History of science and philosophy of science have found various ways to be friends over the millennia. I offer a case study in favor of the claim that in drawing on both history of science and philosophy of science, it is possible to make science better. Making this case requires understanding what it means to assert that the science is better as well as how we can know. I do not pretend to have an argument completely worked out for this claim. Yet I propose that the particular example of regenerative medical research allows a strong demonstration that at the very least goes far toward making such an argument.