Stem Cell Research

Court: U.S. can fund embryo research, as long as researchers kill the embryos first

Monday, August 27th, 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion late last week in Sherley v. Sebelius allowing the Obama administration to continue funding destructive embryo research. 

At issue was President Obama’s March 9, 2009 executive order directing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to issue new stem cell guidelines to include the funding of research on stem cell lines derived from human embryos. 

The plaintiffs in the case—researchers who perform ethical adult stem cell research—argued that the funding violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment (renewed annually since 1996).  Specifically, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment expressly prohibits NIH from funding research in which human embryos “are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.”  The researchers argued that because performing research on stem cell lines from human embryos means that human embryos must first be destroyed to obtain the stem cell lines, funding research on stem cell lines violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.

Unfortunately, the Court rejected this logical argument.  On its face the Court’s decision is technical in nature; the Court simply states that it had already concluded in a previous appeal that funding research on stem cell lines from destroyed human embryos does not violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.

But the reasoning used in that previous appeal was flawed.  The Court made the atrocious distinction that research on stem cell lines does not actually kill or harm embryos because the stem cell lines are no longer embryos.  Of course, that is because the embryos have already been destroyed in order to obtain the stem cell lines.  The Court stated, “Dickey-Wicker permits federal funding of research projects that utilize already-derived [embryonic stem cells]—which are not themselves embryos—because no ‘human embryos or embryos are destroyed’ in such projects” (emphasis in original).

In other words, the government will fund any research using human embryos, as long as the researchers kill or harm the embryos before getting the money.  This is a clear distortion of the intent and spirit of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.

The plaintiff researchers also argued that NIH violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  Section 553 of the APA requires government agencies to provide the public with notice of a proposed rulemaking, an opportunity to comment, and a concise general statement of the rule’s basis and purposes after considering the relevant comments.

When NIH opened comment on its proposed funding guidelines, the plaintiff researchers and many other individuals and organizations—including AUL—filed comments demonstrating that funding research on embryonic stem cell lines violates Dickey-Wicker and is unnecessary in light of the significant breakthroughs in adult stem cell research. 

The plaintiff researchers filed comments advocating that the government not fund research on embryonic stem cell lines.  But the Court declared that the plaintiffs’ comments “did not address any factor relevant to implementing” Obama’s executive order, and thus NIH did not have to respond to them and the APA was not violated.

As such, explaining that there are better, more ethical, and more successful avenues of research was deemed irrelevant information.  The government does not have to consider such “irrelevant” things as whether there are more promising forms of research when deciding which research to fund.  This makes no sense from either an economic or medical perspective—and it is not at all comforting that such information does not factor into budgetary decision-making.

This means that funds are diverted away from adult stem cell research—which has yielded successful treatments and cures of over 70 diseases and conditions—and toward embryonic stem cell research, which has never helped a single human patient.  In fact, in 2011, Geron—the company that received the first government approval for human clinical trials using human embryo stem cells—announced it is discontinuing “further stem cell work.”

Of course, this seems to be a theme with the current administration.  Disregard the sanctity of human life.  Ignore the pro-life community.  And just throw American’s money away.

Embryo research yields no results—or money

Tuesday, November 15th, 2011

USA Today is reporting today that Geron—the company that received the first government approval for human clinical trials using human embryo stem cells—is discontinuing “further stem cell work.”

This decision hardly comes as a surprise.  There simply is no money in research that yields no results.

Geron says that the decision came “after a strategic review of the costs… timelines and clinical, manufacturing and regulatory complexities associated with the company’s research and clinical-stage assets.”  Reportedly, Geron has been trying to find financial partners, “and people have said, ‘Show us later-stage results.’”

Clearly, investors don’t want to put money into research that will not pay off.  There are no “later-stage results” showing any real-life positive uses of embryonic stem cells.

USA Today editorializes that Geron’s decision is “a move with stark implications for a field offering hope of future medications for conditions with inadequate or no current treatments.”

We can hope it is the bell toll for unethical and unproductive embryo stem cell research.  But it will not have a devastating impact on the field of “stem cell research” as a whole.

As AUL has stated repeatedly, stem cells from human embryos have never successfully treated human patients.  On the other hand, treatments from adult stem cells (which do not result in the destruction of human life) have yielded treatments or cures for over 70 conditions. 

Apparently, Geron’s investors (or potential investors) understand this basic fact.  Investing in a failed research strategy does not pay—either financially or medically.  Unfortunately, the Obama Administration lacks this basic understanding, as it continues to push for government funding of embryo research to the detriment of research rendering true medical advances.

Yoest on Stem Cell Appeal

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

YOEST NOTES KNEE-JERK SUPPORT OF EMBRYO-DESTRUCTIVE RESEARCH COSTING TAXPAYERS MILLIONS WHILE DESTROYING LIVES

WASHINGTON, D.C. – (8/31/10) – AUL President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest called the decision by the Department of Justice to appeal an injunction of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research “not surprising, but not the biggest story here.”

“Adult stem cell research has yielded incredible, life-giving results for people with many diseases and disabilities, while the stem cell lines created by destroying unborn children has provided little hope for those suffering,” Yoest noted. “Media reports indicate that more than $100 million in federal funds has been wasted on embryonic stem cell research in the last year alone.   With our tax dollars, we should be investing in the adult stem cell research that works now and holds the greatest long-term promise for all Americans.”

Federal District Court Judge Royce Lamberth issued the injunction against the government’s use of tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research based on a reading of the Dickey-Wicker amendment. That 1996 law prohibits federal funding for research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed and was the foundation for legal challenge when Obama signed his 2009 order which allowed embryos to be destroyed in research paid for with tax dollars.

Yoest on Stem Cell Ruling

Monday, August 23rd, 2010

COURT STRIKES DOWN OBAMA ADMINISTRATION STEM CELL POLICY

Washington, D.C. – (8/23/10) – Today, a U.S. District Court halted the Obama Administration’s illegal and unethical policy of funding research that necessarily entails the destruction of human embryos. Judge Royce Lamberth issued a preliminary injunction against the Administration’s policy in the case Sherley v. Sebelius.

“Since 1996, Congress has been clear that no federal funds are to be used in research that destroys, or even harms, embryos,” said Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life. “The Obama Administration has attempted to skirt the law by arguing that they are only funding research after the embryos are destroyed. Today’s sensible ruling reconfirms what we already knew, that Administration policy is in violation of  the law.”

On March 9, 2009, President Obama, by executive order, directed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to issue new stem cell guidelines to include the funding of human embryonic stem cell research.

Since 1996, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment has expressly banned NIH from funding research in which human embryos “are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.”[1] The amendment has been renewed every year by Congress.

Attorneys defending the Obama Administration’s policy argued that since the federal government is only funding research on stem cells after being extracted from the embryos, and not the actual destruction of the embryos, the NIH guidelines are not violating the law.

However, that interpretation would require a strained reading of the Dickey-Wicker amendment. The Obama Administration policy of funding human embryonic stem cell research incentivizes the destruction of human embryos. Further, it is common sense that destroying embryos and using them in research are part of a common project.

Judge Lamberth held the policy violated the clear language of the law:

“The Dickey-Wicker Amendment unambiguously prohibits the use of federal funds for all research in which a human embryo is destroyed. It is not limited to prohibit federal funding of only the ‘piece of research’ in which an embryo is destroyed. … Despite defendants’ attempt to separate the derivation of [embryonic stem cells] from research on [embryonic stem cells], the two cannot be separated. Derivation of [embryonic stem cells] from an embryo is an integral step in conducting [embryonic stem cell] research.”

Since the Obama Administration policy violates the law, Judge Lamberth issued a preliminary injunction to stop funding of human embryonic stem cell research.


[1] Public Law 104-99, sec. 128, U.S. Statutes at Large 110 (January 26, 1996): 34, http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL104.99.pdf.

Court Finds Obama Administration Stem Cell Policy Illegal

Monday, August 23rd, 2010

AUL’s news release on this decision can be found here.

Today, a U.S. District Court halted the Obama Administration’s illegal and unethical policy of funding research that necessarily entails the destruction of human embryos.  Judge Royce Lamberth issued a preliminary injunction against the Administration’s policy in the case Sherley v. Sebelius.

On March 9 2009, President Obama, by executive order, directed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to issue new stem cell guidelines to include the funding of human embryonic stem cell research.

Since 1996, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment has expressly banned NIH from funding research in which human embryos “are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.”[1] The amendment has been renewed every year by Congress.

Attorneys defending the Obama Administration’s policy argued that since the federal government is only funding research on stem cells after being extracted from the embryos, and not the actual destruction of the embryos, the NIH guidelines are not violating the law.

However, that interpretation would require a strained reading of the Dickey-Wicker amendment.  The Obama Administration policy of funding human embryonic stem cell research incentivizes the destruction of human embryos.  Further, it is common sense that destroying embryos and using them in research are part of a common project.

Judge Lamberth held the policy violated the clear language of the law.  “The Dickey-Wicker Amendment unambiguously prohibits the use of federal funds for all research in which a human embryo is destroyed.  It is not limited to prohibit federal funding of only the ‘piece of research’ in which an embryo is destroyed. … Despite defendants’ attempt to separate the derivation of [embryonic stem cells] from research on [embryonic stem cells], the two cannot be separated.  Derivation of [embryonic stem cells] from an embryo is an integral step in conducting [embryonic stem cell] research.”

Since the Obama Administration policy violates the law, Judge Lamberth issued a preliminary injunction to stop funding of human embryonic stem cell research.


[1]Public Law 104-99, sec. 128, U.S. Statutes at Large 110 (January 26, 1996): 34, http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL104.99.pdf.

Western Australia Legislature Backing Adult Stem Cells

Friday, May 30th, 2008

Science Alert Australia & New Zealand reports that Western Australia’s Upper House has rejected human embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.

Dr. Millet, director of Curtin University of Technology’s Centre for Applied Ethics and Philosophy explains why.

“The whole debate has changed, and it’s changed dramatically since the Yamanaka discovery because, while both his method and therapeutic cloning technologies have their problems, the advantage of the Yamanaka method is that you get 100 per cent of the donor’s own DNA and, of course, collecting skin cells involves minimum invasiveness and trauma. Most importantly, it is far less morally problematic than creating an embryo with the sole purpose of destroying it.”

He goes on to make the pragmatic public policy case in addition to the scientific and ethical case above:

“One of the arguments against therapeutic cloning is that the research has a low likelihood of a short- to medium-term outcome,” Dr Millett says. “So we have to ask ourselves, what is the opportunity cost of funding this research? By spending millions on embryonic stem cell research, what other important science is missing out? Are there better things to spend our money on?

What will the result be? Again, Dr. Millet:

“This could be the turning point for stem cell science here. It is entirely feasible that the (Upper House) decision could lead to [Western Australia] becoming one of the world centres of research into alternatives to embryonic stem cell research.”

Well said.

What US state will take a similar leadership position on adult stem cell research and attempt to establish itself as a “world center of research into alternatives to embryonic stem cell research?”

The Presidential Candidates on Life Issues

Tuesday, May 20th, 2008

I’ve just discovered that our friends at bioethics.com have posted summaries of the candidates’ documented positions on stem cell research, cloning, human embryo research, abortion, and health care.

Democrat
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama

Republican
John McCain

Ethical Stem Cell Research Proved Successful and Safe

Thursday, May 15th, 2008

Dr. Jan Nolta and Dr. Gerard Bauer of University of California, Davis, have just released the results of their 10-year study on adult stem cell research. The breakthrough study shows that using human bone-marrow derived stem cells (i.e., adult stem cells and not embryonic stem cells) can be used safely and successfully to treat and cure diseases of the blood, bone marrow, and certain types of cancer, without causing the development of tumors or leukemia. It is interesting to observe that, as science advances, adult stem cell research methods have begun to emerge as the safer, more effective method over embryonic stem cell methods.

For a copy of the research results, go to http://www.stemcellresearchnews.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=1223&z=9

The 2008 Presidential Election

Thursday, April 3rd, 2008

As the 2008 Presidential Election approaches, we find ourselves struggling to determine which presidential candidate will best serve our country and hold fast to the principles and values we hold dear. One factor of increasing importance in this determination is a candidate’s position on abortion and life issues. How important is it for the pro-life cause to elect a pro-life President? What impact will the next President of the United States have on the pro-life agenda? Does it really matter what the next President’s position on life issues is? The answer is simple: Yes, it does matter. The President of the United States plays a crucial role in advancing the pro-life cause in America, and the election of a pro-life President will guarantee a political environment that is supportive of pro-life legislation and policies.

To read the entire article click here.

Nebraska Joins Handful of States that Prohibit State Funding of Human Cloning

Wednesday, March 26th, 2008

On Tuesday, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman signed into law LB 606, which prohibits the state funding of human cloning for any purpose. 

Significantly, this bill prohibits the funding of both cloning-to-produce-children, as well as cloning-for-biomedical-research.  Unfortunately, many states ban and/or prohibit funding only for cloning-to-produce-children, meaning that researchers can utilize cloning and create embryos without limit, as long as they kill the embryos and do not allow them to mature.

LB 606 has been seen as a compromise by both sides of the issue.  Human cloning for any purpose is still allowed in Nebraska, but the State will not fund it.

Nebraska joins a handful of other states that restrict funding of human cloning and/or destructive embryo research, including Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, and Virginia.  Obviously, the low number of states prohibiting such funding highlights the need for more high profile funding restrictions in other states.