US Health Agency Bans Funding for Abortion-Fetal Tissue Research
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world's largest public funder of biomedical research, has announced it will no longer fund studies that use human fetal tissue obtained from elective abortions. The move marks a significant shift in policy, with the NIH citing a desire to modernize its funding priorities.
According to officials, the decision was made by NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, who argued that this change would enable the agency to support more advanced research technologies that can better model human health and disease. Under President Trump's leadership, the NIH had already implemented measures in 2019 to review and evaluate research proposals involving fetal tissue.
However, these restrictions were lifted by his successor, Joe Biden in 2021. The decision comes as researchers have faced opposition from anti-abortion groups, who have sought to ban all such studies. The NIH has maintained that the use of human fetal tissue in research is a legitimate area of inquiry, with significant contributions made towards diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's and infertility.
The agency's move has been met with mixed reactions, with some hailing it as a victory for pro-choice advocates, while others have expressed concern about the potential implications for scientific research. The NIH has acknowledged that funding for studies using fetal tissue from abortions will cease immediately, although researchers will still be able to access tissue from miscarriages.
The decision comes at a time when vaccine development and production are ongoing, with fetal tissue playing a crucial role in the creation of vaccines for polio, hepatitis A, rabies and other diseases. The agency's shift in policy may raise questions about the future of biomedical research and its ability to address pressing health concerns.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world's largest public funder of biomedical research, has announced it will no longer fund studies that use human fetal tissue obtained from elective abortions. The move marks a significant shift in policy, with the NIH citing a desire to modernize its funding priorities.
According to officials, the decision was made by NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, who argued that this change would enable the agency to support more advanced research technologies that can better model human health and disease. Under President Trump's leadership, the NIH had already implemented measures in 2019 to review and evaluate research proposals involving fetal tissue.
However, these restrictions were lifted by his successor, Joe Biden in 2021. The decision comes as researchers have faced opposition from anti-abortion groups, who have sought to ban all such studies. The NIH has maintained that the use of human fetal tissue in research is a legitimate area of inquiry, with significant contributions made towards diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's and infertility.
The agency's move has been met with mixed reactions, with some hailing it as a victory for pro-choice advocates, while others have expressed concern about the potential implications for scientific research. The NIH has acknowledged that funding for studies using fetal tissue from abortions will cease immediately, although researchers will still be able to access tissue from miscarriages.
The decision comes at a time when vaccine development and production are ongoing, with fetal tissue playing a crucial role in the creation of vaccines for polio, hepatitis A, rabies and other diseases. The agency's shift in policy may raise questions about the future of biomedical research and its ability to address pressing health concerns.
. like, what's next? are we gonna stop funding cancer research because it involves cells from tumors? 
or how about HIV research because it uses virus culture? it's just not rational to take away funding for studies that could lead to life-saving discoveries 
. and I'm all for choice, but can't we find a way to respect both sides of the debate without crippling biomedical research? 
. on the other hand, I do get why pro-choice folks are stoked about this decision - it's a win for reproductive rights 
. but what's gonna happen when vaccine production is under threat? that's a whole 'nother can of worms 
. anyway, want to weigh in - do you think this move is a step forward or backward for science? 
. What's next? Banning funding for cancer research or HIV studies? That would be a disaster 
. I'm all for ethics in research, but this feels like a knee-jerk reaction to anti-abortion groups 
. We need to keep an open mind and not sacrifice progress on the altar of politics 
.
it feels like a step back for science in general. i mean, they're basically saying that if you want to develop vaccines or cure diseases, you can't use something that's literally lying around... meanwhile, they're still gonna keep the same old tissue from accidental pregnancies. what's the logic there? 
. We can't just cut funding for research because it makes some people uncomfortable 
. The NIH knows what they're doing and has been doing it for years 
. I'm not saying it's perfect, but to shut down funding for fetal tissue research now? That's just crazy talk 
. What about all the lives that are gonna be lost or affected by diseases we can't even test with human tissue? 
.
. But on the other hand, I worry about the potential impact on our understanding of human health and disease 
. Fetal tissue research has contributed so much to diseases like diabetes and Alzheimer's 
. And what about vaccine development? It's like we're closing the door on a potentially valuable area of study 
. I'm not sure if this shift in policy is necessary or just a reaction to external pressures 
.
They're saying that it's more advanced now, but have they thought about the long-term implications? My daughter is 7 and she got a flu shot last winter... we'd want all kids to be protected like that. What's next?
. But at the same time, I get where they're coming from - wanting to move forward with more advanced research techs 
. It's like, can't we find a way to do both? 
.
. meanwhile, the real world problems like vaccines and diseases need solutions that involve actual science, not just some politician's opinion 
. And don't even get me started on the whole abortion thing... it's a super sensitive topic that should be left out of science 
without thinking about the consequences 
... but for now, I'm just gonna keep on keeping on and hope that science prevails 
.
. And great job, Jay Bhattacharya, I'm sure your "modernization" of research priorities is totally not driven by the pressure from anti-abortion groups 
. On a more serious note (but let's be real, it's hard to be), this shift in policy could really limit our understanding of human health and disease... but hey, who needs that kind of knowledge when you've got vaccines, right? 
not at all. just kidding, kinda. seriously though, i think this move is a big deal. it's a slippery slope, though. what's next? no more funding for research on cancer cells or something? 
researchers are gonna be all "but what about our science?" and the NIH will be like "sorry, kids, you gotta play by new rules now." 
just heard that the US Health Agency is banning funding for Abortion-Fetal Tissue Research 
and now they've gotta deal with all the existing research that was already funded 
and then expecting everyone to just move on 
but honestly who needs proof from human embryos when you have animal models or computer simulations already? and whats with the timing? vaccine production is still ongoing and now we might lose access to this resource 
. But at the same time, I get why pro-choice advocates might feel like this decision is an attack on their values 
. And what about the vaccines? Are we just gonna sit here and wait for people to get sick because we can't fund research that could save lives?