Relevant legal cases on stem cells in June 2010
californiastemcellreport had a post on 27 June 2010 which included text:
The case involved possible use in federally funded research of embryos donated some years back. The feds said no because they were given under conditions that do not meet today's ethical tests, although the donations met the standards of the day, which actually was only a decade or two ago. The Globe called the NIH action a “major blow.”
As of June 27, californiastemcellreport had not mentioned the case in the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, SHERLEY v. SEBELIUS.
A comment was sent to californiastemcellreport on June 28, 2010:
It might be helpful if you posted a link to the Boston Globe material.
Separately, you might want to mention the decision of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on June 25, 2010 in the case SHERLEY v. SEBELIUS relating to the Obama order and the the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.
The link is
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100625190.
See also “Illegal and unethical” including:
Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that the Obama Administration’s policy violates the Dickey/Wicker Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos for research.
AND
“We conclude the two Doctors have standing… The Dickey-Wicker Amendment clearly limits the funding of research involving human embryos. Because the Act can plausibly be interpreted to limit research involving ESCs [embryonic stem cells], the Doctors’ interest in preventing the NIH from funding such research is not inconsistent with the purposes of the Amendment,” said the appellate court decision reversing Judge Lamberth.
**Comment to californiastemcellreport on 2 July 2010:
Although there is a suggestion that the wording involved was appropriate for the earlier time, a later comment by Collins of NIH suggested that the problem was one of ethics, not time:
This use of exculpatory language (when someone is asked to give up or waive any rights they may have) was inconsistent with the basic ethical principle of voluntary consent.
as mentioned in USAToday, link
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/collins-nixes-47-new-stem-cell-lines/1
Within the USA Today piece titled NIH chief Collins nixes 47 new stem cell lines
Verlinsky said then, "without federal support, no one will use (the cells) for research." His lab has several hundred more lines which also appear ineligible under the NIH decision.
One notes the issue is whether these stem cell lines may be used in federally-supported research projects; there is no law prohibiting them from being used in privately-supported projects or any non-federally supported project.
The case involved possible use in federally funded research of embryos donated some years back. The feds said no because they were given under conditions that do not meet today's ethical tests, although the donations met the standards of the day, which actually was only a decade or two ago. The Globe called the NIH action a “major blow.”
As of June 27, californiastemcellreport had not mentioned the case in the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, SHERLEY v. SEBELIUS.
A comment was sent to californiastemcellreport on June 28, 2010:
It might be helpful if you posted a link to the Boston Globe material.
Separately, you might want to mention the decision of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on June 25, 2010 in the case SHERLEY v. SEBELIUS relating to the Obama order and the the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.
The link is
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100625190.
See also “Illegal and unethical” including:
Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that the Obama Administration’s policy violates the Dickey/Wicker Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos for research.
AND
“We conclude the two Doctors have standing… The Dickey-Wicker Amendment clearly limits the funding of research involving human embryos. Because the Act can plausibly be interpreted to limit research involving ESCs [embryonic stem cells], the Doctors’ interest in preventing the NIH from funding such research is not inconsistent with the purposes of the Amendment,” said the appellate court decision reversing Judge Lamberth.
**Comment to californiastemcellreport on 2 July 2010:
Although there is a suggestion that the wording involved was appropriate for the earlier time, a later comment by Collins of NIH suggested that the problem was one of ethics, not time:
This use of exculpatory language (when someone is asked to give up or waive any rights they may have) was inconsistent with the basic ethical principle of voluntary consent.
as mentioned in USAToday, link
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/collins-nixes-47-new-stem-cell-lines/1
Within the USA Today piece titled NIH chief Collins nixes 47 new stem cell lines
Verlinsky said then, "without federal support, no one will use (the cells) for research." His lab has several hundred more lines which also appear ineligible under the NIH decision.
One notes the issue is whether these stem cell lines may be used in federally-supported research projects; there is no law prohibiting them from being used in privately-supported projects or any non-federally supported project.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home