Do major medical advances justify stem cell research with aborted fetuses?

Stem cell science is a big deal in California, thanks to the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, a state agency that has allocated almost $2 billion in research grants since 2004 (federal funding is still highly restricted). To meet the demand for cells, researchers turned to a procedure protected by federal law: abortions.

The use of fetal tissue in research is not new. Fetal cells extracted from the lungs of two aborted fetuses from Europe in the 1960s are still being propagated in cell culture. They’re so successful that today we still use them to produce vaccines for hepatitis A, rubella, chickenpox and shingles. From two terminated pregnancies, countless lives have been spared.

It isn’t just vaccines. Scientists at the University of California, San Diego, have injected neural stem cells into two patients to treat their spinal cord injuries. And progress is being made in the use of stem-cell therapies against cancer, blindness, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, H.I.V. and diabetes.

As impressive as this is, for critics the lives saved cannot make up for those that have been lost. And as important as I believe my research was, I sympathize with that sense of loss, even after leaving the lab for Boston.

Every week when new fetal tissue was delivered in a FedEx box, uneasiness permeated the lab. We all knew that the tissues contained within were precious. We planned our experiments meticulously, trying not to waste a single drop. We rationalized using the cells by telling one another that the abortions would happen regardless of whether we used the tissue for research. And we knew that if we didn’t use the tissue it was bound for the trash.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: The Case for Fetal-Cell Research

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-10-01-at-10.52.08-AM
Non-browning CRISPR gene-edited bananas move one step closer to British markets
AI-Force-Leadership-Portrait
Jay Clayton controversy: The divisive history of Trump’s newly-appointed AI czar
Screenshot-2026-09-22-at-10.54.12-AM
‘They misunderstand science’: Research attempting to tie autism to changes in the gut microbiome comes under fire
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Elderly-Speaker-at-MAHA-Institute
At anti-vaccine MAHA conference, RFK Jr. pledges to unify federal health information and combat vaccine safety ‘misinformation’
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-21-2026-11_21_39-AM
Viewpoint: Food cults: Online ‘nutrition communities’ can pose unique dangers
Screenshot 2026-10-01 at 12.30
Combating ‘narrative distortion’: Will pharma companies step up to challenge health misinformation?
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-10-2026-10_36_07-AM
Viewpoint: Even lousy scientific articles can shield authors when they hype dubious health claims and products
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-21-2026-03_15_09-PM
Viewpoint: Chipotle-inspired lesson: 10,000 sick customers suggest that processed foods can be safer than fresh ones
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.