In 40 seconds
Between 1999 and 2003, NASA's Dr Thomas Goodwin led a four-year study comparing different methods of keeping cells healthy in low-gravity space environments. They tested static magnets, LEDs, and PEMF. PEMF won — by a clear margin. The study found low-frequency, low-intensity, rapidly-varying PEMF produced the best cellular healing and regeneration, accelerated cell growth, improved cellular voltage, and upregulated genes related to collagen production and tissue restoration. The findings underpin most modern PEMF clinical applications — and the NASA patent (MSC-TOPS-96) is still publicly available.
Quick facts
- Years: 1999–2003
- Lead: Dr Thomas Goodwin, NASA
- Tested: Static magnets, LEDs, PEMF
- Winner: PEMF — clearly
- Patent: NASA MSC-TOPS-96
- Why it matters: Underpins modern clinical PEMF protocols
Practical guidance
See FAQ below for specific scenarios.
Contraindications
Standard PEMF contraindications: pacemakers, defibrillators, cochlear implants, insulin pumps, electronic implants; active malignancy without specialist clearance; pregnancy (over the abdomen); active infection; epilepsy without GP clearance.
Frequently asked questions
Did NASA actually study PEMF?
Yes. Dr Thomas Goodwin led a 4-year study and the resulting NASA patent (MSC-TOPS-96) is publicly accessible. This is well-documented, not marketing fiction.
What did they find?
Low-frequency, low-intensity, rapidly-varying PEMF produced the best cellular healing and regeneration. Better than static magnets. Better than LEDs.
Is the patent still valid?
The research is published and the patent is on the NASA T2 portal. Whether the patent itself is enforced is a separate question — the science is the point.
Does this prove PEMF works?
The Goodwin study is one piece of a larger evidence base. Combined with FDA clearances and decades of clinical use, it's part of why PEMF is taken seriously.
Looking for a PEMF clinic near you?
We list every credible PEMF therapy provider in the UK so you can find one near home.