The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) is facing renewed scrutiny over its funding of controversial embryo research and its influence on fertility clinic standards and state legislation. In 2026, ASRM awarded $125,000 to a study examining the reproductive effects of testosterone in female mice, with the goal of helping transgender men have children via in vitro fertilization (IVF). The organization also funded projects addressing climate impacts on reproduction, racial disparities in menstrual health, and LGBTQ family-building initiatives, reflecting a broad approach to reproductive medicine.
The ongoing debate centers on the ethical guidelines set by ASRM, which permit research on human embryos if it is likely to provide significant new knowledge benefiting human health or reproduction. This position is outlined in ASRM’s official position statement. Critics, however, argue that this approach devalues embryos, prioritizing profit and social agendas over ethical concerns about the status of human life at its earliest stages.
ASRM, a nonprofit organization with nearly 8,000 members, has played a central role in shaping assisted reproductive technology (ART) protocols and standards in the United States. Its influence is amplified through partnerships with groups such as the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), which certifies more than 90 percent of U.S. fertility clinics. SART requires clinics to adhere to ASRM’s guidelines, effectively making ASRM’s ethical framework the industry standard. In addition to setting clinical standards, ASRM lobbies for policies supporting IVF, abortion access, and transgender care, spending over $1.2 million on lobbying and grassroots efforts between 2022 and 2024.
Embryo Research and Ethical Guidelines
ASRM’s ethics committee maintains that research involving human embryos is justified if it advances understanding of reproduction or disease, as detailed in its 2020 consensus statement. The organization has funded studies that involve the destruction of embryos, including research depriving embryos of oxygen and examining their molecular components. ASRM’s guidelines describe IVF-created embryos as “potential” humans, a stance that has drawn criticism from pro-life advocates who argue that embryos are genetically complete human persons from conception.
Katy Faust, founder of the pro-life group Them Before Us, has warned that the current lack of regulation could lead to a “dystopian future” in reproductive technology. She and other critics argue that the commodification of embryos and the prioritization of technological advancement over ethical considerations could have far-reaching consequences. Emma Waters, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, has argued that ASRM opposes restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) because it threatens the IVF-first business model, which she describes as highly lucrative and largely deregulated.
"[IVF] is one of the most lucrative things in the medical industry because it is [deregulated], and the people that they are serving are often really desperate to have a baby, and they capitalize on that."
— Katy Faust, founder of Them Before Us
Supporters of ASRM’s approach, however, contend that research on embryos is essential for advancing medical knowledge and improving outcomes for patients struggling with infertility or genetic diseases. They argue that strict adherence to evidence-based guidelines and peer-reviewed consensus ensures that research is conducted responsibly and with appropriate oversight.
Legislative Action and Industry Influence
ASRM has actively lobbied against state efforts to define embryos as humans, a legal move that could restrict IVF and related research. In Tennessee, after the closure of an IVF facility that stored many frozen embryos, two bills were introduced to define embryos as humans. ASRM worked with lobbyists to promote an alternative bill requiring all fertility clinics in the state to be SART-certified, effectively mandating compliance with ASRM’s ethical guidelines. That bill became law in May 2026, despite some lawmakers later expressing regret over their votes.
Josh Wood, executive director of Them Before Us, said lawmakers who initially supported the certification bill later sought to distance themselves from it, but the governor ultimately signed it into law. ASRM has indicated it may pursue similar strategies in other states where embryo personhood legislation is being considered, aiming to maintain its influence over fertility clinic standards and reproductive medicine policy.
The organization’s lobbying efforts highlight the complex interplay between scientific advancement, ethical considerations, and legislative action. By shaping both clinical practice and public policy, ASRM continues to play a pivotal role in the evolving landscape of reproductive medicine.
Balancing Perspectives and Ongoing Debate
ASRM describes itself as a leader in ethical reproductive medicine, emphasizing evidence-based education and accessible care for all patients, according to its official overview. The organization acknowledges concerns about the commodification of human life and the potential for discrimination arising from advanced reproductive technologies. However, it maintains that its guidelines are grounded in scientific evidence and peer-reviewed expert consensus, aiming to balance innovation with ethical responsibility.
The controversy surrounding ASRM’s funding decisions and ethical guidelines underscores the growing divide over the status of embryos, the definition of personhood, and the appropriate regulation of fertility treatments. Pro-life advocates argue for stricter oversight and recognition of embryos as human persons, while supporters of ASRM’s approach emphasize the need for scientific progress and patient access to reproductive technologies.
As lawmakers and advocacy groups continue to respond to advances in reproductive technology, ASRM’s influence over both clinical standards and public policy is likely to remain a focal point in state and national debates. The organization’s actions and funding decisions will continue to shape the future of fertility treatments, embryo research, and the broader conversation about the ethics of reproductive medicine.
