Biomedicine

New Court Ruling Could Cripple Stem-Cell Research

Once again, federal funding restrictions cast uncertainty over the field.

  • Monday, August 30, 2010
  • By Emily Singer

It was just 18 months ago that U.S. scientists studying embryonic stem cells thought their nearly decade-long battle for federal funding was finally won. President Obama had signed an executive order ending a restrictive policy enacted in 2001 by President Bush. That policy had blocked federal funds from being used to study most human embryonic stem cells. But a surprise ruling by a lower court last week left the stem-cell community stunned. A federal judge issued an injunction, blocking federal funding for any research involving embryonic stem cells.

Researchers say the decision--even if it is later reversed--will have a damaging effect on the field, stunting promising medical research that was just building momentum. All grants under review at the nation's largest funding agency, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), that involve human embryonic stem cells have been put on hold while the NIH and other government agencies try to get the injunction reversed.

"Without federal grant dollars, the science will slow to a crawl, again," says George Daley, director of the Stem Cell Transplantation Program at Children's Hospital Boston. "We have seen an enormous outpouring of interest over the last year, with between 200 to 300 grants approved for use of embryonic stem cells. Every one of those grants and labs is now enjoined from using federal dollars. They will either have to stop doing work altogether or try to cobble together private funds, which are in short supply in this economy."

At the heart of scientists' disappointment is the delay the ruling will create in developing new therapies. "Patients have been waiting nearly 10 years to use the power of American science to unleash new treatments for disease," says Doug Melton, codirector of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. "I have heard from many who are deeply disappointed, howling, 'How could this happen?' "

Advertisement

Embryonic stem cells, first derived from human embryos in 1998, have captured intense interest from both scientists and the general public for their ability to develop into any cell type in the body. Researchers ultimately aim to generate replacement tissue for cells lost or damaged to disease or injury. In the nearer term, scientists are using them to study the molecular mechanisms of disease, as well as to screen experimental drugs.

However, the cells have also been the subject of controversy; the lines of embryonic stem cells that scientists use are generated from excess embryos donated from fertility clinics. While these embryos would have ultimately been discarded, opponents object to any research that requires the destruction of human embryos. In 2001, President Bush struck a compromise, permitting researchers to use federal funds to study only a limited set of embryonic stem-cell lines already in existence. Those who wanted to create new lines or study them had to garner state or private money, in some cases setting up duplicate labs to carry out federally funded and privately funded projects.

Obama's executive order last year lifted the restrictions on federal funding. But a largely under-the-radar lawsuit brought by two scientists studying adult stem cells has made things even worse than the earlier Bush policy. Judge Royce Lamberth of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia prohibited all embryonic stem-cell research from receiving federal funding.

Print

Related Articles

Uncertain Stem-Cell Policy Hinders Research

Some scientists are reluctant to enter the field, and some consider leaving it altogether, because of the uncertainty of government regulations.

A New Way to Make Stem Cells

Using RNA instead of DNA could avoid the health risks--and the political pitfalls--of stem-cell treatments.

TR10: Engineered Stem Cells

Mimicking human disease in a dish.

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

kellermfk

7 Comments

  • 527 Days Ago
  • 08/30/2010

Stem-cell

.. more accurately, cripple researchers using federal money (i.e. feeding at the federal pig trough). Those using private money are unaffected.

Reply

GaryB

119 Comments

  • 527 Days Ago
  • 08/30/2010

Re: Stem-cell

I know. I'm still pissed about the Internet and GPS! Sheesh, what nonsense will the federal Government create next??

While there are some things that have clear commercial potential that will be funded by private research, other things like the Internet and basic research would never get done without "the pig trough" since they are in a local minima in any free market scenario. 

Still other things like GPS would have been balkanized like our cellular system. Anywhere else in the world, you grab a phone from whomever, grab a sim card from whomever and you get great coverage wherever. Not here. Government can often at least set up better solutions.

Even so, you are really naive to think that banning federal funds for research of embryonic stem cells is the end. It's the start.

Reply

huynhbc

17 Comments

  • 526 Days Ago
  • 08/31/2010

Re: Stem-cell

I agree with you this ESC research will get stalled it's even more retrict the the Bush Admin. _ I wish Congress will rescue this situation at the earliest of Gov. snail speed . Economic right now has money dried up all over the globe , individual investors get low cash too and normally they don't have enough patience with medical research outcomes and naturally people put their money in other sectors for quicker profits ; Institutions are only invest after the company already has a marketable products - by sayinng that the public funds are very rare now and the the disadvantages to compete with other sectors to get the private funds too . it's quite hard for  start up medical companies . I just wish Congress will relieve this situation soon by re-write the Wickey Dicker Amwntment to let this research free running as other countries already do decade ago....IMHO

Reply

DennisBuller

118 Comments

  • 527 Days Ago
  • 08/30/2010

The Moral Debate?

  I really cannot blame Ms. Singer for not getting into the morality side of the debate.
  But it is why the federal funding is in flux. And will be an issue in the future.
  Science without discussion of morality? This whole article seems to dance around the issue...
And there is this :
  "However, scientists say this new cell type does not eliminate the need for embryonic stem cells. On the contrary, it's not yet clear whether iPS cells possess all the properties of embryonic stem cells"
  So they have not been able to tell the difference between the two types after years of research, yet maintain they need embryonic cells?
  I have very mixed feelings on the issue.
  These were babies that would have been born if not aborted. Abortion is a contentious issue onto itself. I have very mixed feeling on it.
  Now the Federal Government is trying to use our taxes for medical research on these bodies.
  Until they show me that IPS cells cannot do the job, I do not see the need to dive into this moral quagmire.
  Keep in mind that IPS cells were discovered in South Korea. All the researchers here were to busy complaining about the lack of Federal Funding to get off their butt and find another way.....
-Dennis
www.PrometheusGoneWild.com    


   

Reply

huynhbc

17 Comments

  • 525 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

Re: The Moral Debate?

The Moral Debate on ESCs is a long issue ;But ESCs are just tissues as other tissues prior 14 days to the fetus , and ESCs are capable of differentiate to all the cells of the body while Adult cells can not and they dies earlier compare to ESCs .As you know fetus is a full spine formed entity and human start only from there but prior than that there are all blobs cells ) So it more productive to use ESCs than Adult Cells and they have more 200X power of its robust in differentiate and its versatility to differentiate into all cell in the body as I mentioned earlier . By mean ESCs is a gold standard why don't they let using ESCs in parallel with other cells in search of compatibilities available for therapies but moral issues are just a political platform to put the ESCs research in great impede to progress the science . Either using the therapies later or not research should let free to research for all and that's what research all about to find out the best sources , efficacy, safe and productive for all .IMHO.  regards.

Reply

Webster20

1 Comment

  • 519 Days Ago
  • 09/07/2010

Re: The Moral Debate?

To say it's just tissues is plain wrong. 
It's a unique living being with it's own DNA.
Growing and maturing inside the womb.
Based on science the DNA says it's human.
Say it's stem cells are 200X more powerful is not based on
science.  You just took a number out of the sky.
There are countries that allow esc research.  How many cures?
Zero!  How many cures with adult stem cells?  88 and growing.
One issue you don't talk about is the rejection issue.
It only makes sense to use your own cells to cure yourself.

Reply

gvramanarao

5 Comments

  • 527 Days Ago
  • 08/30/2010

Morality is irrelevant here

Let us not talk about morality of destroying embryos when we are allowed to create them in first place. Did you think of the morality of creating life artificially? If not, do not talk about it now just because you do not "like" it.

On a larger scale, also consider the morality in extending life through medical research.

Reply

DennisBuller

118 Comments

  • 526 Days Ago
  • 08/31/2010

Re: Morality is irrelevant here

Of course, morality is irrelevant.
Since I may not have a problem with creating life through in-vitro, obviously I should not have a problem with medical experiments with aborted children.  
The logic of your argument is overwhelming....
Dennis

Reply

Advertisement

MAGAZINE

Can We Build Tomorrow's Breakthroughs?

Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.

Videos

The Virtual Nurse Will See You Now

More

Advertisement

Technology Review Lists

TR50

Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:

Netflix

Twitter

Cellular Dynamics International

eSolar

More

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement