Category: Hair Cloning

I agree with you that cloning is not going to be available anytime in the immediate future, but why do you say 10 years just for safety issues? According to Intercytex, they have already completed the phase I safety trial. Also, isn’t the fact that scientists have successfully transplanted hair into mice and are now putting it into humans a breakthrought? According to Intercyted Seven human individuals from phase I trial currently have “cloned” hair on their heads. Isn’t that pretty huge?

If a doctor thinks that he can find a stem cell on you and move it to your head in the hope that it will grow hair (it actually might) then the doctor may be allowed to do this if he does this in his office. He has to pay attention to the medical licensing board’s rules on human experimentation, but he will not be going through a hospital-certified facility.

If he takes something out of your body (or even worse, from a mouse as you suggest) and then does something to it, following that by reinjecting it into you, then he is using a ‘drug’ which would then be covered under FDA regulations. Safety and effectiveness for a drug takes many years (15 on average) and cost about $800 million. Thousands of people must be tested and safety and effectiveness must be confirmed according to FDA rules and under FDA guidance. That is why I said 10 years. A cloned mouse hair on a human head fits that timeline for me, but if that happens on your head, be sure to stay away from cats.

Do you think you might be biased because you are a Hair Transplant Doctor? Anybody interested in HM knows you are overplaying health risks. as everyone knows this is a different process altogether than most “experimental drugs” because it is not a drug. It is borderline tissue engineering. it is distasteful to lie to people about HM to sell transplants, please stop.

Note: This question / statement was actually posted as a comment to the recent Intercytex and Hair Cloning post, but I’m replying to it here. Also, I believe that the above mentioned “HM” means “hair multiplication”.

I am always open to new ideas and new criticisms. I am also aware some may consider my answers to be biased. However, the posts on this site are my opinions (or that of my M.D. editors). As clearly stated on the homepage, the goal of BaldingBlog is to educate — not to sell hair transplants.

If you have been following this site, more often than not I have recommended a medical approach to hair loss, such as finasteride. In fact, I do not recall a post where I have recommended a hair transplant directly. Twice before, I have even been accused of working for or being paid by Merck (the company that makes Propecia). That simply is untrue. I do not get paid when a patient takes finasteride (Propecia), nor do I own stock in Merck. I recommend finasteride (Propecia), because it is the only medically proven pill for the treatment of hair loss approved by the FDA.

Hair multiplication or cloning is an experimental process. You may want to participate in it, but it is my medical opinion that it may not be safe and it is clearly not effective today (nor will it become a solution in the short term). That is the essence of the BaldingBlog — medical opinion for hair loss from a medical doctor’s point of view.

As you didn’t provide a legitimate email address for yourself, I am inviting you to write once again with the hope that this time you will include a list of your qualifications for your medical insight, aside from perhaps reading company press releases and marketing jargon. I would be happy to discuss this with you further, as long as you can promise to keep the conversation civil and any insults to yourself.

(Photo source of Dolly the cloned sheep: BBC)

Dr. Rassman, I have some questions about hair cloning and paritcularly about the company Intercytex which is working on hair multiplication. The company says they have completed phase 1 human safety trials and are going to began phase 2 human efficacy trials in mid-2006. They have also been quoted in newspaper sources as projecting that they will have a commerical product by 2010. I take this projection as a grain of salt as I did Ken Washenik’s projections circa 2003 which appears to have been incorrect, but I have some questions about the company and its developments. First, is the company legitimate? It is in a partnership with Johnson and Johnson so it appears to have some legitimacy, what do you think about the company? Second, is it significant that they are doing this in humans, it this a leap forward in the progress of cloning? I believe Aderans and other hair cloning research companies are still playing around with mice. Third, what do these phases mean? Are they part of the FDA approval process, for example is each phase required to follow FDA guidelines and then if the product makes it through all three phases is it then FDA approved, or does it have to go through an FDA approval process following its completion of the phases. Also, can you give some general comments on hair cloning. I know you don’t have a crystal ball and you are probably tired of this question, but how long do think it will be before hair cloning is an established medical practice, 10, 20, 50 years? Hair transplantation was first done in the 1950’s and it took 30-40 years before it became a safe, developed procedure. Do you think hair cloning will have the same kind of growing pains and take a similiar lenth of time to mature? Your answers to these questions would be greatly appreciated by myself and I believe many others. The internet hair loss community seems to be abuzz over this topic. Also, thank you for this blog!!

I have no particular inside knowledge about this company. I read the press releases just like everyone else.

To address your curiosity on phases for drug development and what it means, see: Phases of Product Development

Hair Cloning Timelines: In 1987, Dr. Colin Jahoda first cloned hair. When that happened, the excitement was wonderfully high and the entire world thought that the solution to cloning a human hair for clinical use was around the corner. The cloning worked in petri dishes, but when these cloned hairs were put into bald mice, the cloned hair killed the mice. Now, almost two decades later, we are really no further along. If you look at the drug development steps referenced above, it is important to note that this entire process runs about 16 years and that count is taken from the point where the drug or the approach is first put into the line. For drugs or solutions not yet identified, you must add this timeline of 15-16 years to the first identification of the substance. With the recent debacle just recently on a new drug (Parexel) that went into phase 3 clinical trials (Parexel in hot water) you can see how easily the solution can hit a snag and just how potentially dangerous this process is. For Parexel, it may spell disaster and this event may very well end its short life span. Unfortunately for the 6 people used in the study, their life span may also end with the drug’s life. Of importance, please note that this drug was for treating very disabling or deadly diseases, conditions including multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and leukemia. Hair loss in the classic sense, is neither deadly or painful so risks to protect the consuming public will have standards that are even harsher than with Parexel. As a consumer, we want to believe that miracles are around the corner, that cures for all ailments are within the grasp of modern medicine, but alas, reality is nowhere near our hopes and optimism on such issues. I personally do not believe that the safety issue can be resolved in anything less than 10 years, so do not hold your breath.

It seems that your prediction regarding the effect of regulatory and legislative hurdles to hair “cloning” is based in part on the idea that any type of “cloning” technology will necessarily take longer go get past those hurdles because of our country’s (i.e., the public, legistlators’, and the administrative agencies’) cynical views regarding cloning. Isn’t that a flawed premise? Hair “cloning” is not really cloning at all. No organs are being cloned. Instead, cells are being encouraged to divide and multiply. Those cells then are implanted in the scalp. Although the process is cellular therapy, it is not cloning.

With this in mind, does your analysis change? Thanks for your response.

Hair is actually the biggest organ on our body next to your skin. Hair does not divide naturally and multiply to create copies of itself. That would be cloning.

My views on cloning is independent of the government’s views. It is my opinion that current technology has not progressed to a level where cloning an organ (as simple as it may seem) is in our immediate future. Any process like this will require FDA involvement. That takes time.

Sir, Can you please comment on this:
‘Auto-cloned’ beard hair viable alternative donor source for transplantation

I caught this presentation at a meeting of the ISHRS about 2-3 years ago. I was very impressed with the idea, but the proof was severly lacking with a minimal number of patients presented. Based upon hearing the presentation, Dr. Robert Bernstein and I decided to repeat the process on a few human volunteers. The process failed to work in our hands.

Considering that this doctor has been doing this now for a few years and only 5 patients were shown without publication in a peer review journal, I would look at the study with a jaundiced eye. I tend to believe less of such claims when there is no proper documentation or a good research study based upon good scientific methodology. The world is still rebounding from the Korean debacle for cloning and it shows two things: (1) we are gullible because we want to believe that cloning or this type of ‘free’ hair is something we all can have, and (2) honesty is always the best policy. To date, hair cloining is in its infant stage and there is no guarantee that the industry will develop along the lines of any particular investigator’s approach.

hey doc, thanks for answering my previous question.
Now I gotta question about hair cloning. Lets say that this becomes possible in the next 10 years or so. Don’t you think that due to the ethical issues it will raise, this procedure might be introduced as a cosmetic procedure first before it is used as a body part/organ replacement option? Or maybe, 10 years from now, due to the desentisizing of society by mass media and the acceptance of change, this advancement of mankind may be welcomed with open arms.

The FDA will take a very long time to approved any cloning issues. Add up to 5-10 years after the breakthroughs are in hand. My five year estimate is based on the drug cures that are expedited through the FDA when human lives may end before the ‘cures’ are processed, not something as unimportant as hair cloning. I say unimportant in terms of a comparison for saving or extending lives, or reducing pain and suffering. This is a count backward assessment, for one must now add a solid set of breakthrough to the calculation. At this time I have seen no such breakthroughs introduced into this industry.

Do you think NHI will ever perform hair cloning procedures?

When cloning is a safe and proven method for restoring hair, we will be on the forefront of it. It will take years and years for the FDA to approve the defined process of cloning and that process has not yet been defined. I don’t hold my breath waiting.

Whenever cloning would happen…say 10,20,30 yrs from now, If I will have gray hair…and a veryyyy little black hair…and if the black hair is multiplied, then after those mulitplied black hair are plugged back onto the scalp…will they all grow black or gray?

The cloned hair would take on the characteristics of its original hair because its growth and color pattern will be determined by its gene. Based upon the way the cloning is carried out, if the hair is your own, there is no present understanding of the ‘expression’ of that hair. Color seems not to be high on the cloning agenda. If the genes dictate that the hair will start out black and turn gray through a preset time, then the hair will follow that pattern. However, environmental factors may affect the gene expression earlier or later than anticipated, but we are too early in the learning curve to answer a question like this. Thus, your hair growth and colors will depend on both genetic and environmental factors.

I saw this article yesterday about hair cloning on the UK’s Times Online: Baldness cure firm heads for AIM

Here is an example of a business deal coming down the pike shortly which mixes the anticipation of raising a large amount of money with the excitement of hair cloning. Growing hair in a test-tube from parts of the hair follicle that might eventually produce a head of hair in a balding man is the dream. How far from reality is this? I suspect that the clinical trials will tell us that, but as you may know, clinical trials take time to get from testing to fruition and an FDA approved process that is both safe and effective. Many of these processes fail to make the final mark, so this is a high risk deal for those of you wanting to put your money behind the cloning endeavor. It is even a higher risk deal for those of you waiting and waiting and waiting for the cloning answer to your balding prayer.

I am a 42 year old woman. I have androgenetic alopecia. Its diffuse but now its getting see-through right in the front. What I need is hair cloning because I probably don’t have reliable donor hair from the back. Do you have any suggestions of how I could add more hair to my hairline especially. Is hair cloning getting any closer for all of us. I would appreciate any advice you could give me.
Thank You.

I recently had a conversation with my associate Dr. Robert Bernstein, who in turn spoke to the most prominent hair cloning expert in the world today, Dr. Angela Christiano. The gist of their conversation was that there is nothing new on the horizon at this time that has changed the prospects for hair cloning anytime soon.

Please see our fairly extensive coverage from the past few months in the Hair Cloning category.