UCLA Research Operation Billed $765 for Fetal Tissue Procurement Services

<p>Newly obtained public records indicate that Cercle Allocation Services charged a UCLA research operation a $765 procurement service fee for each liver and thymus specimen. Internal correspondence warns that certain billing language could imply that the tissue itself was being sold.</p><p>The records were obtained from UCLA through a California Public Records Act request made on behalf of Center for Medical Progress founder David Daleiden. They include purchase orders and correspondence between the university and Cercle Allocation Services.</p><p>An internal UCLA order form identifies the purchasing operation as part of the David Geffen School of Medicine’s Division of Hematology-Oncology and references the "Mouse Core." UCLA redacted the names and other identifying information of researchers from the records.</p><p>The records reviewed do not establish that UCLA or its researchers engaged in illegal or unethical conduct regarding these transactions.</p><p>One UCLA purchase order lists seven individually numbered liver and thymus specimens at a unit price of $765, totaling $5,355. Another order from August 18, 2023, lists five specimens at the same unit price, totaling $3,825. Additional purchase orders reflect the same per-specimen amount.</p><p>Cercle objected to the tax treatment of the purchase orders and requested that UCLA reissue them, stating that the charges reflected procurement services and should not be subject to sales tax. The company expressed concern that tax language could imply that the specimens were being sold.</p><p>Cercle does supply human fetal tissue for biomedical research. Peer-reviewed scientific literature has identified the company as a source of human fetal liver tissue used by researchers, providing independent evidence of the type of procurement business described by CMP.</p><p>CMP identified the liver and thymus specimens in the UCLA purchase orders as fetal tissue. However, Fox News Digital has not independently verified that the tissue associated with these specific purchase orders was fetal. The purchase orders identify the organs by type, sample number, and date but do not explicitly describe them as fetal.</p><p>The records do not establish that the payments were illegal. Cercle characterized the payments as fees for procurement services rather than payments for the tissue itself.</p><p>Correspondence shows that the company was particularly concerned about how these payments were described. An accounts manager from Cercle wrote in September 2023, "The overriding issue is the use of terminology that we must not use due to their improper implication that we are selling taxable items, which we are not." The email emphasized the need for clarity in invoicing fees for procurement services.</p><p>The same email indicated that references to sales tax would imply that Cercle was "selling the items received," which the company stated was illegal. Cercle instructed UCLA to ensure that purchase orders authorized payment for its services while linking individual sample numbers and dates to the $765 unit amount.</p><p>UCLA subsequently prepared revised purchase orders after Cercle raised concerns about the tax language. One email from Cercle noted that a July invoice totaling $5,355 for procurements on three dates had already been processed and paid. The company also requested that UCLA replace other purchase orders containing tax language, including one for five procurements from August 18 worth a combined $3,825.</p><p>Federal law prohibits knowingly acquiring, receiving, or transferring human fetal tissue for "valuable consideration" if the transfer affects interstate commerce, while allowing "reasonable payments" associated with transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage.</p><p>The records reviewed do not establish that Cercle or UCLA violated that prohibition. Daleiden contends that the documents raise questions about whether the uniform $765 charges represented permissible reimbursement for procurement-related costs.</p><p>Daleiden pointed to the uniform $765 amount assigned by UCLA to individual specimens on the purchase orders, including multiple organs listed on the same date. He expressed concerns that this structure raises questions about whether the payments reflected permissible procurement-related costs under federal law.</p><p>The documents reviewed do not contain Cercle’s invoices or underlying cost calculations and do not establish whether the $765 amount exceeded reasonable procurement-related expenses. Daleiden also noted that UCLA did not produce Cercle’s invoices in response to the public records request.</p><p>The May 2025 request sought the original and most recent materials associated with UCLA IRB No. 11-002504 and records and communications from 2023 forward between the authors of a specified UCLA study and Advanced Bioscience Resources or Cercle. The request covered records, including emails, text messages, notes, and fetal tissue logs.</p><p>UCLA later stated that its departments had completed their search and that the September 2026 production represented the final batch of non-exempt responsive records. The university redacted certain researcher identities due to concerns about threats and harassment involving sensitive research.</p><p>Records also indicate that the UCLA-Cercle relationship continued into 2025. A February 2025 Cercle ticket involving UCLA was titled "Liver and brain." Cercle responded on March 3 that it had been "unable to fulfill your request today" and canceled the ticket. The records do not specify that the requested tissue was fetal or establish that any brain tissue was ultimately procured or transferred.</p><p>Daleiden has spent years investigating fetal tissue procurement after CMP released undercover videos involving Planned Parenthood officials in 2015. His recording operation later became the subject of a California criminal case.</p><p>The records reviewed do not establish that the UCLA-Cercle transactions violated federal law. UCLA and Cercle have not been accused or charged by authorities with illegal conduct in the transactions reflected in the public records obtained by CMP.</p><p>UCLA and Cercle Allocation Services did not respond to requests for comment.</p>