http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2010/07/02/the-dc-circuit-revives-a-legal-challenge-to-human-embryonic-stem-cell-research%e2%80%93-what-does-it-mean/ Wed, 15 May 2013 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2010/07/02/the-dc-circuit-revives-a-legal-challenge-to-human-embryonic-stem-cell-research%e2%80%93-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-1/#comment-12986 Good news for embryonic stem cell research: Judge Lamberth rules for the NIH Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:26:03 +0000 http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/?p=1441#comment-12986 [...] Somewhat surprisingly, on June 25, 2010, the DC Circuit reversed this decision on standing, in a unanimous opinion written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. The court found that the two researchers had alleged sufficient competitive injury from the fact that added competition for stem cell research funds harmed them by affecting their chances of getting their own research funded. I blogged on that decision, opining that it seemed wrong (and a bad idea) to me, but was unlikely to be very important as the plaintiffs’ case on the merits here was so weak.  Standing Decision Post. [...] [...] Somewhat surprisingly, on June 25, 2010, the DC Circuit reversed this decision on standing, in a unanimous opinion written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. The court found that the two researchers had alleged sufficient competitive injury from the fact that added competition for stem cell research funds harmed them by affecting their chances of getting their own research funded. I blogged on that decision, opining that it seemed wrong (and a bad idea) to me, but was unlikely to be very important as the plaintiffs’ case on the merits here was so weak.  Standing Decision Post. [...]

]]>