US appeals court reinstates stem cell suit
Jun 26, 2010 9:31 AM | By Reuters
A US appeals court reinstated a lawsuit that challenges an Obama administration policy to pay for some human embryonic stem cell research.
The unusual suit against the National Institutes of Health, backed by some Christian groups opposed to embryo research, argued that the NIH policy violates US law and takes funds from researchers seeking to work with adult stem cells.
A federal court had rejected the lawsuit, saying the challengers had no standing.
A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit did not rule on the merits of the lawsuit, but said two of the doctors involved had legal standing to file it.
?Because the guidelines have intensified the competition for a share in a fixed amount of money, the plaintiffs will have to invest more time and resources to craft a successful grant application,? the three-judge panel said in a 12-page ruling. ?That is an actual, here-and-now injury.?
The Obama administration could ask the full appeals court to reconsider the case or file an appeal to the US Supreme Court. A Justice Department spokesman said they were reviewing the decision and declined further comment.
The NIH denied that its policies pitted adult stem cell researchers against those seeking to use embryonic stem cells.
?NIH does not set aside funding for specific categories of stem cell research,? NIH spokesman John Burklow said in a statement. ?As a result, adult and human embryonic stem cell projects are not in direct competition for funding.? Stem cells are the body?s master cells. There are several kinds, including those taken from days-old human embryos, which can give rise to all the cells and tissues in the body.
Some people oppose working with human embryonic stem cells, but President Barack Obama?s administration has reversed a policy that severely limited federal funding of such work.
The NIH will pay for research using the cells, although it will not pay for the process of extracting the cells, which involves human embryos. A law renewed by Congress every year forbids using federal money to destroy human embryos for any reason.
The NIH also funds work with adult stem cells, immature cells found throughout the body.
?NIH believes it is important to support all types of human stem cell research,? Burklow said.
Dr. James Sherley of Boston Biomedical Research Institute and Theresa Deisher of Washington-based AVM Biotechnology, who both work with adult stem cells, filed the suit saying the guidelines would harm their work by increasing competition for limited federal funding.
They both oppose the use of human embryonic stem cells and had argued the guidelines violated the law by permitting research on stem cells derived from human embryos.
Sherley and Deisher were joined in their challenge by the Christian Medical Association, which opposes federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and an adoption agency called Nightlight Christian Adoptions, which has argued the guidelines reduced the number of embryos available for use in adoption.
However, the appeals court agreed these two groups had no legal standing in this c
Jun 26, 2010 9:31 AM | By Reuters
A US appeals court reinstated a lawsuit that challenges an Obama administration policy to pay for some human embryonic stem cell research.
The unusual suit against the National Institutes of Health, backed by some Christian groups opposed to embryo research, argued that the NIH policy violates US law and takes funds from researchers seeking to work with adult stem cells.
A federal court had rejected the lawsuit, saying the challengers had no standing.
A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit did not rule on the merits of the lawsuit, but said two of the doctors involved had legal standing to file it.
?Because the guidelines have intensified the competition for a share in a fixed amount of money, the plaintiffs will have to invest more time and resources to craft a successful grant application,? the three-judge panel said in a 12-page ruling. ?That is an actual, here-and-now injury.?
The Obama administration could ask the full appeals court to reconsider the case or file an appeal to the US Supreme Court. A Justice Department spokesman said they were reviewing the decision and declined further comment.
The NIH denied that its policies pitted adult stem cell researchers against those seeking to use embryonic stem cells.
?NIH does not set aside funding for specific categories of stem cell research,? NIH spokesman John Burklow said in a statement. ?As a result, adult and human embryonic stem cell projects are not in direct competition for funding.? Stem cells are the body?s master cells. There are several kinds, including those taken from days-old human embryos, which can give rise to all the cells and tissues in the body.
Some people oppose working with human embryonic stem cells, but President Barack Obama?s administration has reversed a policy that severely limited federal funding of such work.
The NIH will pay for research using the cells, although it will not pay for the process of extracting the cells, which involves human embryos. A law renewed by Congress every year forbids using federal money to destroy human embryos for any reason.
The NIH also funds work with adult stem cells, immature cells found throughout the body.
?NIH believes it is important to support all types of human stem cell research,? Burklow said.
Dr. James Sherley of Boston Biomedical Research Institute and Theresa Deisher of Washington-based AVM Biotechnology, who both work with adult stem cells, filed the suit saying the guidelines would harm their work by increasing competition for limited federal funding.
They both oppose the use of human embryonic stem cells and had argued the guidelines violated the law by permitting research on stem cells derived from human embryos.
Sherley and Deisher were joined in their challenge by the Christian Medical Association, which opposes federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and an adoption agency called Nightlight Christian Adoptions, which has argued the guidelines reduced the number of embryos available for use in adoption.
However, the appeals court agreed these two groups had no legal standing in this c