ReviewStem cell reports2019
The Ban on US Government Funding Research Using Human Fetal Tissues: How Does This Fit with the NIH Mission to Advance Medical Science for the Benefit of the Citizenry?
Review in Stem cell reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deciding whether to donate fetal tissue for research.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Ethical considerations for advancing research using organoid models derived from the placenta.Human reproduction update · 2025Review
- CRISPR antiviral inhibits neurotrophic JC polyomavirus in 2D and 3D culture models through dual-gRNA excision by SaCas9.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2025Article
- Overcoming challenges of clinical cell therapies for Parkinson's disease with photobiomodulation.Interdisciplinary medicine · 2024Article
- Animal model considerations for chordoma research: reproducing the tumor microenvironmentFrontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Human fetal tissue is critical for biomedical research.Stem cell reports · 2023Review
- Progress in building clinically relevant patient-derived tumor xenograft models for cancer research.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2023Review
- Cell transplantation-based regenerative medicine in liver diseases.Stem cell reports · 2023Review
- Review
- Humanized Mice for Studies of HIV-1 Persistence and Elimination.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Challenges in the clinical advancement of cell therapies for Parkinson's disease.Nature biomedical engineering · 2023Review
- Rescuing human fetal tissue research in the United States: A call for additional regulatory reform.Stem cell reports · 2021Article
- Neuronal cell-based medicines from pluripotent stem cells: Development, production, and preclinical assessment.Stem cells translational medicine · 2021Review
- Perspectives on Non-BLT Humanized Mouse Models for Studying HIV Pathogenesis and Therapy.Viruses · 2021Review
- Skin organoids: A new human model for developmental and translational research.Experimental dermatology · 2021Article
- μ-Lat: A mouse model to evaluate human immunodeficiency virus eradication strategies.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2020Article
- Humanized Mouse Models for Evaluation of PSC Immunogenicity.Current protocols in stem cell biology · 2020Review
- Benefits and limitations of humanized mice in HIV persistence studies.Retrovirology · 2020Review
- Advances in Humanized Mouse Models to Improve Understanding of HIV-1 Pathogenesis and Immune Responses.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Some have argued that human fetal tissue research is unnecessary and/or immoral. Recently, the Trump administration has taken the drastic--and we believe misguided--step to effectively ban government-funded research on fetal tissue altogether. In this article, we show that entire lines of research and their clinical outcomes would not have progressed had fetal tissue been unavailable. We argue that this research has been carried out in a manner that is ethical and legal, and that it has provided knowledge that has saved lives, particularly those of pregnant women, their unborn fetuses, and newborns. We believe that those who support a ban on the use of fetal tissue are halting medical progress and therefore endangering the health and lives of many, and for this they should accept responsibility. At the very least, we challenge them to be true to their beliefs: if they wish to short-circuit a scientific process that has led to medical advances, they should pledge to not accept for themselves the health benefits that such advances provide.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.