There is concern that translation 'from bench to bedside' within regenerative medicine (RM) will fail to materialize, or will be dismally slow, due to various challenges arising from the highly novel and disruptive nature of RM. In this article, we provide a summary of these challenges, and we critically engage with the notion that such challenges are specific to RM. It is important, we argue, not to overstate the exceptional nature of RM, as valuable lessons can be learned from elsewhere in medicine. Using several examples of technology adoption, we suggest that emerging RM products and procedures will have to work hard to find or create an adoption space if translation into the clinic is to be successful.

In 2007, the European Union adopted a lex specialis, Regulation (EC) No. 1394/2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), a new legal category of medical product in regenerative medicine. The regulation applies to ATMPs prepared industrially or manufactured by a method involving an industrial process. It also provides a hospital exemption, which means that medicinal products not regulated by EU law do not benefit from a harmonized regime across the European Union but have to respect national laws. This article describes the recent EU laws, and contrasts two national regimes, asking how France and the United Kingdom regulate ATMPs which do and do not fall under the scope of Regulation (EC) No. 1394/2007. What are the different legal categories and their enforceable regimes, and how does the evolution of these highly complex regimes interact with the material world of regenerative medicine and the regulatory bodies and socioeconomic actors participating in it?

As there is no consensus within European Birth cohorts how to deal with results and incidental findings, we propose a general policy.