NIH ends fetal tissue research

NIH ends fetal tissue research

By Dan Vergano edited by Claire Cameron

The U.S. National Institutes of Health is ending support for research using human fetal tissue. Agency chief Jay Bhattacharya said in a statement on Thursday that the decision was motivated both by a need to cut costs and the “increasing availability of validated alternative technologies.”

The NIH currently has a nearly $48-billion budget, and in 2025 it spent $53 million on 77 projects that involved human fetal tissues, ranging from HIV studies to joint and tendon regeneration research to investigations into early human development. In response to a request for comment from Scientific American, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services press secretary Emily Hilliard cited Bhattacharya’s statement that “NIH will no longer support research using human fetal tissue.” She did not clarify if the currently ongoing projects will lose their funding as part of this decision.

Human fetal tissues are commonly defined as cells obtained from a dead human embryo or fetus after a spontaneous or induced abortion or stillbirth. Medical researchers have relied on the cells for decades for a myriad of scientific purposes, from developing vaccines to studying disease in “humanized” mice models.

On supporting science journalism

If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The NIH’s move has revived a politically contentious issue that pits abortion opponents—who have been among the most reliable supporters of the Trump administration but are now wavering—against researchers and patients who are pursuing cures for diseases, including ones that can begin in the womb.

“It’s clearly a political decision, not a scientific one,” says Lawrence Goldstein, an emeritus professor of cellular and molecular medicine at University of California, San Diego. “If you want to understand disease during fetal stages, you need the real thing as controls and guidance.”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president and founder of the antiabortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, called antiabortion actions by the Trump administration, including the NIH’s decision, “fantastic news” on Thursday, according to Politico.

This isn’t the first time fetal tissue research has come under federal fire: the George W. Bush administration made similar efforts to limit funding for embryonic stem cell research. The first Trump administration also saw furor over fetal tissues in biomedical research, an episode that culminated in a review board that was filled with abortion opponents nixing almost every already approved proposal for research using the tissues in 2020. The Biden administration reversed the first Trump administration’s restrictions in 2021 and approved new research using such tissues.

“There’s already a general consensus that fetal tissue be used only where there is no adequate substitute and where there is substantial potential benefit, under strict ethical and regulatory parameters,” says health policy expert Alicia Ely Amin, a lecturer on law at Harvard University. “This NIH is once again placing political considerations ahead of the expertise of the scientists conducting specific research.”

Editor’s Note (1/22/26): This article was updated after posting to include additional information. This story is in development and may be updated further.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can’t-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world’s best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.