Judge halts stem-cell research
In a ruling that imperils the future of stem-cell research in the U.S., a federal judge blocked President Obama’s 2009 executive order that expanded embryonic stem-cell research.
In a ruling that cast doubt on the future of stem-cell research in the U.S., a federal judge this week blocked President Obama’s 2009 executive order that expanded embryonic stem-cell research. In responding to a lawsuit by pro-life scientists, Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that Obama’s order violated a 1996 law banning the use of federal money for any research that destroys embryos. Obama’s order had allowed federally funded research to be done on embryonic stem cells derived from surplus embryos at fertility clinics. But Lamberth ruled that this distinction was invalid, and that the law prohibits federal funding of any research involving embryo destruction. “This ruling means an immediate disruption of dozens of labs doing this work,” said Dr. George Q. Daley of Children’s Hospital Boston.
Lamberth said his decision would reinstate the “status quo.” But some scientists and lawyers said the ruling was vague and confusing, and might even prohibit research approved under the more restrictive terms of the Bush administration. The Obama administration promised to appeal.
What a “huge overreach,” said The New York Times in an editorial. If Lamberth’s ruling stands, it will be a “serious blow to medical research” and overturn the interpretation of law that has governed stem-cell research for more than a decade. The consequences for research on diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and spinal cord injuries are truly “ominous.”
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
We’re all eager for cures, said Adam Keiper and Yuval Levin in National Review Online. But scientific advances must go “hand in hand with respect for life and human dignity.” The law guiding the judge’s decision, the 1996 Dicky-Wicker Amendment, explicitly forbids federal funding for research in which a human embryo is destroyed. At the very least, Obama’s order violated the spirit of that law.
It’s time to end this bitter debate, said David Gibson in PoliticsDaily.com. New research suggests that adult stem cells may be at least as effective as embryonic stem cells. So instead of this endless battle over “which is the greater good—protecting nascent life or extending the lives of afflicted adults and children”—let’s work together to unlock the promise of adult stem cells.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
‘Social media is the new tabloid’Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Can the NBA survive FBI’s gambling investigation?Talking Points A casualty of the ‘sports gambling revolution’
-
How are ICE’s recruitment woes complicating Trump’s immigration agenda?TODAY’S BIG QUESTION Lowered training standards and ‘athletically allergic’ hopefuls are hindering the White House plan to turn the Department of Homeland Security into a federal police force
-
Millions turn out for anti-Trump ‘No Kings’ ralliesSpeed Read An estimated 7 million people participated, 2 million more than at the first ‘No Kings’ protest in June
-
Ghislaine Maxwell: angling for a Trump pardonTalking Point Convicted sex trafficker's testimony could shed new light on president's links to Jeffrey Epstein
-
The last words and final moments of 40 presidentsThe Explainer Some are eloquent quotes worthy of the holders of the highest office in the nation, and others... aren't
-
The JFK files: the truth at last?In The Spotlight More than 64,000 previously classified documents relating the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy have been released by the Trump administration
-
'Seriously, not literally': how should the world take Donald Trump?Today's big question White House rhetoric and reality look likely to become increasingly blurred
-
Will Trump's 'madman' strategy pay off?Today's Big Question Incoming US president likes to seem unpredictable but, this time round, world leaders could be wise to his playbook
-
Democrats vs. Republicans: who are US billionaires backing?The Explainer Younger tech titans join 'boys' club throwing money and support' behind President Trump, while older plutocrats quietly rebuke new administration
-
US election: where things stand with one week to goThe Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'