The NIH Human Fetal Tissue Research Ethics Advisory Board met on 31 July 2020 to “make recommendations regarding the ethics of research involving human fetal tissue (HFT) proposed in NIH grant and cooperative agreement applications and R&D contract proposals, as set forth in the NIH Guide Notice NOT-OD-19-128.” The meeting agenda included a brief time set aside for public comment. Additionally, written comment could be submitted within a prescribed time frame prior to the meeting.
It is my hope that the advisory board seriously considered the following comment penned by this writer, on behalf of the educational non-profit Tennessee Center for Bioethics & Culture:
All human beings belong to one another. Whatever our genetic constitution, our ethnicity, our color, our femaleness or maleness, our geographic location, or stage of life: we are part of the human family. That membership is not bounded by a cradle-to-grave timeline. As human mammals, our beginnings begin before the exodus from our mothers’ wombs. From the fertilization of the egg by the sperm, a new human being arises (and sometimes, multiples). How we treat that human zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, baby, toddler, preschooler, child, adolescent, adult, and elder, has effects on that human being – as well as on ourselves. How we treat other human beings, especially vulnerable ones, tells future generations and civilizations about what kind of people we are.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed into law the NIH Revitalization Act. That Act charged the NIH to conduct or support research that reduced the number of animals used in research, and that produced less pain and distress in those animals (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/pl103-43.pdf). Those are laudable goals. That same 1993 NIH Revitalization Act authorized the use of human fetuses for research, including fetuses from induced abortion (www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/public-law-103-43/index.html). The same law that sought to reduce pain and suffering in animals opened the door wider to using nascent human beings as research subjects. Utilizing tissue that becomes available by virtue of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) does not actively convert living beings into research subjects/objects. It is not a planned procedure that can be scheduled around tissue procurement firms. That is not the case, however, with the use of fetal tissue from induced abortion. The willful taking of tiny, live human beings from their mothers’ wombs, followed by the use of them in whole or in part, as research subjects/objects, sets up a human market. Abortionists and abortion facilities are paid to render a living being into products or parts. Then they are paid again to yield up these beings or parts to research. Money is exchanged for parts or labor, even if said payment is labeled “handling charges.” This is a market, and it is a market in human flesh: a stain upon our culture and our civilization.