On Monday, Royce Lamberth judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary injunction blocking the federal government implement the current national Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines governing research with human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). Here are some frequently asked questions about the decision, and Science Finds answers.
1. Does the decision to hold?
It might. Other legal observers have warned that NIH was on a weak legal ground when he argued that funding for hESC work has not been prohibited by Congress ban on US funding for "research in which an embryo human embryo or embryos are destroyed, "known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment of. Louis Guenin, lecturer on ethics in science at Harvard Medical School, warned shortly after Barack Obama was elected president that Congress should act on the issue. Guenin, which supports federal funding for hESC, fearing that a decree, like Obama issued March 9, 09, would be vulnerable to legal challenges.
in 1999 , NIH officials made a distinction between the derivation of hESCs and research on cells derived. They argued that the use of cell lines did not violate the specific language of the Dickey Amendment. In his ruling, the judge Lamberth said the NIH distinction was invalid. Although Guenin said he is frustrated by the situation, he believes the judge is correct in deciding that the funding of the work of hESCs is incompatible with the current law. The same would be true for research that involved killing bald eagles, he said. "It is illegal to kill birds. Even if someone pulls the birds well for you, you're still going to go to jail because you are complicit in an arrangement in which the birds are killed," he said.
To be on safe legal basis Guenin and others say, Congress needs to remove the ban on embryo research or pass a law explicitly allowing federal funding of research on hESCs.
Other observers point out, however, there seems to be a contradiction in the decision Lamberth. The judge said that granting the injunction "would simply preserve status quo and not to interfere with [researchers’] ability to obtain private funding for their research." However, the NIH funded work with hESCs for nearly a decade; to end all federal funding for hESC is not exactly status quo .
2. Would this injunction throw the rules in place under the presidency of George W. Bush?
Yes. The Bush administration has allowed the NIH to fund the work with hESC-derived before Aug. 9, 01, the day Bush announced his policy. Lamberth argued that as the Dickey-Wicker amendment is in place, federal funding for hESC all, regardless of when they are derived, is illegal.
3. other researchers can sue if their grant applications are rejected?
Not exactly. Lamberth initially threw the lawsuit, saying that the plaintiffs had no standing because they had not shown they would be harmed. An appeals court disagreed, ruling in June that two stem cell researchers James Sherley and Theresa Deisher could be harmed by the NIH policy, "Because the Guidelines have intensified competition for a share of a fixed amount of money, applicants will have to invest more time and resources to develop a successful grant application. That's real, here and now injuries. "Some commentators fear that the injunction means that anyone who feels offended by grant reviewers or a nudge by competing research areas could sue the government, however, this process is very narrow. It challenges the legality of funding of hESC research under a specific law. most areas of research do not have a Dickey-Wicker amendment complicating their legal status.
4. Is that researchers should immediately stop using stem cells financed by the government?
No, ongoing subsidies may continue for now. the NIH Director Francis Collins said yesterday that the injunction 199 will not affect grants using hESCs that have already gone through the door this year. (NIH sent the recipients e-mail today saying investigators who have received an award notice can continue their research for the award current period.) However, the NIH will not be able to fund 22 grants that had to be renewed each year at the end of September. NIH also interrupted the review process of the 62 grants that were awaiting peer review or had crossed the first step and should be examined soon by the NIH advisory councils.
most current grants come to annual review in the coming months, so they will also be stopped if the injunction is. In addition, Steven Aden of the Alliance Defense Fund, a co-counsel in the suit of the plaintiff asserts that the complainants have not ruled out a challenge to the interpretation of Adminstration of the decision.
5. What comes next?
The Department of Justice said it will appeal the injunction this week. Aden said the government must first ask the judge Lamberth to suspend the judgment; if he refuses, the Department of Justice can take their appeal to the D.C. .. Aden Court of Appeal is awaiting a decision will follow in a few days.
If the current injunction, the trial court (from Lamberth) will then hold a hearing on the full case. That could take months.
See our full coverage of this issue.
0 Komentar