Wisconsin Stem Cell Now, Inc. President Ed Fallone appeared August 25, 2010 on Wisconsin Public Radio to explain why our organization supports federal funding of all forms of stem cell research — including embryonic stem cell research.  He particpated in a debate on the Joy Cardin Show where he discussed the impact of the Sherley v. Sebelius ruling in federal court, the reason why research using embryonic stem cell lines is both moral and ethical, and the current limitations of alternatives such as research using either adult stem cells or Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell lines.  The program can be heard on the Joy Cardin audio archive or by clicking the following link:

http://clipcast.wpr.org:8080/ramgen/wpr/jca/jca100825b.rm

On August 23, 2010, United States District Court Judge Royce Lambreth issued a preliminary injunction in the case of Sherley v. Sebelius.  As a result of the Judge’s ruling, the Obama Administration is temporarily prevented from using federal funds to issue grants funds under the Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research promugated by the National Institutes for Health and finalized on July 7, 2009.  The ruling may be reversed on appeal, but in the meantime this is yet another roadblock that opponents of embryonic stem cell research have used in order to delay the progress of medical research in this field.

The lawsuit was brought by individuals and organizations that object to embryonic stem cell research on religious grounds.  However, the specific legal objection contained in the lawsuit is the argument that the July 7, 2009 NIH Guidelines are in conflict with the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, in which Congress prohibited the use of federal funds for research that destroys a human embryo.  Judge Lamberth ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims had a high likelihood of success, and that the language of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment was clearly in conflict with the NIH Guidelines.  Therefore, he issued the injunction prohibiting any further expenditure of federal funds pending further factfinding and a trial.

In our opinion, Judge Lamberth’s legal reasoning is conclusory and fails to accord the usual level of respect that federal judges give to agency interpretations of their governing congressional statute.  In particular, Judge Lambreth interprets the word “research” in an overexpansive fashion, with the result that he reads the Dickey-Wicker Amendment in a way that prohibits a broad swath of medical research far beyond the intent of Congress.

The most striking aspect of the opinion, however, is that it is the perfect illustration of how health care policy choices are being influenced by religious motivations and litigation strategy.  The search for medical cures must be driven by doctors and researchers, conducted under ethical guidelines, and supported by federal funding through the National Institutes of Health.  Lawsuits are a terrible way to determine our nation’s health care priorities.