US Healthcare Agency Ditches Human Fetal Tissue in Research Funding
In a significant policy shift, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced on Thursday that it will no longer fund research using human fetal tissue obtained from elective abortions. The decision marks a major victory for anti-abortion advocates who have long campaigned against such research.
The NIH's decision takes effect immediately and is part of an effort to modernize the agency's approach to biomedical research, according to Jay Bhattacharya, the NIH's director. According to Bhattacharya, this move is aimed at investing in breakthrough technologies that can better model human health and disease.
While the number of NIH-backed projects involving fetal tissue from abortions has been declining since 2019, with only 77 such projects receiving funding in fiscal year 2024 for a total of $60 million, critics argue that alternative sources of tissue are often more difficult to obtain. Fetal tissue obtained from miscarriages, for instance, may be tainted by genetic or chromosomal abnormalities that make it unsuitable for research.
The NIH's decision follows a series of moves aimed at restricting the use of fetal tissue in research. In 2019, during Donald Trump's presidency, the agency stopped funding internal research involving fetal tissue and established a review committee to evaluate proposals from outside scientists. The policy was reversed by Joe Biden in 2021.
Fetal tissue has played a crucial role in advancing research into various diseases, including diabetes, Alzheimer's, and infertility. It has also contributed to the development of vaccines for polio, hepatitis A, rabies, and other illnesses. Despite its importance, the use of human fetal tissue in research remains highly contentious among pro-life activists and scientists alike.
In a significant policy shift, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced on Thursday that it will no longer fund research using human fetal tissue obtained from elective abortions. The decision marks a major victory for anti-abortion advocates who have long campaigned against such research.
The NIH's decision takes effect immediately and is part of an effort to modernize the agency's approach to biomedical research, according to Jay Bhattacharya, the NIH's director. According to Bhattacharya, this move is aimed at investing in breakthrough technologies that can better model human health and disease.
While the number of NIH-backed projects involving fetal tissue from abortions has been declining since 2019, with only 77 such projects receiving funding in fiscal year 2024 for a total of $60 million, critics argue that alternative sources of tissue are often more difficult to obtain. Fetal tissue obtained from miscarriages, for instance, may be tainted by genetic or chromosomal abnormalities that make it unsuitable for research.
The NIH's decision follows a series of moves aimed at restricting the use of fetal tissue in research. In 2019, during Donald Trump's presidency, the agency stopped funding internal research involving fetal tissue and established a review committee to evaluate proposals from outside scientists. The policy was reversed by Joe Biden in 2021.
Fetal tissue has played a crucial role in advancing research into various diseases, including diabetes, Alzheimer's, and infertility. It has also contributed to the development of vaccines for polio, hepatitis A, rabies, and other illnesses. Despite its importance, the use of human fetal tissue in research remains highly contentious among pro-life activists and scientists alike.
I think it's a big deal that they're ditching the human fetal tissue in research funding. It shows the NIH is willing to take a closer look at their methods and maybe find better alternatives 
. But on the other hand, some researchers might be stuck without a reliable source of tissue, right? 
I've seen people arguing that there are other sources available, like miscarriage tissue, but I guess those can be tricky to work with too 
. I'm not sure if this is all good or bad, but it's definitely an interesting shift in policy! 
! I thought for sure they'd still be using it to study diseases and stuff. But like, good on them for modernizing their approach 
. I get why the anti-abortion people were pushing for a change, though - it's definitely a super sensitive topic 
. And yeah, fetal tissue from miscarriages can be sketchy too 
. It'll be interesting to see how they replace it with alternative sources... maybe we'll get some breakthroughs in vaccine development soon 
! The NIH is trying to do something good here, even if it's not perfect 
.
but come on, who needs all that drama? 
at least now they're focusing on more "breakthrough" research 
and i love how he's all about making things better for humanity 
let's just hope they don't mess it up now 
they finally took that step towards reducin the us gov's involvement in usin human fetal tissue in research! 
. Some people might be worried about alternative sources being harder to get or tainted with genetic issues, but overall I think this is a step towards modernizing research methods 
.
. I mean, what's next? Giving up on cancer research because it's too "morally questionable"? 
It's not like the alternative sources are that readily available or reliable... fetal tissue from miscarriages is basically a ticking time bomb for genetic errors 
This decision is just a huge setback for science and human progress 
.
... but at the same time, I'm thinking it's a shame because we won't have access to certain types of data that can help us understand diseases better 
... or maybe they're just trying to appease the anti-abortion crowd and it's a huge step forward for inclusivity 
?... but what if this means we'll have to start using mice models again, which are just so last century 
.
, but this decision from the NIH is kinda weird. I mean, they're basically cutting off a source of info that's helped us learn so much about diseases. It's not like they're using it to harvest organs or anything, they're just studying it to understand more about human health. And what's the alternative? Using tissue from miscarriages? That might be tainted with genetic issues... it's a bit like trying to fix a car without knowing what parts to replace 
. It feels like we're taking a step back in the name of being pro-life, but are we really doing ourselves and future researchers a favor?