Lawsuit Reinstated Challenging NIH Embryonic Stem Cell Guidelines
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled (6/27/10) that doctors performing adult stem cell research have ‘competitive standing’ to sue. The court therefore reinstated a federal lawsuit seeking to prohibit and overturn controversial guidelines for public funding of embryonic stem cell research.
The guidelines, released by the NIH in 7/09, listed regulations for embryonic stem cell research including the requirement for informed consent and prohibition of reimbursement for embryo donation. In 3/09, President Obama signed an Executive Order stating an Administration policy to fund ethically “responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research…to the extent permitted by law.”
The lawsuit challenging the president’s executive order was filed by a former MIT faculty member, an R&D director for AVM Biotechnology, Nightlight Christian Adoptions on its own behalf as well as “next friend for plaintiff embryos” and the Christian Medical Association.
The broad coalition of plaintiffs argues that the NIH guidelines which claim to implement the President’s order are both illegal and unethical. “Since 1994,” a statement from the group notes, “Congress has expressly banned NIH from funding research in which human embryos ‘are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death’.”
The lawsuit states, “These Guidelines authorize public funding of research that depends on and, indeed, requires the destruction of living human embryos. As a result, these Guidelines violate the Federal Funding Ban, and are therefore invalid. ”The plaintiffs also argue that the guidelines were created without following the procedures required by law. They assert that NIH issued its guidelines with “an unalterably closed mind, having prejudged the relevant issues.” Moreover, they assert, NIH did not consider the “ethically and medically superior alternatives” of adult and induced pluripotent stem cell research.
The plaintiffs also argue that the guidelines were created without following the procedures required by law. They assert that NIH issued its guidelines with “an unalterably closed mind, having prejudged the relevant issues.” Moreover, they assert, NIH did not consider the “ethically and medically superior alternatives” of adult and induced pluripotent stem cell research.
