For the past few years, stem cell research has been all the news in biomedical research, bioethics, U.S. elections, and on Wall Street. Government, public and private academic institutions, and private corporations are contributing financial support and other resources to pursuing the therapeutic and economic dream of regenerative medicine. Not surprisingly, the news has included calls for regulation. Proposed research moratoriums, funding restrictions, and funding expansions, in turn, have been premised on a volatile mix of public policy concerns. The discourses of both abortion and therapeutic hope heavily influenced the initial policy debate in the United States. Both these discourses remain dominant influences, but because some states are now funding human embryonic stem cell research, the debate is beginning to address other concerns. This shift comes as the interdependence between human embryonic stem cell research and the fertility industry becomes apparent. Eggs and embryos are the raw materials for both human embryonic stem cell research and the fertility industry. Eggs and embryos thus form the reason for the interdependence. In the process, the emerging debate has broadened to include concerns about women's agency, status, and health.

In the U.S. stem cell research context, payment restrictions and informed consent standards for providing eggs have become two key points in the regulatory debate. Major players, including the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, have taken positions against payment for providing eggs and for detailed standards in egg donor informed consent.