|
This just in: Stem cell research is a go
May 2011
SHARING OPTIONS:
April 29 was an exciting day to be in the news business, as
the world watched a highly anticipated
royal wedding, and an appeals court
rendered a verdict in a controversial case invoking the question of whether the
United States federal government
should provide funding to researchers engaged
in human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research.
The
latter announcement is obviously of more interest to our
readers, and follows nearly a year's worth of coverage of the Sherley, et al., v. Sebelius,
et al.,
case in ddn's various news vehicles.
While it involved no Cartier tiaras or curtsies, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia's ruling crowned the
Obama Administration the victor
in an ongoing debate over whether the U.S. government should help fund research
that involves the destruction of
embryos—which the plaintiffs in the case
argued is a violation of congressional spending laws.
Specifically, the lead plaintiffs in the case—adult stem
cell researchers Dr. James L. Sherley, a biological engineer at Boston
Biomedical Research Institute, and Dr. Theresa Deisher, research
and
development director at AVM Biotechnology LLC in
Seattle—alleged that an order
signed last year by President Barack Obama which lifted a ban on federal
funding for hESC research violates the Dickey-
Wicker Amendment, a law that
prohibits the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) from using
appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes, or
for research in which human embryos
are destroyed.
The plaintiffs further argues
that Obama's order has intensified competition for the limited
government
dollars, making it more difficult for them to get funding for their own work.
Last August,
federal district judge Royce Lamberth, finding
merit in these arguments, temporarily brought federal funding for
embryo-destructive research to a halt.
A month later, the U.S. Court of Appeals
temporarily suspended Lamberth's injunction until the case could be decided.
The most recent decision—which hit newswires just as we put
this issue to bed—reversed Lamberth's ruling, saying it would
impose a
substantial hardship on stem cell researchers who have multi-year projects already
underway. The court's 2-1 decision also found that the
funding of hESC research
is permissible under Dickey-Wicker, as Congress has renewed the amendment every
year with the knowledge that it funds such
research.
The White House reacted swiftly to the decision: "Today's
ruling is a victory for our scientists and patients around the world who stand
to
benefit from the groundbreaking medical research they're pursuing,"
said Nicholas Papas, a White House spokesman.
But while the court's
decision green-lights once again the
use of federal tax dollars for hESC research, it may not be the last word in
this contentious debate, as the
plaintiffs in the case can both continue their
original case before Lamberth as well as appeal this ruling to the full appeals
court or to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Over the summer, in our July, August and September issues, ddn will be taking a closer look at the
history of stem
cell research, which side researchers and the non-scientific
public fall on in this debate and the discoveries being made by companies
engaged in hESC
research. We will, of course, continue to follow this case, in
our special reports as well as on our 24-7 website, www.drugdiscoverynews.com,
and our blog, www.drugdiscoverynews.com/blog. We hope you will both enjoy our
in-depth coverage and contribute to the conversations that will
ultimately
result from the impact of the court's decision.
Back |
Home |
FAQs |
Search |
Submit News Release |
Site Map |
About Us |
Advertising |
Resources |
Contact Us |
Terms & Conditions |
Privacy Policy
|