US state passes law allowing experimental drugs to be prescribed – a model for the future?
The US state of Montana has become the first in the country to let patients try experimental drugs – even if they are not terminally ill.
The new law allows doctors to refer patients to licensed 'experimental treatment centres', where they can access drugs that have only passed phase 1 clinical trials – the earliest stage of testing in humans.
This goes far beyond existing federal law, which only allows terminally ill patients to access such drugs under the Right to Try Act, passed in 2017.
Montana already had a fairly permissive right to try law, which was originally designed to let terminally ill patients access treatments that hadn't yet received full approval by the drug regulator.
In 2023, that law was expanded to include patients with any medical condition. The latest law goes even further, creating a formal system for clinics to offer these experimental treatments.
According to an article in MIT Technology Review, the new law was shaped and promoted by a group of longevity advocates – a mix of scientists and influencers who are focused on extending human life.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Before new medicines reach the market, they usually go through several stages of testing. A phase 1 trial is the first step in human studies and is designed to find a safe dose and spot early side-effects. It typically involves a small group – between 20 and 100 people – and does not prove the drug works.
Only around 12% of drugs that enter phase 1 trials go on to gain full approval. Many fail due to safety issues or lack of effectiveness.
Montana's new law allows access to these early-stage treatments with a doctor's recommendation – even for patients who are not terminally ill. Clinics must be licensed as experimental treatment centres, and 2% of their profits must be used to help low-income patients access these therapies.
Supporters say it gives people more control over their own health and could help boost innovation in areas like cancer, neurodegenerative disease and age-related decline. There is also hope it could turn Montana into a destination for medical tourism, attracting biotech investment.
But critics warn that the move could put vulnerable patients at risk.
Drugs in phase 1 trials may be safe enough to test – but their long-term effects are still unknown, and they may not work. There are also concerns over whether insurers will cover complications, since the drugs are not approved. Legal protections for both patients and doctors remain unclear.
Elsewhere in the world, access to experimental drugs is more tightly controlled.
In the UK, experimental drugs are usually only available through formal clinical trials or special 'compassionate use' requests – all subject to strict oversight by regulators like the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Health Research Authority.
The same applies across the EU, where compassionate use is typically limited to drugs in later stages of testing.
Japan has a similar system, called 'expanded access clinical trials', which also limits use to drugs already in phase 2 or beyond.
And in South America, some countries allow patients to keep receiving experimental drugs after trials end – but not to start them outside of a trial.
Montana's decision marks a bold new approach in the continuing debate over patient rights. It raises big questions about safety, ethics, regulation and the role of government in balancing innovation with public health. It could end up being a model for other states – or a cautionary tale.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Dipa Kamdar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
US state passes law allowing experimental drugs to be prescribed – a model for the future?
The US state of Montana has become the first in the country to let patients try experimental drugs – even if they are not terminally ill. The new law allows doctors to refer patients to licensed 'experimental treatment centres', where they can access drugs that have only passed phase 1 clinical trials – the earliest stage of testing in humans. This goes far beyond existing federal law, which only allows terminally ill patients to access such drugs under the Right to Try Act, passed in 2017. Montana already had a fairly permissive right to try law, which was originally designed to let terminally ill patients access treatments that hadn't yet received full approval by the drug regulator. In 2023, that law was expanded to include patients with any medical condition. The latest law goes even further, creating a formal system for clinics to offer these experimental treatments. According to an article in MIT Technology Review, the new law was shaped and promoted by a group of longevity advocates – a mix of scientists and influencers who are focused on extending human life. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Before new medicines reach the market, they usually go through several stages of testing. A phase 1 trial is the first step in human studies and is designed to find a safe dose and spot early side-effects. It typically involves a small group – between 20 and 100 people – and does not prove the drug works. Only around 12% of drugs that enter phase 1 trials go on to gain full approval. Many fail due to safety issues or lack of effectiveness. Montana's new law allows access to these early-stage treatments with a doctor's recommendation – even for patients who are not terminally ill. Clinics must be licensed as experimental treatment centres, and 2% of their profits must be used to help low-income patients access these therapies. Supporters say it gives people more control over their own health and could help boost innovation in areas like cancer, neurodegenerative disease and age-related decline. There is also hope it could turn Montana into a destination for medical tourism, attracting biotech investment. But critics warn that the move could put vulnerable patients at risk. Drugs in phase 1 trials may be safe enough to test – but their long-term effects are still unknown, and they may not work. There are also concerns over whether insurers will cover complications, since the drugs are not approved. Legal protections for both patients and doctors remain unclear. Elsewhere in the world, access to experimental drugs is more tightly controlled. In the UK, experimental drugs are usually only available through formal clinical trials or special 'compassionate use' requests – all subject to strict oversight by regulators like the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Health Research Authority. The same applies across the EU, where compassionate use is typically limited to drugs in later stages of testing. Japan has a similar system, called 'expanded access clinical trials', which also limits use to drugs already in phase 2 or beyond. And in South America, some countries allow patients to keep receiving experimental drugs after trials end – but not to start them outside of a trial. Montana's decision marks a bold new approach in the continuing debate over patient rights. It raises big questions about safety, ethics, regulation and the role of government in balancing innovation with public health. It could end up being a model for other states – or a cautionary tale. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Dipa Kamdar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Rosemary has been linked to better memory, lower anxiety and even protection from Alzheimer's
Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis), the aromatic herb native to the Mediterranean, has long been treasured in kitchens around the world. But beyond its culinary charm, rosemary is also gaining recognition for its impressive health benefits, especially when it comes to brain health, inflammation and immune function. Research suggests rosemary may even hold promise in the fight against Alzheimer's disease, the leading cause of dementia worldwide. Historically, rosemary has been linked to memory and mental clarity. In ancient Greece and Rome, students and scholars used rosemary in the hope of sharpening concentration and recall. Modern science is finding there may have been something in this: in one study, people who inhaled rosemary's scent performed better on memory tasks compared to those in an unscented environment. So how does rosemary work on the brain? There are several mechanisms at play. For starters, rosemary stimulates blood circulation, including to the brain, helping deliver more oxygen and nutrients, which may improve mental clarity. It also has calming properties; some studies suggest its aroma can reduce anxiety and improve sleep. Lower stress can mean better focus and memory retention. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Rosemary contains compounds that interact with the brain's neurotransmitters. One such compound, 1,8-cineole, helps prevent the breakdown of acetylcholine, a brain chemical essential for learning and memory. By preserving acetylcholine, rosemary may help support cognitive performance, especially as we age. Another bonus? Rosemary is packed with antioxidants, which help protect brain cells from damage caused by oxidative stress – a major factor in cognitive decline. Rosemary is rich in phytochemicals, plant compounds with health-enhancing effects. One of the most powerful is carnosic acid, an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory agent that helps shield brain cells from harm, particularly from the kinds of damage linked to Alzheimer's disease. Read more: In 2025, researchers developed a stable version of carnosic acid called diAcCA. In promising pre-clinical studies, this compound improved memory, boosted the number of synapses (the connections between brain cells), and reduced harmful Alzheimer's related proteins like amyloid-beta and tau. What's especially exciting is that diAcCA only activates in inflamed brain regions, which could minimise side effects. So far, studies in mice show no signs of toxicity and significant cognitive improvements – raising hopes that human trials could be next. Researchers also believe diAcCA could help treat other inflammatory conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and Parkinson's disease. Rosemary's benefits could extend well beyond the brain. It's been used traditionally to ease digestion, relieve bloating and reduce inflammation. Compounds like rosmarinic acid and ursolic acid are known for their anti-inflammatory effects throughout the body. Rosemary may even benefit the skin – a review suggests it can help soothe acne and eczema, while carnosic acid may offer anti-ageing benefits by protecting skin from sun damage. Rosemary oil also has antimicrobial properties, showing promise in food preservation and potential pharmaceutical applications by inhibiting the growth of bacteria and fungi. For most people, rosemary is safe when used in food, teas or aromatherapy. But concentrated doses or extracts can pose risks. Consuming large amounts may cause vomiting or, in rare cases, seizures – particularly in people with epilepsy. There's also a theoretical risk of rosemary stimulating uterine contractions, so pregnant people should avoid high doses. Because rosemary can interact with some medications – such as blood thinners – it's best to check with a healthcare provider before taking large amounts in supplement form. Rosemary is more than just a kitchen staple. It's a natural remedy with ancient roots and modern scientific backing. As research continues, particularly into breakthrough compounds like diAcCA, rosemary could play an exciting role in future treatments for Alzheimer's and other chronic conditions. In the meantime, adding a little rosemary to your life – whether in a meal, a cup of tea, or a breath of its fragrant oil – could be a small step with big health benefits. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Dipa Kamdar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
How did humans evolve such rotten genetics?
To Shakespeare's Hamlet we humans are 'the paragon of animals'. But recent advances in genetics are suggesting that humans are far from being evolution's greatest achievement. For example, humans have an exceptionally high proportion of fertilised eggs that have the wrong number of chromosomes and one of the highest rates of harmful genetic mutation. In my new book The Evolution of Imperfection I suggest that two features of our biology explain why our genetics are in such a poor state. First, we evolved a lot of our human features when our populations were small and second, we feed our young across a placenta. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Our reproduction is notoriously risky for both mother and embryo. For every child born another two fertilised eggs never made it. Most human early embryos have chromosomal problems. For older mothers, these embryos tend to have too many or too few chromosomes due to problems in the process of making eggs with just one copy of each chromosome. Most chromosomally abnormal embryos don't make it to week six so are never a recognised pregnancy. About 15% of recognised pregnancies spontaneously miscarry, usually before week 12, rising to 65% in women over 40. About half of miscarriages are because of chromosomal issues. Other mammals have similar chromosome-number problems but with an error rate of about 1% per chromosome. Cows should have 30 chromosomes in sperm or egg but about 30% of their fertilised eggs have odd chromosome numbers. Humans with 23 chromosomes should have about 23% of fertilised eggs with the wrong number of chromosomes but our rate is higher in part because we presently reproduce late and chromosomal errors escalate with maternal age. Survive that, then gestational diabetes and high blood pressures issues await, most notably pre-eclampsia, potentially lethal to mother and child, affecting about 5% of pregnancies. It is unique to humans. Historically, up until about 1800, childbirth was remarkably dangerous with about 1% maternal mortality risk, largely owing to pre-eclampsia, bleeding and infection. In Japanese macaques by contrast, despite offspring also having a large head, maternal mortality isn't seen. Advances in maternal care have seen current UK maternal mortality rates plummet to 0.01%. Many of these problems are contingent on the placenta. Compare us to a kiwi bird that loads its large egg with resources and sits on it, even if it is dead: time and energy wasted. In mammals, if the embryo is not viable, the mother may not even know she had conceived. The high rate of chromosomal issues in our early embryos is a mammalian trait connected to the fact that early termination of a pregnancy lessens the costs, meaning less time wasted holding onto a dead embryo and not giving up the resources that are needed for a viable embryo to grow into a baby. But reduced costs are not enough to explain why chromosomal problems are so common in mammals. During the process of making a fertilisable egg with one copy of each chromosome, a sister cell is produced, called the polar body. It's there to discard half of the chromosomes. It can 'pay' in evolutionary terms for a chromosome to not go to the polar body when it should instead stay behind in the soon to be fertilised egg. It forces redirection of resources to viable offspring. This can explain why chromosomal errors are mostly maternal and why, given their lack of ability to redirect saved energy, other vertebrates don't seem to have embryonic chromosome problems. Our problems with gestational diabetes are a consequence of foetuses releasing chemicals from the placenta into the mother's blood to keep glucose available. The problems with pre-eclampsia are associated with malfunctioning placentas, in part owing to maternal immune rejection of the foetus. Regular unprotected sex can protect women against pre-eclampsia by helping the mother become used to paternal proteins. The fact that pre-eclampsia is human-specific may be related to our exceptionally invasive placenta that burrows deep into the uterine lining, possibly required to build our unusually large brains. Our other peculiarities are predicted by the most influential evolutionary theory of the last 50 years, the nearly-neutral theory. It states that natural selection is less efficient when a species has few individuals. A slightly harmful mutation can be removed from a population if that population is large but can increase in frequency, by chance, if the population is small. Most human-specific features evolved when our population size was around 10,000 in Africa prior to its recent (last 20,000 years) expansion. Minuscule compared to, for example, bacterial populations. This explains why we have such a bloated genome. The main job of DNA is to give instructions to our cells about how to make the proteins vital for life. That is done by just 1% of our DNA but by 85% of that of our gut-dwelling bacteria Escherichia coli. Some of our DNA is required for other reasons, such as controlling which genes get activated and when. Yet only about 10% of our DNA shows any signs of being useful. If you have a small population size, you also have more problems stopping genetical errors like mutations. Although DNA mutations can be beneficial, they are more commonly a curse. They are the basis of genetic diseases, be they complex (such as Crohn's disease and predispositions to cancer), or owing to single gene effects (like cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease). We have one of the highest mutation rates of all species. Other species with massive populations have mutation rates over three orders of magnitude lower, another prediction of the nearly-neutral theory. A consequence of our high mutation rate is that around 5% of us suffer a 'rare' genetic disease. Modern medicine may help cure our many ailments, but if we can't do anything about our mutation rate, we will still get ill. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Laurence D. Hurst is the author of The Evolution of Imperfection, published by Princeton University Press. This was enabled by funding from The Humboldt Foundation and the European Research Council.
