posted
Judge Suspends All Federal Funding of Embryoic Stem Cell Research Earlier today, a federal trial judge in D.C. suspended all federal funding of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research during ongoing litigation, claiming that such funding is illegal. According to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, such funding violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds for “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed”:
ESC research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed. To conduct ESC research, ESCs must be derived from an embryo. The process of deriving ESCs from an embryo results in the destruction of the embryo. Thus, ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo.
Despite defendants’ attempt to separate the derivation of ESCs from research on the ESCs, the two cannot be separated. Derivation of ESCs from an embryo is an integral step in conducting ESC research. Indeed, it is just one of many steps in the “systematic investigation” of stem cell research. Simply because ESC research involves multiple steps does not mean that each step is a separate “piece of research” that may be federally funded, provided the step does not result in the destruction of an embryo.
Essentially, Judge Lamberth claims that all ESC research cannot be funded because it requires scientists to build upon previous research that involved the destruction of an embryo, but it’s difficult to square this decision with Supreme Court precedent. Under Chevron v. NRDC, judges are normally supposed to defer to an agency’s reading of a federal law unless the agency’s interpretation is entirely implausible, and the Obama administration quite plausibly read the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to only prohibit federal funding of the actual destruction of an embryo — not federal funding of subsequent ESC research.
Indeed, Lamberth’s decision moves the law to a worse position than it was during the Bush administration. President George W. Bush allowed federal funding for research on existing embryonic stem cell lines, but would not allow new lines to be created. Today’s opinion even forbids such entirely uncontroversial research.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
maybe this will be a good thing for Cord Blood America (cbai.) they preserve cord blood for future medical use.
Posts: 4 | From: St.Louis | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
not only have we not moved on from needing them?
by definition stem cells are not embryonic. it's only in this human legal battle that we call stem cells embryonic. stem cells, by literal definition have not become an embryo until they change from stem cells to what they are going to be....
if we could make other cells become stem cells? then they too will have the capability to become a human...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
scientists 'stunned' by judge's stem cell ruling Updated 17m ago
U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth blocked President Obama's order to expand stem cell research on Monday.
By Mary Brophy Marcus, USA TODAY The head of the National Institutes of Health said Tuesday that some stem cell research would continue for a while, but new research would be stopped, in the wake of a federal judge's ruling Monday that blocked President Obama's order in 2009 to expand embryonic stem cell funding. "I was stunned, as was virtually everyone here at NIH," agency director Francis Collins said. The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth blocked Obama's executive stem cell order, saying it conflicted with a ban on using federal money to destroy embryos.
"Stem cell research offers true potential for scientific discovery, and hope for families. This decision has just poured sand into that engine of discovery," Collins said at a news conference late Tuesday afternoon.
The U.S. Justice Department announced Tuesday that it would appeal Lamberth's ruling, said Tracy Schmaler, a department spokeswoman.
Collins said promising research on diseases — including spinal cord injury and diabetes — would come to a premature stop, as well as screening for new drugs. "Researchers who have been so energized by opportunities made available over last year may move on to other countries and other fields of research," he said.
Jerome Zack, associate director of the UCLA Broad Stem Cell Research Center, said he was "shocked, discouraged and confused" when he first heard the news.
After listening to Collins' response Tuesday, Zack said: "The news is not good. But it's not as bad as could be."
One of Zack's grants was recently renewed, so he can continue for the rest of the year. But he said he has to figure out the best use of the money. "One option is to focus intently on what you think will give you the fastest and cleanest results within that time frame," he said.
Collins outlined the immediate effect of the ruling on research financed through the NIH:
•143 grants worth $95 million, which are now up for annual renewal, will be frozen.
•22 grants totaling $54 million, whose existing research is coming up for renewal in September, will be frozen.
•131 grants awarded this year already are out the door and will not be affected until they're up for renewal in a year.
Stem cell researchers expressed deep concern over future work.
Renee Reijo Pera, director of the Stanford Center for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, said, "We've basically emptied out our toolbox for human developmental studies."
She said researchers will have to turn to private funding, and hope it will be there, to support their work.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: not only have we not moved on from needing them?
by definition stem cells are not embryonic. it's only in this human legal battle that we call stem cells embryonic. stem cells, by literal definition have not become an embryo until they change from stem cells to what they are going to be....
if we could make other cells become stem cells? then they too will have the capability to become a human...
But isn't the argument about embryonic stem cells?
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!! Posts: 3317 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But isn't the argument about embryonic stem cells?
what argument? like i said? a stem cell has the ability to become any other cell... by definition? a stem cell is not embryonic, since it has yet to become an embryo,,, stem cells have no definition other thna being stem cells. they are not embryonic in any way shape or form.
if you "make" "adult" stem cells? they still have the capability to become an embryo... other wise they are useless...
the same issue follows the factual biology of the pill.. the pill does not stop eggs from being fertilised.... it stops them from becoming embryos... big difference... stem cells are still formed.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: So basically your saying were all just stem cells? lol
at one time we were all "just" as you put it, stem cells.
why does that bother you?
it is biological fact. If we hadn't been given the ability to understand this? we wouldn't be messing with it..
in the meantime? other countries are messing with it and will develop technology that we will want to use and have to pay them for... not that it matters in a global economy, right?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
