Judge: Obama's Expansion of Stem Cell Research Violates Federal Law

By Andrew Moseman | August 24, 2010 10:33 am

test tubes220The legal mess around embryonic stem cell research just got messier. Yesterday a U.S. district judge ruled that President Obama’s expansion of federal financing for the research, enacted last year when he lifted the Bush-era restrictions on creating new stem cell lines, was a violation of federal law.

Judge Lamberth ruled that the administration’s policy violated the clear language of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, a law passed annually by Congress that bans federal financing for any “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death” [The New York Times].

Here’s the gist of what happened: The Obama Administration said that its policy fit with Dickey-Wicker because no federal dollars financed the destruction of embryos. Under the new rules the few stem cell lines approved by the Bush administration were OK, and so were new ones from embryos that had already been discarded because they weren’t needed for fertility treatments anymore—if the donors had given their consent to the embryos being used for research purposes. In this compromise position, taxpayer money wouldn’t be used to create new stem cell lines from embryos, but federally funded researchers could work with new stem cell lines created by privately financed scientists.

Judge Royce Lamberth, however, interpreted the law to mean that federal money couldn’t fund any research that involved discarded embryos, no matter if a penny of taxpayer money went to creating the stem cell lines or how long it had been since those embryos were discarded.

Research is a long, continuous process that can’t be partitioned into discrete pieces, Lamberth wrote. If Congress meant to prohibit funding only for specific scientific acts, it could have said so. “Congress, however, has not written the statute that way, and this Court is bound to apply the law as it is written,” the ruling said [Los Angeles Times].

The Department of Justice says it is reviewing the ruling, which could make a mess of research funding. By Lamberth’s reading of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, even some of the work done under the Bush Administration might have been illegal because sometime, somewhere, at some point embryos had been destroyed to make the stem cell lines, even though the Bush rules didn’t allow any new embryo use.

According the Wall Street Journal, the government currently spends more than $100 million per year on embryonic stem cell research. The fate of present projects remains unclear—and for the time being, researchers have to pay even more attention to what test-tubes they touch with federally funded instruments while the government works out what to do.

“I have had to tell everyone in my lab that when they feed their cells tomorrow morning, they better use media that has not been funded by the federal government,” said Dr. George Q. Daley, director of the stem cell transplantation program at Children’s Hospital Boston, referring to food given to cells. “This ruling means an immediate disruption of dozens of labs doing this work since the Obama administration made its order” [The New York Times].

Related Content:
80beats: The Trouble With Lab-Created Stem Cells—and Why They Won’t Displace Embryonic Ones
80beats: FDA Green-Lights First Trials Using Embryonic Stem Cells (Again)
80beats: Bring on the Research: NIH Approves New Embryonic Stem Cell Lines
80beats: Stem Cell Society to Get Tough on “Charlatans” & Unproven Treatments
80beats: Obama’s Guidelines for Stem Cell Research Dodge Controversial Bullets

Image: iStockphoto

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Health & Medicine
  • jdmimic

    This seems a ridiculously narrow interpretation of the words of the amendment and hardly what I think the Congress intended. Research may be a long, continuous process, but it certainly can be partitioned into discrete units as anyone who has ever done research knows. I can’t comprehend them not appealing this ruling. This ruling makes about as much sense as telling a woman she can’t give birth at a federally funded hospital because labor runs an inherent risk to both mother and infant.
    Regardless of one’s views on abortion (which, let’s face it, is why the Congress put this ban in place), it makes more sense to me to gain some benefit out of the inevitable loss of some embryos rather than dispose and forget. The parents could gain the peace of knowing that, even if they couldn’t see the baby grow up, their progeny is still helping to save the lives of millions of people.

  • Zachary

    Stop impeding medical science because Jeebus will cry!

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

80beats

80beats is DISCOVER's news aggregator, weaving together the choicest tidbits from the best articles covering the day's most compelling topics.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »