No new administration in recent history has raised as much concern among U.S. scientists as the ascendance of the Trump administration. And while climate sciences do get most media attention, reproductive sciences, likely, have some of the best reasons to be concerned.
Major universities have proactively started to review their funding support in various research areas but especially in politically controversial areas, like climate and reproductive sciences, and are developing contingency plans, should the federal government restrict current funding or even curtail future funding. Considering the control the Republican Party holds over both houses and the presidency, the party’s reinvigorated “pro-life” platform is, of course, of special concern for clinicians and investigators in reproductive medicine and reproductive biology, since both areas potentially involve the use of human embryos, for the longest time an antithesis of the right-to-life movement.
As one of the leading clinical and research centers in reproductive medicine, the position of the federal government on what research can be performed and what clinical treatments can be applied to patients in the U.S. greatly matters to CHR. Though CHR, by intent, never pursued federal funding sources, CHR closely collaborates with several major institutions, which are receiving substantial federal grant resources in support of their research.
We, therefore, decided to dedicate the lead article of this month’s VOICE to the current political concerns of the reproductive science community. As the principal beneficiaries of state-of-the-arts research and quick clinical applications of new discoveries in reproductive medicine, our patients are, after all, our best “ambassadors” to the community. Read CHR’s take on medical research and government.
Also in this issue:
- Setting the record straight
- Transferring 2 embryos reduced pregnancy rates!?
- In Focus: DNA damages in ovarian follicle
- CHR news