The federal government can continue to finance embryonic-stem-cell research, temporarily, because a federal appeals court on Thursday lifted an injunction that had blocked such work. The move added to optimism about eventual victory for university scientists who use this research in a search for cures for a range of devastating diseases.
The original injunction was issued August 23 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia. The appeals court lifted it after the Justice Department argued that the ban would harm both scientists and taxpayers.
But the court also ordered the two sides in the case to submit written briefs by September 20 setting out their arguments for whether the injunction should be put back into effect for an expected trial lasting several months. During that trial, Judge Lamberth will hear a full set of arguments over the legality of the Obama administration's policy of expanded federal support for embryonic-stem-cell research.
The new appeals-court action was especially welcome to stem-cell scientists because Judge Lamberth's injunction had prevented the National Institutes of Health from distributing millions of dollars in research money at a time, near the end of the federal fiscal year on September 30, when the NIH often awards many of its grants, said Anthony J. Mazzaschi, senior director for scientific affairs at the Association of American Medical Colleges.
"At least in theory by this, they can restart the grant-review process," Mr. Mazzaschi said of the NIH.
The NIH director, Francis S. Collins, issued a written statement late Thursday saying the agency was "pleased with the court's interim ruling, which will allow this important, life-saving research to continue while we present further arguments to the court in the weeks to come."
An NIH spokeswoman, Marin P. Allen, declined to say whether the agency would restart research involving embryonic stem cells at its own laboratory facilities or resume awarding grants for such research by outside scientists. Ms. Allen, however, cited a report by the journal Nature quoting Sally J. Rockey, the NIH's deputy director for extramural research, as saying that 24 existing grants due for annual renewal this month "should be fast-tracked, as should new human-embryonic-stem-cell grants competing to get funded a first time."
And Michael M. Gottesman, the NIH's deputy director for intramural research, said researchers at the agency’s headquarters in the Washington suburb of Bethesda could resume work involving embryonic stem cells, though he suggested "prudence" in carrying out such activities given the still-tenuous legal situation, Nature reported.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Steven H. Aden, expressed disappointment with the latest court action. "The American people should not be forced to pay for even one more day of experiments that destroy human life, have produced no real-world treatments, and violate an existing federal law," he said in a statement.
For his injunction, Judge Lamberth found that Obama-administration policy, announced last year, appears to violate a provision of federal law that prohibits federal financial support for the creation or destruction of human embryos for research purposes. Embryos are destroyed when embryonic stem cells are taken from them.
Even before the appeals court reversed the judge's ruling, advocates of embryonic-stem-cell research said they were growing confident of victory, citing factors that include official Congressional statements during the George W. Bush and Clinton administrations that backed federally supported embryonic-stem-cell research over the legal provision cited by the judge, which is known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.
In particular, Congress never voiced objections to a Bush policy that allowed research on a limited number of stem-cell lines, said lawyers on both sides of the case. Mr. Aden, the plaintiffs' lawyer, acknowledged he was unclear on how the judge would rule on that argument. "That's a good question," said Mr. Aden, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom.
Potential Cures
Embryonic stem cells have been touted as treatments for many diseases because they can grow to replace damaged cells of any type. At the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, for instance, scientists are exploring cells' potential use in treating diabetes. The cells are typically obtained from cell lines, a number of which were started by researchers from the excess embryos created by couples trying to start a pregnancy with the help of a doctor. Scientists have also been working with so-called adult stem cells, which are similar to the embryonic cells but are instead taken from types of body tissue, such as skin or bone.
Critics of embryonic-stem-cell research have argued that adult stem cells hold the greater scientific promise. But many stem-cell researchers disagree, saying that comparisons are unfair. Embryonic research has been limited to about 10 years of work because of the political and legal controversies, while the science of adult stem cells is 50 years old. "Yes, adult-stem-cell research is ahead—40 years ahead," said Richard O. Hynes, a professor of cancer research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "That doesn't mean it has more promise."
But that promise, and whether it will be tested, now rests in the courts, not in the lab.
One key point in Justice Department appeal plans is the fact that Congressional appropriations committees, while writing the Dickey-Wicker language into each year's federal budget, began during the Bush administration to include language making clear that Dickey-Wicker didn't interfere with the Bush policy.
Judge Lamberth had also ruled that the NIH could maintain its Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry, suggesting a potential inconsistency with his argument that any federal work with embryonic stem cells would violate the Dickey-Wicker amendment.
The two plaintiffs in the case, James L. Sherley and Theresa A. Deisher—both private researchers who study non-embryonic stem cells—are suffering no immediate harm, the department said. Dr. Sherley has received $425,500 in NIH grant money, and Ms. Deisher has never even applied, casting doubt on their claim to have suffered financial damage from the Obama policy as a result of unfair competition from researchers using embryonic stem cells.
While the court case proceeds, Congress is weighing its options. A Senate appropriations subcommittee was planning a hearing on the matter for September 16. Some on Capitol Hill have proposed enacting a bill that would codify the Obama policy as federal law, making clear its consistency with Dickey-Wicker. That effort failed to gain traction over the past year as lawmakers saw little need to take a vote that might attract the attention of anti-abortion activists, said Mr. Mazzaschi, of the medical-colleges association.
But calculations on the need for such a vote might be changing after Judge Lamberth's decision. Mr. Mazzaschi said there should be support for it because Congress twice passed bills during the Bush administration—vetoed by the president—that would have lifted Mr. Bush's restrictions on embryonic-stem-cell research. "There were strong majorities in both the House and Senate" on those bills, he said.
On the other side of the political equation, however, are the forthcoming Congressional elections, which could make elected representatives reluctant to cast controversial votes.
Politics and Research
Those uncertainties loom particularly large for young embryonic-stem-cell researchers such as Bryan T. Richardson, who earned an undergraduate degree in biology at East Carolina University in 2007 and is now pursuing a doctorate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Mr. Richardson, 25, began work four months ago on a federally financed project aimed at seeking cures for diseases affecting blood vessels and is now contemplating a move overseas to pursue his career.
Mr. Richardson said that he agreed that policy makers should take care when setting rules for the use of embryonic stem cells and that he hoped his work would pave the way for using adult stem cells to treat vascular disease. For now, he said, embryonic stem cells are an important component of developing treatments using adult stem cells because the behavior of the embryonic cells provides a critical baseline for measuring the behavior of the undifferentiated adult cells.
"If this ruling was upheld, it certainly would cause me to consider making career changes," Mr. Richardson said. "It's not going to dissuade me from pursuing the research that I really love to do. It just may cause me to have to go overseas to do it, or do it in a different avenue than with the federal government."
Comments
1. frankschmidt - September 09, 2010 at 04:14 pm
I hope Judge Lambeth's decision is upheld because then I can sue whenever a grant proposal isn't funded.
2. fullprof99 - September 09, 2010 at 06:08 pm
The point of research funding isn't to benefit one set of scientists (the apparent basis for the injunction) but to produce benefits for the American public. It is entirely appropriate that this injunction be set aside.
3. professormiller - September 09, 2010 at 09:21 pm
As a Catholic and a Professor of Philosophy, I want to borrow a quote from a great man whom, though we don't agree on everything, I admire a great deal. This nation is rotting from the inside out due to such injustice as stem cell research. But, in a general sense, our nation is in a spritual crisis and I agree with the Rev. Billy Graham (because he really has a keen sense of what is going on in the United States, currently) when he stated in this prayer:
"Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values.. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have **killed** our unborn and called it "choice." We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment. Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and Set us free. Amen!'
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, 'The Rest of the Story,' and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired. With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called 'One nation under God!'
His words are true. I find much of what my fellow academics sickening, hiding behind the wall of "progress" they strip us of our moral foundation. This is a true abomination.
Of course, the Chronicle is the mouthpiece of the far/radical Left so it does not surprise me. It saddens me. I have faith this nation will survive the current presidential administration with only moderate to severe damage (not catastrophic) to our morals, economy, foreign policy, domestic security, etc.
He will, I am sure, be a "one time wonder" that will go down in history as worse than James Buchanan and Jimmy Carter. Regardless, when the mid-terms come in November the balance of power will shift back to the conservatives: Apparently the only group of Americans that are willing to stand up and say it is OK to have God as part of our collective identity. The winds of political change are blowing and the nutty liberals are losing. Just look at the idiot Harry Reid.
We need Sarah Palin (oh...after recovering from the surge of adrenaline...for you leftist females...why don't you stand up for Gov. Palin when she is attacked personally? You can *disagree* 100% with her politics but if the shoe was on the other foot and she was a leftie communist such as the members of NOW are, then the whining would be heard around the nation.
As a Catholic I pray, I hope, I have faith that the GOP will make major gains in November and, moreover, take back the White House in 2012. We need the Tea Party enthusiasm and ideals to awaken the sleeping members of the GOP and when done, a joyous new day will dawn in the United States.
As a Professor of Philosophy, we need to always reamin the "gadfly" (i.e. Socrates) and become politically aware and to help save our institutions of higher education from the drooling lips of hungry liberal fanatics.
Professor Miller
Stem cell research should be banned. It is morally wrong. And, I dare say, Ratzinger (i.e. Pope Benedict XVI) is infinitely more of a scholar and humanitarian than any Leftist quirk on this site.
4. physicsprof - September 09, 2010 at 11:35 pm
I am trying to figure out, whose post is more garbage, Profmiller's #3 spitting hatred and ignorance or asdabsvdbn's #4 selling "New era cap" for $15...
5. bertnb - September 10, 2010 at 07:48 am
I think it's about time that the Chronicle start monitering ALL the posts -- and not just those in the "pay to play" area. Professor Miller, your hatred has NOTHING to do with Christianity or politics and everything to do with being uninformed.
President Obama has done nothing to you. You still have your guns and your freedom to spill hatred. Heck, even though it makes him sad, he'll apparently even let you burn Quarans.
I hope you are out there fighting as rabidly for all the children who already exist in this world. In my experience, folks like you think people really, really matter until they're born -- and then they might become poor people who don't need welfare (that means their parents are lazy) -- or illegal immegrants (just shoot on sight at the border.)
By the way, I'm a Christian, too. You don't have to be full of hatred to be one.
6. professormiller - September 10, 2010 at 08:10 am
To #4 and #8,
There isn't a word of "hate" in my post. I quoted from the Rev. Billy Graham and I want to clearly state that I agree with his opinion. Please note: I use the word opinion.
The typical response from the Left when one brings up God is to attack the messenger and say it's really me that is "full of hate."
Put your money where your mouth is and quote one line in my aforementioned post in which I state or allude to "hating" any person or group.
It it my opinion, and last I looked at the Constitution, I do have a right to my opinion, that stem cell research is morally wrong. You might disagree. Fine. Yet, by my saying this doesn't mean that it is "hate" filled speech.
You really need to take a course in freshman logic. So, again, what sentence in my post can be considered "hate?"
Both of you are way off track.
7. physicsprof - September 10, 2010 at 08:31 am
#6:
"This nation is rotting from the inside out due to such injustice as stem cell research..."
"I find much of what my fellow academics sickening..."
"help save our institutions of higher education from the drooling lips of hungry liberal fanatics..."
"the Chronicle is the mouthpiece of the far/radical Left..."
"...any Leftist quirk on this site..."
8. phikaw - September 10, 2010 at 09:28 am
This is not the place to rehearse the philosophical arguments in favor of stem cell research, but I would just like to point out that there are plenty of such arguments. There are, of course, some against it as well, although none in post #3, which is largely an emotional and religously partisan personal statement.
9. willynilly - September 10, 2010 at 09:56 am
FINALLY, some sanity in the Courts.
10. gcwaters - September 10, 2010 at 11:27 am
Paul Harver? Seriously? Paul Harvey?!
11. robert2 - September 10, 2010 at 12:54 pm
The strongest argument against ESC research is that ESC's have yet to help a single human being. Other types of stem cell research that are less morally objectionable are relieving people of the effects of devastating conditions on a weekly basis. Shouldn't we be putting our funding/efforts behind furthering those technologies that are actually of benefit to mankind right now?
12. physicsprof - September 10, 2010 at 01:17 pm
No, Robert2, that would be short-sighted. If we only sponsor research which is of benefit to mankind right now we will miss out on something which is beyond our field of view. (Just remember that in mid 19th century electricity was of ZERO benefit to the mankind.)
13. robert2 - September 10, 2010 at 01:27 pm
physicsprof: Thanks for that perspective. Your analogy about electricity in the 19th century is interesting, but tell me, did a sizable percent of the population ever consider the use of electricity to be morally objectionable?
14. oldcommprof - September 10, 2010 at 01:58 pm
"Professor" of Philosophy Miller: in addition to the words of hate that physicsprof cites from your original rant, let me add your "leftie communist" members of NOW. You're obviously serious, and seriously disturbed. You are also an embarrassment to the academy.
15. physicsprof - September 10, 2010 at 03:51 pm
Ah, Robert2, the moral aspect is a totally different one. But personally I would presume that creating (in an act of pleasure) and then destroying embrios after 10 weeks is not morally worse than creating embrios in a petri dish (in an act of search for cure) and then destroying them after several days. But I have to admit I am lost in the pro-life debate. Churchgoers typically are against abortion, but pro-hunting and pro-war. Leftist liberals are usually pro-abortion but anti-hunting and anti-war. I find both positions inconsistent (so I am pro-abortion, pro-hunting, pro-suicide, and anti-war).
16. physicsprof - September 10, 2010 at 03:52 pm
oops... I meant "not morally better" of course.
17. edobserver - September 10, 2010 at 04:23 pm
Amusingly, Prof. Miller's attribution of the "prayer" to Graham is incorrect:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/prayernation.asp
It appears to be a pastiche of ideas from some conservative, midwestern pastors.
18. professormiller - September 10, 2010 at 04:24 pm
oldcomm"prof"
What I want to draw attention to is the quote from Mr. Graham. Although few readers of the Chronicle would agree with his world view, I think he deserves respect and I certainly respect him. Now, by stating that I find many of my academic colleagues sickening is a far cry from "hatred." You are making a huge leap in interpretation. You often hear various adjectives thrown around about "racist" Tea-Party activists, the "crazy Right-wingers," blah, blah, blah. It isn't "hate" when it's directed at a conservative.
It is no secret that academe is where (I'll be nice here since so many here are sensitive) supporters of left wing nonsense are ensconced. However, this is not the topic at hand. I state, as a philosopher who is a Catholic that stem cell research is a morally slippery slope. To believe in a revalatory religion is anathema to many here. It is time to reclaim a place for God in this country. Consequently, I was (am) making a point by using the quote from Mr. Graham.
I suppose it is not "hate speech" when Palin is continually pounded by the left-wing press? This is simply fear of someone that has struck a chord with many Americans.
November will be a depressing month for many of you. Alas, I shall leave you in your desparate search for meaning here on this blog. You may say what you want about me. I do not care.
19. goxewu - September 13, 2010 at 08:29 am
This is sort of like doing the morning paper's crossword puzzle:
* Billy Graham "deserves respect," and professormiller respects him. For what--wisdom, scholarship, politics, or for just hanging around for so long?
* "By stating that I find many of my academic colleagues sickening is a far cry from hatred." Actually, it's a very near shout.
* Left-wingers elsewhere than on this thread may well call some right-wingers "racist," "crazy," etc., but nobody on this thread has done it, so there's no excuse for professormiller's "sickening" comment.
* Academe being where "supporters of left-wing nonsense are ensconced" is, according to professormiller, "not the topic at hand." Probably not, but if it is, it's only because professormiller brought it up.
* "It is time to reclaim a place for God in this country." This would be specifically "God," and not G-d, Allah, Yaweh, et al., one presumes. And given the alleged powers of "God," you'd think that "God" would be capable of doing this for him-/her-/itself.
* No, it's actually not "hate speech" when a partisan politician, who abandoned her office a year and a half before her term was up to pursue the much more lucrative career of a partisan media personality is "continually pounded" by the left-wing press (and a whole lot of other presses). Heat, kitchen, Harry Truman, etc.
* "You may say what you want about me. I do not care." Yes, professormiller does care, and he/she will probably prove it by replying to this comment. If professormiller doesn't reply, I will be happy to stand corrected.