The plaintiffs in the case that brought embryonic stem cell research to a screeching halt believe that allowing the practice financially harms their own research using non-embryonic stem cells, which they also claim is a better alternative. Backed by pro-life and religious groups, the key plaintiffs in the ongoing lawsuit, Dr. Theresa Deisher and Dr. James Sherley, have convinced a judge to place an injunction on federally-funded embryonic stem cell research, putting more restrictions on funding than there were during the Bush administration.
But neither scientist is strictly in it for the money. For instance, in a 2008 Blog Talk Radio interview (available here) Deisher linked the long-range lifesaving potential of stem cell research as being similar to a “nebulous promise” of constructing Martian housing.
“I don’t know that in 30 years we won’t be able to build apartments in Mars, but right now we have a need for housing here now and that’s what the money should go for,” Deisher said. “It’s the same in the stem cell area. Right now we have safe effective and affordable adult stem cell therapies. That’s where our money should go.”
The initial lawsuit last fall was brought by the Christian Medical Association and Night-Light Christian Adoptions on behalf of “embryos” and parents who want to “adopt embryos.” They believe that embryonic stem cell research will make the process more difficult for those families. But the suit also included Deisher and Sherley, who argued simply that funding of embryonic stem cell research would create more competition for them. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth threw out the original suit on the basis the parents and embryos had no standing, but an appeals court found Deisher and Sherley were allowed to press forward under the competitor-standing doctrine because they claim their own research is harmed financially by the administration’s new rules.
TPM has tried to interview Deisher, Sherley and each of the lawyers in the case. They all referred questions to the Alliance Defense Funds’ Steven Aden, who has several times declined a phone interview through a spokeswoman and demanded written questions. The questions TPM submitted have gone unanswered. So we went digging to learn more.
Deisher leads research and development at Ave Maria Biotechnology Company, Seattle-based firm she co-founded to establish — you guessed it — ethical alternatives to embryonic stem cell research.
She describes herself as an “internationally renowned expert in the field of adult stem cell therapies and regenerative medicine” with more than 17 years of experience and 23 patents. Deisher attended Stanford University, getting her Ph.D in Molecular and Cellular Physiology.
Dr. Sherley does research on alternatives to embryonic stem cell research at Boston Biomedical Research Institute in Massachusetts. You may remember Sherley from a 2007 hunger strike at MIT when the university refused to grant him tenure. He accused MIT of racism, earning support from several white professors and prompting a black senior MIT staffer to quit in protest.
In 2006 he earned a major award for adult stem cell research with “clinical potential” from the same National Institutes of Health he’s battling against and won a 1993 Pew Scholar award.
Sherley told Reuters he believes embryonic stem cell research is unethical, and wants the NIH to “affirm once and for all time what all competent biological scientists and physicians know: ‘Human embryos are living human beings.'”
In this 2007 interview with NPR, MIT’s chancellor Phillip Clay says Sherley was denied tenure under a fair process. He denied that it had anything to do with race or stem cell research:
CHIDEYA: So let’s move on to Sherley – Professor Sherley, and embryonic stem cell research. Does his opposition to this factor into the equation of his not getting tenure?
Dr. CLAY: Absolutely not. We are very particular about not judging facts with numbers based on their particular point of view on a controversial matter. But I can assure you that Professor Sherley is not the only faculty member who has this particular view on the stem cell issue. In fact, there are probably 10 other faculty members who would share his view, both tenured and untenured.
But in his own NPR interview the same day, Sherley disagreed and said he’d be “naive” to think otherwise.
COX: Do you think or are you of the opinion that your research in the area of stem cell research, particularly with your stated or printed or published – is the right word I’m looking for – position against embryonic stem cell research? Does that in any way factor, do you think, into the decision by MIT not to grant your tenure?
Prof. SHERLEY: Well, I’ve said before and I’ll say it now that I’d be naive to think that that position has played no role in what’s going on. But the truth of the matter is I can’t see any specific evidence that is, in fact, the problem. What I can see is that race, and my race, has played a role in the negative decision that I’ve received.
In the stem cell lawsuit, Sherley argues that if the NIH funds embryonic research — as outlined in a March 2009 executive order from President Obama — his own access to research funds will hindered. Lamberth this week agreed with him, and issued an immediate injunction stopping research. The Justice Department is appealing and asking for a stay so the research can continue and Congressional leader are exploring their options for a legislative remedy.
The plaintiffs’ basic belief is that adult stem cell research is both more ethical and more successful.
Deisher used this post here on a site called Children of God for Life to argue for a focus on adult stem cells. She repeats herself several times but the thrust is that her style of research is safe, effective, affordable and ethical.
She writes:
Embryonic stem cells were first isolated from mice in 1980. Since that time there have been no diseases treated, no people helped by these cells, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been poured into this area of research. In contrast, adult stem cells were first identified in mice in the late 1990s, and already, in 2008, many different diseases have been treated and thousands of people have been helped. Embryonic stem cells have not been able to treat disease or help people because they form fatal tumors when given to adults. The very essence of being embryonic stem cells is what causes the fatal tumor formation. We can say this because fatal tumor formation (teratoma formation) is the gold standard used to determine whether a cell is truly an embryonic stem cell or not. Reprogrammed adult cells display this embryonic characteristic: they form fatal tumors in adults.
TPM interviewed several scientists who said Deisher’s suggestions are on par with claims made by climate change deniers.
In his ruling, Lamberth found that the new NIH guidelines “threaten the very livelihood of plaintiffs Sherley and Deisher,” and wrote, “Accordingly, the irreparable harm that plaintiffs would suffer absent the injunction outweighs the harms to interested parties.” NIH and the administration argued that stopping potentially lifesaving medical research had much broader implications.
It’s been pointed out that the competitor standing doctrine argument opens up a major can of worms as far as grant funding equity goes — it’s highly competitive for any field.
One molecular cell biology source snarked, “If scientists are allowed to sue the government to avoid normal competition for research funds, I know a few people who should be hiring lawyers.”
The right-leaning judicial panel involved in the decision are another story entirely. Micheal Tomasky broke the issue down nicely with a focus on the consequences of the obstruction of judicial nominees here.
Additional reporting by Megan Carpentier
