A federal judge has created a crisis in medical research with nothing more than a temporary injunction.
Lets hope the crisis itself is temporary. The order by Judge Royce Lamberth invalidates federal policies for regulating embryonic stem cell research. In a mere 15 pages, it threatens research seeking cures for diabetes, Parkinson’s and many other diseases.
Controversy over stem cell research has ebbed since the early days of the Obama administration. Early in 2009, the president established rules allowing a resumption of research on stem cells from test tube embryos. Previously, President George W. Bush had limited such research to 21 stem cell lines already established by researchers.
Obama’s approach was cheered by many who believe it will lead to new treatments for cancer, spinal chord injuries, ALS, heart disease and many other diseases. Parkinson’s research is said to be on the verge of testing a stem-cell-based treatment in humans.
Lamberth’s injunction has thrown the field into confusion by invalidating the rules established by both Obama and Bush. It is based on a 1996 budget amendment that could easily be swept away. In fact, Congress has done so twice, but both bills were vetoed by Bush.
We hope strong bipartisan support in Congress for stem cell research makes short work of this needless restriction. In the meantime, the administration has appealed the D.C. District Court’s Aug. 23 injunction.
Unfortunately, neither approach can avoid the needless disruption of promising projects that will have to be sidetracked by the National Institutes of Health.
We hope quick action can minimize such delays, and the dismay and discomfort of those who would benefit from medical advances.
— Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less