SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Scientists Attack Court Ruling Against Barack Obama's Stem Cell Policy
Order blocking government funding of stem cell research is a serious setback in search for cures to diseases, say scientists
Aug 24, 2010
American scientists have reacted with anger at a court ruling that strikes down Barack Obama's decision to greatly expand medical research using stem cells taken from human embryos.
Scientists described the order by a federal judge in Washington, who said that the president had overstepped a law barring the government funding of research in which human embryos are destroyed, as "deplorable" and "a serious setback" in the search for cures to major diseases.
Lawyers for an alliance of Christian groups who brought the case, which tied opposition to experiments on embryonic stem cells to the anti-abortion campaign, said the ruling appeared to go further than restrictions under President George Bush and bar all government funding for such research. It also pushes the ever-contentious issue of abortion to the fore again in the runup to November's mid-term elections and presents Obama with the difficult choice of whether he wants a battle in the courts and in Congress to repeal the legislation.
The court order came after an executive order by Obama in March last year that lifted restrictions put in place by Bush eight years earlier. Those restrictions limited government funding to a small number of existing lines of human embryonic stem cells. The administration had allocated about $250m (PS160m) to the research. The National Institutes of Health added an additional 70 lines after Obama's order. But Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the president's decision was in conflict with the Dickey-Wicker amendment, a 1996 law that bars the use of government funds for "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed". The law has been renewed by Congress each year.
Scientists swiftly condemned the ruling. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (Cirm) said the court order would disrupt advances in research for cures to diseases such as diabetes and Lou Gehrig's. "The decision is a deplorable brake on all stem cell research," said Cirm's president, Alan Trounson. "Many discoveries with other cell types ... would not happen without ongoing research in human embryonic stem cells."
Steven Aden, a lawyer for the Alliance Defence Fund which brought the case, said: "We're gratified that the court accepted what we think is a plain and commonsense reading of the applicable law and we're hopeful that ultimately this will result in the renewal of good, science-based funding for adult stem cell research."
Scientists were also left confused over whether they had to immediately halt embryonic stem cell work paid for with government funds or if the ruling only prevented federal authorities from distributing more grants.
Cirm said the order appeared to bar research permitted even under the tighter regulations imposed by Bush.
Aden said he believed the ruling prohibits any government-funded research involving embryonic stem cells.
"We think that's right. When congress passed the Dickey-Wicker amendment back in the days of the Clinton administration the reason for that was to get the American public out of funding research that involves the destruction of human life," he said.
An opinion poll by the Pew foundation last year found that 54% of Americans support research using human embryos.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
American scientists have reacted with anger at a court ruling that strikes down Barack Obama's decision to greatly expand medical research using stem cells taken from human embryos.
Scientists described the order by a federal judge in Washington, who said that the president had overstepped a law barring the government funding of research in which human embryos are destroyed, as "deplorable" and "a serious setback" in the search for cures to major diseases.
Lawyers for an alliance of Christian groups who brought the case, which tied opposition to experiments on embryonic stem cells to the anti-abortion campaign, said the ruling appeared to go further than restrictions under President George Bush and bar all government funding for such research. It also pushes the ever-contentious issue of abortion to the fore again in the runup to November's mid-term elections and presents Obama with the difficult choice of whether he wants a battle in the courts and in Congress to repeal the legislation.
The court order came after an executive order by Obama in March last year that lifted restrictions put in place by Bush eight years earlier. Those restrictions limited government funding to a small number of existing lines of human embryonic stem cells. The administration had allocated about $250m (PS160m) to the research. The National Institutes of Health added an additional 70 lines after Obama's order. But Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the president's decision was in conflict with the Dickey-Wicker amendment, a 1996 law that bars the use of government funds for "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed". The law has been renewed by Congress each year.
Scientists swiftly condemned the ruling. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (Cirm) said the court order would disrupt advances in research for cures to diseases such as diabetes and Lou Gehrig's. "The decision is a deplorable brake on all stem cell research," said Cirm's president, Alan Trounson. "Many discoveries with other cell types ... would not happen without ongoing research in human embryonic stem cells."
Steven Aden, a lawyer for the Alliance Defence Fund which brought the case, said: "We're gratified that the court accepted what we think is a plain and commonsense reading of the applicable law and we're hopeful that ultimately this will result in the renewal of good, science-based funding for adult stem cell research."
Scientists were also left confused over whether they had to immediately halt embryonic stem cell work paid for with government funds or if the ruling only prevented federal authorities from distributing more grants.
Cirm said the order appeared to bar research permitted even under the tighter regulations imposed by Bush.
Aden said he believed the ruling prohibits any government-funded research involving embryonic stem cells.
"We think that's right. When congress passed the Dickey-Wicker amendment back in the days of the Clinton administration the reason for that was to get the American public out of funding research that involves the destruction of human life," he said.
An opinion poll by the Pew foundation last year found that 54% of Americans support research using human embryos.
American scientists have reacted with anger at a court ruling that strikes down Barack Obama's decision to greatly expand medical research using stem cells taken from human embryos.
Scientists described the order by a federal judge in Washington, who said that the president had overstepped a law barring the government funding of research in which human embryos are destroyed, as "deplorable" and "a serious setback" in the search for cures to major diseases.
Lawyers for an alliance of Christian groups who brought the case, which tied opposition to experiments on embryonic stem cells to the anti-abortion campaign, said the ruling appeared to go further than restrictions under President George Bush and bar all government funding for such research. It also pushes the ever-contentious issue of abortion to the fore again in the runup to November's mid-term elections and presents Obama with the difficult choice of whether he wants a battle in the courts and in Congress to repeal the legislation.
The court order came after an executive order by Obama in March last year that lifted restrictions put in place by Bush eight years earlier. Those restrictions limited government funding to a small number of existing lines of human embryonic stem cells. The administration had allocated about $250m (PS160m) to the research. The National Institutes of Health added an additional 70 lines after Obama's order. But Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the president's decision was in conflict with the Dickey-Wicker amendment, a 1996 law that bars the use of government funds for "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed". The law has been renewed by Congress each year.
Scientists swiftly condemned the ruling. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (Cirm) said the court order would disrupt advances in research for cures to diseases such as diabetes and Lou Gehrig's. "The decision is a deplorable brake on all stem cell research," said Cirm's president, Alan Trounson. "Many discoveries with other cell types ... would not happen without ongoing research in human embryonic stem cells."
Steven Aden, a lawyer for the Alliance Defence Fund which brought the case, said: "We're gratified that the court accepted what we think is a plain and commonsense reading of the applicable law and we're hopeful that ultimately this will result in the renewal of good, science-based funding for adult stem cell research."
Scientists were also left confused over whether they had to immediately halt embryonic stem cell work paid for with government funds or if the ruling only prevented federal authorities from distributing more grants.
Cirm said the order appeared to bar research permitted even under the tighter regulations imposed by Bush.
Aden said he believed the ruling prohibits any government-funded research involving embryonic stem cells.
"We think that's right. When congress passed the Dickey-Wicker amendment back in the days of the Clinton administration the reason for that was to get the American public out of funding research that involves the destruction of human life," he said.
An opinion poll by the Pew foundation last year found that 54% of Americans support research using human embryos.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.