We’re making calls to determine what the implications are of this preliminary injunction halting federal funding of stem cell research, particularly the legal implications. But I wanted to get input from our reader-experts, too.
It’s only a preliminary injunction, but the judge in the case, Royce Lamberth, strongly telegraphs where this is heading: he doesn’t buy the government’s argument at all. But here’s the thing, it’s not just the argument of the government’s lawyers in this case. It’s the same argument NIH has been making for more than a decade. It comes down to whether the 1996 federal law banning the government from funding research that involves the destruction of human embryos applies to research done on stem cells derived from embryos.
I’m oversimplifying a bit, but this is the gist. NIH’s position has been that if the government funding went just to the research done on stem cells derived from embryos and not to the part of the research that involved the destruction of the embryos, then everything was kosher. Lamberth says that distinction doesn’t hold water and doesn’t get NIH around the prohibition.
The executive order that George W. Bush issued for the duration of his presidency essentially made that interpretation moot. It was only after President Obama set aside that executive order that the current lawsuit was filed. But everyone seemed to be proceeding all along from the assumption that the NIH interpretation was valid. Maybe not right, but legally valid. Which is why stem cell research advocates were excited by Obama’s election, because it meant NIH’s interpretation would hold sway again.
My sense is that today’s ruling changes the legal terrain on stem cell research pretty dramatically. Maybe even seismically. But I’m curious what those who deal with the legal dynamics of this issue every day think. Shoot us an email with your insights.
