LA Times: Supreme Court spurns challenge to stem cell research

By David G. Savage

The Los Angeles Times

January 7, 2013

 

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has turned away a challenge to President Obama’s policy of expanding government-funded research using embryonic stem cells that scientists say may offer hope for new treatments for spinal injuries and Parkinson’s disease.

The court’s action brings a quiet end to a lawsuit that briefly threatened to derail all funding for such research. 

A federal judge in Washington in 2010 ordered the National Institutes of Health to halt funding of the research, citing a long-standing congressional ban on spending for research in which “human embryos are destroyed.”

But an appeals court overturned that order and ruled last year that the ban applied only to research which destroyed human embryos so as to obtain stem cells.

President George W. Bush in 2001 had allowed limited research on several stem cell lines that were already in existence. Upon taking office in 2009, President Obama went further and said NIH could conduct “scientifically worthy human stem cell research to the extent permitted by law.”  Under guidelines issued by NIH, researchers can used stem line cells derived from donated frozen embryos that are no longer needed for fertility treatments.

The three-judge panel that upheld the Obama administration’s guidelines was made up Chief Judge David Sentelle, a Reagan appointee; Judge Karen Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush; and Judge Janice Rogers Brown, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

Two researchers who work with adult stem lines, including Dr. James Sherley of the Boston Biomedical Research Institute, brought the lawsuit. They were represented by several groups, including the Law of Life Project. Samuel Casey, the group’s general counsel, called the human stem cell research “an ethical tragedy as well as a waste of the taxpayer’s money.”

They appealed to the high court in the fall, but the justices denied the appeal without comment or dissent in the case, Sherley v. Sebelius.

 


Help Us Make A Difference. Make A Donation That Could Save Lives.

Make A Gift

Connect/
Share/
follow/

Follow Us / Friend Us

Discovery-driven research that matters

phallodin

Taubman Scholar Dr. Charles Burant tests promising diabetes drug

TAK-875, a new treatment for type 2 diabetes, improves blood sugar control and is equally effective as glimepiride, but has a significantly lower risk of creating a dangerous drop in blood sugar, called hypoglycemia, according to a new study.

Read more

Taubman Institute leaders make the case for more doctor-scientist funding

 

The prestigious "Academic Medicine" journal has just published a new article authored by Taubman Institute senior management and Detroit-area attorney Scott Roberts.

The article explores the problematic gap between bench research and clinical application of new treatments or cures. 

Read more


Help Us Make A Difference. Make A Gift.

Leaders from the realms of business, academia and the community help to refine the Taubman Institute's vision, to monitor progress and to provide support, advice and counsel.

Meet the Leadership Advisory Board

Meet the Scientific Advisory Board

About Taubman Institute Video

In this video feature, Taubman Scholars explain why funding for high-risk research is so important to their work and to the discovery of promising cures and treatments.  

 

Stem cell surgery targets ALS Video

Patients glean hope from trial’s progress but wish it were faster

 

video-emerging-scholars-programDonors pitch in to keep brilliant science minds at U-M Video

Emerging Scholars program connects promising M.D.-researchers with philanthropists