Some observers of biomedical feel taken aback by a decision of the federal appeals court last week that toppled rejection a lower court a lawsuit challenging the stem cell of the Obama administration policy. The decision could have implications well beyond research on stem cells. It seems to invite disaffected scientists whose proposals to the National Institutes of Health are not funded to argue in court that NIH is at fault for the funding of a new research field.
The complaint was filed last August by Christian groups who argued that guidelines on stem cells NIH violate a federal ban on the use of federal funds to create or destroy human embryos. A US District Court dismissed the complaint for several reasons, including that none of the plaintiffs had the legal capacity to prosecute. But on Friday, the Court of Appeal of the United States of Washington, found (pdf) that two doctors were standing on the suit.
The doctors, who include James Sherley, a researcher on adult stem cells in biomedical research institute Boston, argued that opening federal funding for research on human embryonic stem cells ( SESC), the NIH guidelines have made them less likely to get funding to study adult stem cells (ACSS). The court accepted:
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 an application for successful grant. That's real, here and now injury.
The doctors will suffer a further injury whenever a project involving CES receives funding, but the expanded eligibility in the guidelines, would have gone to fund a project of theirs. They are more likely to lose funding for projects involving CES that researchers are not working with stem cells because ASCs and ESCs are substitutes in certain uses. Doctors illustrated this point in a post-argument letter which they report Dr. Sherley recently submitted a grant for a project in which ASCs will be used to create a substitute for a human liver and propose its "main competitor" is a company that "engaged in similar research using [ESCs]." Although no one can say exactly how likely that doctors are losing the funding for projects involving CES, after being in competition with projects, doctors face a fair chance to consider the harm to imminent.
the decision "seems to challenge the basic principles of prioritization, allocation of funds, and competition "NIH said Anthony Mazzaschi of the Association of American Medical Colleges in Washington, DC that is, if expands NIH funding of any new field, or creates a new type of grant program, a researcher could claim the agency takes money away from his related field Mazzaschi suggests. But he is not sure the reasoning of the court should have weight in cases involving other projects that stem cells.
The suit now goes back to the lower court, which should reconsider its rejection of the plaintiffs' request for a motion to block federal funding of ESC research. The federal government appears ready to counter the appeal court's reasoning. In response to Friday's decision, spokesman John Burklow said NIH NIH does not set fixed amounts of money aside for the study of adult or embryonic stem cells, but rather makes allocation decisions based on scientific merit and relevance of the priorities the NIH. "As a result, adults and [ESCs] projects are not in direct competition for funding," Burklow said in a statement.
0 Komentar