•  
•  
  • HISTORY OF RIRC
  • FACULTY OF RIRC
  • STAFF OF RIRC
•  
  • SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
  • CLINICAL RESEARCH
  • ROMAN REED PROGRAM
  • SCI and the NIH
•  
•  
•  

Injunction against Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research

A U.S. district court judge in Washington DC has issued an injunction blocking federal support for research on human embryonic stem cells (hESC).

This ruling overturns Obama administration policies that were to expand such research. NIH Director Francis Collins called the ruling a "very unexpected development", and noted that the ruling could cause irreparable damage and delay potential breakthroughs to improve care for people living with serious diseases and conditions such as spinal cord injury, diabetes, or Parkinson's disease.

The ruling is based on a 1996 federal law called the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which bars federal funding of work that destroys human embryos.

The argument is that embryos were destroyed to create stem cells so any subsequent research involving those stem cells should be banned even if the research takes place years later. The injunction has forced NIH to cancel reviews of new grants for hESC research and halt all hESC research being carried out on the NIH campus (called intramural research). NIH issued a notice on August 30 that grants funded on or before August 23, 2010 could continue until the end of their budget year but all competing and continuation awards (a new year of funding for an approved grant) would be suspended. This means that many ongoing research projects throughout the country will have to stop in their tracks.

The Department of Justice has already announced that it plans to appeal the ruling and on August 31, the Obama administration asked a federal judge to allow the continuation of federal funding while the case challenging the ruling is pending.

All of this points to the incredible wisdom of Proposition 71, which funds stem cell research in California and provides the facilities in which to carry our such research. Without these facilities, scientists would once again have to carefully segregate equipment, supplies, and people who were funded by NIH from any activity involving hECCs.

Current stem cell research at the Reeve-Irvine Research center will not be impeded by the injunction because current funding comes from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) and private donations.

Nevertheless, RIRC scientists will, like scientists elsewhere, be unable to obtain federal grants until the ban is lifted, which will impede our future progress. What it will take to lift the ban is uncertain, but congressional action will probably be required eventually.

Although the decision will impact future NIH funding for stem cell research, Proposition 71 will continue to provide approximately 250-300 million per year for stem cell research in California, which will ensure continued progress.   Against this very positive fact is the loss of funding targeted specifically for spinal cord injury (The Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act). Due to the state’s economic situation, the Roman Reed Program will not be renewed this year, which will be a huge blow for spinal cord injury research activities that do not involve stem cells.

For more information, visit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/health/policy/24stem.html?_r=2 and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000