), once they’re equipped with opsins, they can transmit light-related signals to the brain and reproduce aspects of vision.

Crucially, the described approach is “mutation-agnostic.” There are over 100 known genes and more than 1,000 corresponding mutations that can contribute to RP alone, meaning that traditional corrective or compensatory gene therapy would require a customized treatment for each genetic anomaly. Such an approach would represent greater cost and complexity. Optogenetics bypasses this problem entirely, making it a viable treatment for many forms of retinal blindness without requiring genetic testing per se.

Currently, two companies – Nanoscope Therapeutics and Ray Therapeutics – are leading the clinical translation of this technology. While both use optogenetics, their opsins of choice differ, as does their progress.

The frontrunner

Nanoscope Therapeutics (the team I’ve highlighted previously) is developing a therapy called MCO-010 (also known as vMCO-I in early trials, now branded as MOGENRY). MCO stands for multi-characteristic opsin (MCO), representative of their unique approach to the problem. Their opsin is a synthetic, broad-spectrum actuator that even works well in low-light conditions. It was designed to incorporate three different protein domains that each respond to a different wavelength of light (one for red, one for blue and one for green). Why is this a critical advance? Opsins typically respond to just a single wavelength, which is among the reasons why they are less sensitive and need more light to work. Previous attempts to use single-wavelength opsins to restore human vision have required wearable devices that amplify light inputs. While that work was pioneering and represented a significant milestone, the ability to see without external technological aid is the ideal outcome of new therapies. Nanoscope’s MCO is thus an exciting innovation in the field.

MCO-010 is delivered via a single, in-office intravitreal injection and targets the highly dense bipolar neurons in the retina. These cells are signalled by photoreceptors under healthy circumstances, but since the photoreceptors are degenerating in disease contexts, direct targeting of the second-line bipolar cells offers a solid workaround. Newly light-sensing bipolar cells can now transmit information to their neighbours (ganglion cells), which in turn signal the brain.

Nanoscope had previously completed a a Phase I/IIa open-label, dose-escalation study that evaluated two doses in 11 patients with advanced RP. Those data are published here. According to Nanoscope, the treatment was found to be safe and well-tolerated over five years of monitoring, with no serious adverse effects. They’ve also completed a Phase IIb/III RP study since I last reported on their progress, though those data have not yet been peer reviewed. The new study had 27 patients enrolled, according to the clinical trial record, despite initial intentions to look at just 18 subjects at two doses. Frankly, I thought it was amazing to see their patients (no pun intended) go from being completely unable to detect a designated light source before treatment, to being able to walk straight towards it post-treatment. The company currently considers its therapy to be registration-ready for RP and Phase III-ready for Stargardt disease (with their Phase II data for this indication published here).

A new player emerges

Another company looks to be a serious competitor in this space. Ray Therapeutics is now firmly in the race, with investors betting big on their efforts.

Ray’s lead candidate, RTx-015, utilizes ChRown opsins; these are improved channelrhodopsin variants, referred to as CoChRs. The team has bioengineered the protein to further increase its light sensitivity, though their approach was different than Nanoscope’s MCO, as ChRown still appears to be a single-wavelength opsin. Despite this, Ray reports that ambient lighting conditions are sufficient for activation without the use of amplifying goggles. Again, this offers a major advantage over original technologies in this space. I’ve not seen preclinical data published explicitly under the Ray Therapeutics banner, but they often cite this paper as foundational for their venture, and Dr. Zhuo-Hua Pan is listed both as an author on the paper and as an inventor on Ray Therapeutics’ major patent. Their data were also presented in a webinar through the Choroideremia Research Foundation’s series on YouTube. The talk was delivered by Dr. Raj Agrawal, Vice President, Clinical Development & Therapeutic Area Head.

Like MCO-010, RTx-015 is designed as a one-time intravitreal gene therapy that aims to provide lifelong benefits. Ray Therapeutics is currently running its Phase I trial, evaluating up to four dose cohorts of RTx-015 in approximately 18 patients with either RP or choroideremia. They’ve enrolled 10 patients so far. Instead of delivering their gene to bipolar neurons, however, they are targeting ganglion cells – the next link in the visual chain.

The scientific and regulatory community is showing strong support for Ray’s approach. Investors have rallied behind them, recently closing a US$125 million Series B financing round. Furthermore, the therapy has secured a Priority Medicines (PRIME) designation from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), complementing its existing Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Outlook

Optogenetics for vision restoration is a rapidly advancing field with several companies vying for leadership, but Nanoscope Therapeutics and Ray Therapeutics have emerged as the most compelling frontrunners in my view. Nanoscope leads the pack overall with statistically significant Phase IIb/III results and a Biologics License Application submitted to the FDA, making them the closest to regulatory approval relative to their competitors.

Furthermore, both teams have diversified their strategies. Ray Therapeutics is pursuing both ganglion cell (RTX-015) and bipolar cell (RTX-021, pre-clinical) targets, while Nanoscope Therapeutics is looking at both viral (MCO-010) and non-viral (MCO-020, pre-clinical) opsin delivery approaches.

Notably, GenSight was the scientific first-mover, widely considered a trailblazer in the field. However, their candidate requires the light-amplifying goggles that I mentioned earlier. This strategy probably won’t win out with patients (and therefore, investors). It will likely be adapt-or-fall behind for optogenetic tools relying on external devices.

There are currently other companies with similar offerings at various stages of clinical development, but none are as active or as advanced along their R&D pipelines just yet.

I’ve put together a table comparing the two leaders in this space:

Both Nanoscope Therapeutics and Ray Therapeutics represent a major leap forward in treating late-stage degenerative eye diseases. By utilizing mutation-agnostic optogenetics, these single-injection therapies avoid the complexities of traditional gene editing to restore functional vision.

Whether or not these technologies will eventually lead to full vision restoration remains an important open question in the field right now. How far will optogenetic tools take us? Will they ever be able to reproduce native vision as research and development continue? Time will tell.

I’m very excited to see how this landscape continues to change!

Michael May at Bio-Europe 2024. Image courtesy Felixfoto (Felix Buchele)

Fifteen years ago, regenerative medicine in Canada stood at an inflection point. The science was world-class, the academic talent was undeniable, and the promise of cell and gene therapies was beginning to capture global attention. Yet there was a critical problem: too many discoveries were trapped in laboratories, unable to navigate the long and complex journey to commercialization and patient care. Into that gap stepped the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine (CCRM), an organization built not only to advance science, but to connect people, capital, infrastructure and ideas in ways that could transform an emerging industry.

The origins of CCRM are deeply tied to my story and that of CCRM’s co-founder, Dr. Peter Zandstra. This blog will share my motivations and inspirations for establishing CCRM.

I was raised in rural Ontario near the Grand River and close to where Alexander Graham Bell lived. I learned about Bell at an early age and was inspired by his blend of invention, experimentation and social impact. Bell’s telephone revolutionized communication, while his work with the hearing impaired reflected a commitment to improving lives through innovation. Decades later, BlackBerry’s development of the smartphone along the same river reinforced another lesson: transformational technologies often emerge where networks of talent, entrepreneurship and infrastructure converge.

While studying chemical engineering at the University of Toronto, I saw transformative research taking place. One thing that struck me was how slowly promising discoveries moved toward patients. That realization became a defining mission: To accelerate the translation of breakthrough science into viable therapies and sustainable companies.

With one company under my belt – Rimon Therapeutics – I was offered an exciting opportunity in 2010. MaRS Innovation (now TIAP), the Stem Cell Network, leading regenerative medicine researchers and the University of Toronto asked me to design a commercialization strategy for Canada’s emerging regenerative medicine sector.

Armed with $15 million in seed funding from the Government of Canada and a broad coalition of partners from academia, government, industry and investment, CCRM launched in 2011 with a mandate unlike traditional research organizations. Its role was not to fund science, but to build the ecosystem required to turn scientific promise into real-world impact.

Over the next decade and a half, CCRM has become one of the defining organizations in Canada’s regenerative medicine landscape. It operates at the intersection of science, business and investment, helping bridge the so-called “valley of death” that often prevents early-stage technologies from reaching commercialization. CCRM has supported hundreds of academic and industry projects, helped launch and scale dozens of companies, and contributed to attracting hundreds of millions of dollars in investment into the sector. CCRM’s role in gene therapy company AVROBIO and its 2019 initial public offering enabled CCRM to seed its for-profit investment arm, CCRM Enterprises.

Indeed, several of Canada’s most recognized regenerative medicine success stories carry CCRM’s fingerprints. BlueRock Therapeutics, now a subsidiary of Bayer AG, emerged as a global leader in cell therapies for neurological and cardiovascular diseases. Notch Therapeutics advanced innovative stem cell-derived immunotherapies before being acquired by Roche. Montreal-based ExCellThera has advanced technologies to expand blood stem cells for transplantation and other applications, generating best-in-class clinical outcomes. Together, these companies demonstrate that Canada can generate globally competitive regenerative medicine companies rooted in domestic science and talent.

Thanks to Peter Zandstra, CCRM recognized earlier than many others that manufacturing would determine whether cell and gene therapies could become scalable, accessible health care solutions. Unlike traditional pharmaceuticals, these therapies require highly specialized production processes involving living cells, viral vectors and sophisticated quality controls. Manufacturing complexity has become one of the industry’s greatest bottlenecks and a primary reason why therapies remain so expensive.

CCRM responded by investing heavily in biomanufacturing capabilities, process development and analytics. A momentous achievement was establishing OmniaBio Inc. in Hamilton, Ontario. As Canada’s largest cell and gene therapy contract development and manufacturing organization, OmniaBio represents a major strategic asset for Canada. It provides the infrastructure needed to manufacture therapies from preclinical stages through commercial production, helping ensure promising treatments can move beyond small clinical trials and toward widespread patient access.

The importance of accessibility cannot be overstated. While the global cell and gene therapy market is projected by multiple analysts to exceed US$200 billion within the next decade, there is a growing tension between innovation and affordability. Approved therapies today often cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars per patient. Those price points create enormous challenges for health-care systems, and they raise difficult questions about sustainability and equity.

The future of regenerative medicine, therefore, will not simply be measured by scientific breakthroughs, but by whether therapies can become accessible to the patients who need them most. Not every disease or condition will require, or justify, an expensive, highly personalized cellular therapy. The industry is increasingly recognizing the significance of prioritization: Focusing advanced therapies where they can deliver transformational outcomes for patients with serious unmet medical needs, particularly in areas where conventional medicines fall short.

This is where CCRM’s next phase becomes especially critical. The organization is now evolving from a Canadian innovation hub into a global network model. Existing international hubs in Australia and Sweden demonstrate how CCRM’s ecosystem-building approach can be replicated and adapted in other regions to accelerate regenerative medicine development worldwide. Rather than operating in isolation, these hubs are designed to work collaboratively and synergistically, sharing expertise, infrastructure and investment opportunities across borders.

At the same time, CCRM is positioning itself at the forefront of transformative technologies that could reshape the future of the field. Through its collaboration with IonQ, CCRM has established DeepTech Bio Lab™, a centre of excellence focused on integrating quantum computing, artificial intelligence (AI) and emerging technologies to accelerate biotech companies, especially those in advanced therapies. The initiative reflects a broader recognition that biology is becoming an increasingly data-intensive and computationally complex field. AI-driven discovery tools, advanced modeling systems and quantum-enabled optimization may eventually help reduce development timelines, improve manufacturing efficiency and lower costs.

What has distinguished CCRM throughout its history is its understanding that innovation ecosystems matter as much as scientific discovery itself. Talent pipelines, manufacturing infrastructure, investment networks, public-private partnerships and global collaboration are all essential ingredients in building a sustainable regenerative medicine industry.

Cell and gene therapies have been proven to work. As CCRM enters its next chapter, the challenge now is scaling these therapies responsibly, affordably and globally. If you’d like to help, let’s connect.

Image: Pixabay

Humans have been obsessed with eternal youth for thousands of years. The search for elixirs, tonics, and the philosopher’s stone can be traced back to ancient civilizations. Only in the 1990s, however, did research show that lifespan may be modifiable. Pathways such as mTOR and insulin/IGF-1 were identified, and the field gained respect in academia. More recently, longevity research has exploded. The seminal paper, “The hallmarks of aging,” established nine common denominators of aging that appear during the aging process, accelerate aging if accentuated, and slow the aging process if improved.

It was updated to twelve hallmarks in 2023, which are listed below:

• genomic instability (DNA damage and mutations)
• telomere attrition (shortening of the protective caps at the end of chromosomes)
• epigenetic alterations (reversible DNA modifications that turn genes on and off, such as DNA methylation or histone modification)
• loss of proteostasis (accumulation of misfolded or damaged proteins)
• disabled macroautophagy (inability to remove damaged proteins, organelles, or cells)
• deregulated nutrient sensing (poor detection of energy and nutrient availability)
• mitochondrial dysfunction (inefficient energy production)
• cellular senescence (“zombie cells” that can’t divide anymore but secrete inflammatory signals)
• stem cell exhaustion (loss of ability to repair and regenerate tissue)
• altered intercellular communication (cells no longer communicate effectively, leading to inefficiencies)
• chronic inflammation (constant, low-grade immune response)
• dysbiosis (imbalance of microbes)

This blog post will focus primarily on stem cell exhaustion.

What is stem cell exhaustion and how does it accelerate aging?

As you age, your body’s repair cells, known as stem cells, slowly lose their ability to regenerate tissue. Before they are “exhausted,” stem cells replace worn-down cells, repair damage, and respond to injury. They can make more of themselves (self-renewal) and turn into different types of specialized cells (differentiation). However, over time, they decrease in number, divide less effectively, lose functionality, and even accumulate DNA damage. They become less efficient at repairing your tissues. This is why you experience thinning hair, slower wound healing, muscle loss, and a weaker immune system as you age. Your stem cells have become exhausted. Other hallmarks of aging contribute to stem cell exhaustion, which in turn accentuates other hallmarks of aging, creating a perpetuating cycle of decline.

Examples of stem cell exhaustion and their effects

• Hematopoietic (blood) stem cells (HSCs)

The decline in HSCs weakens the immune system, increasing infection risk and reducing vaccine effectiveness.

• Satellite cells (muscle)

With decreased repair of muscle, there is reduced strength and slower recovery.

• Skin cells

Skin can take longer to heal from cuts and bruises, as well as lose elasticity and wrinkle.

• Intestinal stem cells (gut)

If the gut cannot regenerate, nutrients are absorbed less efficiently, and the permeability of the intestinal lining is increased. This leads to inflammation and dysbiosis – two other hallmarks of aging.

• Neural stem cells (brain)

With reduced neurogenesis (new neuron formation), memory declines.

• Hair follicles

Hair can stop growing and become thin.

• Mesenchymal stem cells (bone)

Bones are constantly adapting to stress and being remodelled. If bone formation cannot keep up with bone breakdown, the risk of osteoporosis and stress fractures increase.

Slowing stem cell exhaustion

It is hypothesized that if a hallmark of aging can be ameliorated (i.e. if stem cell function can be restored), the aging process can be slowed, stopped, or even reversed. The discovery of such an anti-aging drug would be extremely profitable, and this has created the conditions for profit-driven research models, rushed experiments and patenting, false claims and overhype. It is unlikely there will be a one-drug solution to biological aging. Although some therapeutic interventions have shown promise in animals, they are still experimental in humans.

The most studied longevity drugs target pathways, such as mTOR and AMPK. mTOR inhibitors, such as rapamycin, may stimulate autophagy and maintain stem cell function. Signs of aging accumulate as cells divide and grow, and mTOR is a growth signal, so the theory is that inhibiting it will prioritize maintenance and repair overgrowth and reproduction, thereby slowing aging. Although rapamycin has been studied in small clinical trials and is regularly used off label, there haven’t been any large, long-term randomized controlled trials confirming its anti-aging effects in humans. Unlike mTOR, AMPK signals repair and recycling, so compounds that activate it, such as metformin or Berberine, interest researchers and biotech companies. Metformin has been widely studied for type 2 diabetes, but its aging-related outcomes are still developing.

NAD+ boosters, sold as capsules, powders, IVs, injections, drinks, etc., are trending in the mainstream wellness world, hitting US$3.4B sales globally in 2024. NAD+ is an essential coenzyme that helps make energy and repair DNA. It declines as we age, but consuming or injecting it doesn’t necessarily increase lifespan.

There is also a class of drugs known as senolytics. Senolytics kill senescent cells, which are “zombie cells” that no longer divide but release inflammatory signals. It is thought that this will slow aging, and animal trials show compounds like quercetin and fisetin may improve stem cell function. Despite the buzz around senolytics, further research on humans is needed.

Yamanaka factors are genes that can reset a mature cell back into an embryonic-like state, creating induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). The man who identified these genes, Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, won a Nobel Prize for his discovery because it showed mature cells can be fully reprogrammed, which might not just slow aging, but could reverse it. iPSCs can regenerate tissue but, unfortunately, Yamanaka factors aren’t without risks, such as uncontrolled cell growth and cancer.

Many lifestyle interventions have gained traction in the wellness world, such as caloric restriction and exercise. One of the most validated ways to increase longevity is caloric restriction. Eating less inhibits mTOR, activates AMPK, and increases autophagy. But, over time, it can also lower muscle mass and disrupt hormones. Exercise – arguably one of the most powerful aging interventions for humans – has been shown to lower the risk of death. It reduces inflammation, supports stem cell function, promotes neurogenesis, and improves brain health. Unfortunately for investors, lifestyle changes like exercise have the most evidence in humans but aren’t patentable.

Today, billions of dollars are invested in longevity research. However, commercial incentives can lead to misinformation and the overstatement of findings. It is important to be cautious when it comes to products that claim to increase lifespan or reverse aging. Exciting research in the past three decades has shown that it is possible to do so, but human trials are still being conducted.

A scientist analyzing microscopy data. Photo by Faustina Okeke on Unsplash.

Cell therapy manufacturing generates large volumes of process data – from sensors, bioreactors, quality controls and genomic assays. In many facilities, much of that data are collected for regulatory compliance rather than for process improvement – a pattern that continues even as data volumes and sources grow.

The gap between data collected and data used has been identified as a recurring challenge in the field. Addressing it through better analytics tools, clearer data practices and workforce training may help improve manufacturing consistency and, in turn, patient access to therapies.

The data gap in biomanufacturing

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has framed data use as central to its Quality Management Maturity (QMM) initiative, which describes a progression from reactive, compliance-driven data practices toward a state where data actively inform manufacturing decisions. The framework identifies data literacy – the ability of manufacturing teams to interpret and act on process data – as a key factor in that progression.

Manufacturing performance and patient access

Autologous batch failure rates have been reported at up to 25 per cent for some indications, with each failure representing both a financial loss and a patient who does not receive their planned therapy. Research published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics found that increasing CAR T wait times from one to nine months raised predicted one-year mortality from 36 per cent to 76 per cent.

Data presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting found that approximately 26 per cent of myeloma patients died while waiting for commercially available CAR-T therapy, with limited manufacturing capacity and slot availability cited as contributing factors. These findings illustrate how manufacturing timelines can directly affect patient outcomes.

How data analytics are being applied

Automation and real-time monitoring are being explored as ways to reduce the manual handling steps associated with process variability. Process analytical technology (PAT) tools and machine learning models for metabolic pathway optimization are also moving from academic settings onto commercial manufacturing floors.

Several CDMOs and bioprocessing organizations in Canada and internationally are piloting these tools in cell therapy and biologics manufacturing, and full integration of these approaches across production workflows remains a work in progress industry-wide.

Canada’s position in the field

Canada has built relevant infrastructure and institutional capacity in cell and gene therapy manufacturing, though it operates in a global market where research and manufacturing investments vary considerably by jurisdiction. The Next Generation Manufacturing Canada (NGen) 2025–2026 Corporate Plan notes that scaling advanced manufacturing in Canada will require continued public and private investment to remain competitive internationally.

In 2023, Toronto, Ontario, was home to approximately 1,400 life-science businesses employing over 30,000 professionals. The Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy has directed investment toward AI adoption across key sectors, and NGen has set targets of CA$1.3 billion in total innovation investments and 15,000 new direct jobs by 2028. Programs like CanPRIME, CATTI and CASTL are working to address the workforce skills gap in biomanufacturing.

Organizations such as CCRM, NGen and BioCanRx are working to connect research, manufacturing and commercialization within the Canadian ecosystem. Whether those efforts translate into durable competitive strength will depend on continued investment and regulatory clarity.

The patient dimension

The figures on batch failures and waitlist mortality illustrate a direct connection between manufacturing performance and patient outcomes. When failures rise, patients lose their treatment slot. When release timelines extend, patients in serious condition wait longer.

Researchers have noted that improving manufacturing reproducibility and reducing process variability – as discussed in the Cell & Gene article cited above – are among the factors most directly linked to expanding patient access to cell and gene therapies. Better data practices are one component of that, alongside investment in capacity, workforce and regulatory processes.

Looking ahead

The AI-powered cell and gene therapy manufacturing market is projected to grow from approximately US$14.69 billion in 2025 to over US$122 billion by 2034. Which organizations and jurisdictions develop the manufacturing infrastructure and workforce capability to serve that demand is an open question.

Canada has research institutions, manufacturing capacity under development and many organizations working to connect those assets. Converting that into consistent industrial capability will require coordinated investment over time.

The tools for better data use in biomanufacturing are available and are being tested in practice. The evidence base for their value – as seen in the Blood Advances study cited above – continues to grow. How widely they are adopted will depend on investment decisions, workforce development and the degree to which data capabilities are built into manufacturing operations from the outset.