WASHINGTON — The Trump administration announced Wednesday that the federal government would sharply curtail federal spending on medical research that uses tissue from aborted fetuses, mainly by ending fetal-tissue research within the National Institutes of Health.
The move goes a long way toward fulfilling a top goal of anti-abortion groups that have lobbied hard for it; it is just the latest in a string of decisions that have pleased such groups. But scientists say the tissue is crucial for studies that benefit millions of patients.
Besides ending N.I.H. research, the Department of Health and Human Services said it would immediately cancel a $2 million-a-year contract with the University of California, San Francisco, for research involving fetal tissue from abortions; the contract started in 2013. Other university research projects would be subject to case-by-case review.
“Promoting the dignity of human life from conception to natural death is one of the very top priorities of President Trump’s administration,” the department said in a statement. It added that about 200 research projects involving fetal tissue and conducted at universities with N.I.H. grants would be allowed to continue until their funding expires, but that ethics advisory boards appointed by Alex M. Azar II, the health and human services secretary, would review and recommend whether to fund future individual projects involving aborted fetal tissue.
Researchers responded with shock. Sam Hawgood, the chancellor of the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement Wednesday that “today’s action ends a 30-year partnership with the N.I.H. to use specially designed models that could be developed only through the use of fetal tissue to find a cure for H.I.V. U.C.S.F. exercised appropriate oversight and complied with all state and federal laws.”
He added, “We believe this decision to be politically motivated, shortsighted and not based on sound science.”
Lawrence O. Gostin, a professor specializing in public health law at Georgetown University, said the new restrictions would “devastate” crucial medical research.
“It will affect everything from cures for cancer and H.I.V. through to Parkinson’s and dementia,” Mr. Gostin said. “The ban on fetal tissue research is akin to a ban on hope for millions of Americans suffering from life-threatening and debilitating diseases. It will also severely impact the National Institutes of Health, universities and other researchers, who will lose key funding for their laboratories and their vital work.”
The announcement was the latest in a series of Trump administration moves to appease opponents of abortion, a major faction in the president’s political base. Those include barring Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide abortion referrals from receiving federal family planning money, and expanding protections for health care providers who refuse to take part in abortions on moral or religious grounds.
Critics say it also fit a pattern by the administration of diminishing the role of science and research in policymaking, including on climate change, tax cuts and tariffs.
Shortly after he took office, President Bill Clinton lifted a five-year ban on fetal tissue research imposed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. The fight flared again in 2015, after anti-abortion activists released doctored videos they secretly took, purporting to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing plans to illegally sell aborted fetal tissue for research. House Republicans began an investigation of the fetal-tissue market; a number of states also investigated but found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood.
Anti-abortion groups were quick to applaud the decision and played down any effect on medical research.
“Most Americans do not want their tax dollars creating a marketplace for aborted baby body parts, which are then implanted into mice and used for experimentation,” said Jeanne Mancini, the president of March for Life. “This type of research involves the gross violation of basic human rights and certainly the government has no business funding it.”
Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 House Republican, declared, “The government has no business subsidizing researchers that traffic the body parts of aborted babies.”
The Health and Human Services Department announced in September that it would conduct a comprehensive review of research that it funds involving fetal tissue “to ensure consistency with statutes and regulations.” It cited “serious regulatory, moral and ethical considerations” and said it would also continue to research alternatives and make sure those alternatives were “funded and accelerated.”
In December, the N.I.H. said it would spend $20 million over the next two years on research seeking alternatives to fetal tissue.
As of last year, the N.I.H. spent about $100 million of its $37 billion annual budget on research projects involving fetal tissue. The tissue is used to test drugs, develop vaccines and study cancer, AIDS, Parkinson’s disease, birth defects, blindness and other disorders. For much of that work, scientists say there is no substitute for fetal tissue.
“Claims that other cells can be used to replace fetal tissue in biomedical research are patently incorrect,” dozens of scientific and medical groups wrote in a letter to Mr. Azar in December. “While there have been some advances in recent years that have reduced the need for fetal tissue in certain areas of research, it remains critically important in many other areas.”
Scientists at the University of California, San Francisco, have been using fetal tissue to create so-called humanized mice — engrafted with the tissue to make them respond more like humans — which can then be used to test drugs and vaccines. But opponents of fetal tissue research say alternatives, such as donated thymus tissue from infants who undergo heart surgery, or adult stem cells, are better.
“There are ample ethically derived sources and alternatives,” said David Prentice, vice president and research director for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group. He called the move by the Health and Human Services Department “a good step, but a preliminary step,” adding that he hoped the administration would end federal funding to all universities for research involving fetal tissue from abortions.
Equity Forward, a watchdog group that promotes abortion rights, questioned why the Health and Human Services Department had not made public any results of its review of fetal tissue research. Mary Alice Carter, the group’s senior adviser, said in a statement that Mr. Azar “is putting millions of dollars in lifesaving research at risk to please a small group of anti-abortion extremists.”
“The fact is, there is no scientific reason to endanger this vital research funding,” Ms. Carter said. “Congress should use the power of the purse to put science ahead of ideology and continue funding these vital programs.”
According to the Health and Human Services Department, the N.I.H. has three active research projects involving fetal tissue from abortions, out of 3,065 internal projects.
Some scientists were puzzling over the announcement on Wednesday, wondering in particular about who would be appointed to the new ethics advisory boards and what exactly the boards would consider. According to the department, each board would include 14 to 20 people, at least one-third of whom would be scientists “with substantial accomplishments in biomedical or behavioral research.” Each board must also include a lawyer, an ethicist, a practicing physician and a theologian.
The American Medical Association, by far the largest advocacy group for doctors, was among those speaking out against the new restrictions, noting in a statement that fetal tissue played a role in the development of the polio vaccine.
“Fetal tissue has a role in legitimate scientific research, including transplantation, and federal funding is crucial for such research,” said the group’s president, Dr. Barbara L. McAneny. “Fetal tissue obtained during the termination of a pregnancy should be handled no differently than other tissues obtained during a medical procedure.”
