Comments on: Stem Cell Madness – Judge Lamberth’s Opinion and Order Enjoining hESC Research

By: Judge Lamberth’s stem cell opinion is disappointingly bad | Scope Blog

Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:29:52 +0000

[...] A much more detailed version of this discussion can be found here. [...]

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:51:47 +0000

I think ethics is just a smokescreen top prevent stem cell research it will not happen in America because big pharma cannot patent it big pharma and the FDA don’t want a cure for anything at all there is no money in it open your eyes to the American lie !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Good news for embryonic stem cell research: Judge Lamberth rules for the NIH

Good news for embryonic stem cell research: Judge Lamberth rules for the NIH — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:43:42 +0000

[...] Imagine my surprise when, eight weeks later – as soon as the mandate was returned from the Court of Appeals – Judge Lamberth, without seeking briefing or argument from the parties, granted a preliminary injunction to the two scientist-plaintiffs on the ground that the policy violated the plain language of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, an appropriations rider added annually since 1995 that forbids HHS from funding any research “in which” embryos are harmed. I blogged on that, too, expressing my surprise – and echoing the surprise and shocked of stem cell researchers and the NIH. August 2010 decision post. [...]

By: bruce quinn

bruce quinn — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 02:22:00 +0000

(A) If you construe the restriction very narrowly, only on the specific creation of stem cell lines with embryo destruction, then it might seem a bit quirky, because a huge pipeline of federal funding would reward (encourage?) the destruction of embryos. This seems to be Lamberth’s concern. I can sort of see that. But…

(B) But if you construe the term ‘research’ broadly, it raises an opposite problem. When exactly does research related to the original, distinct destruction of the embryo stop? What about a monoclonal antibody biologic crucially depending in a major way on ESC research during its development? What if the ESC are exposed to some condition, RNA is extracted, and the RNA studied in another laboratory? Is that related research? Once you “go broad” with the definition of research you will eventually have to draw a line that various stakeholders will still argue over.

By: hESC research funding frozen! « Florida BioTechnology News

hESC research funding frozen! « Florida BioTechnology News — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 01:43:30 +0000

[...] lawyer Hank Greely disagrees in this cogent, legal argument against the ruling. Filed under biotech, biotechnology [...]

By: Daily Online Marketing Digest for September 8th

Daily Online Marketing Digest for September 8th — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:14:47 +0000

[...] Shared Stem Cell Madness â Judge Lamberthâs Opinion and Order Enjoining hESC Research. [...]

By: Jamie

Jamie — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:12:25 +0000

This is a fantastic post. As a scientist who doesn’t know much about law, it’s really nice to see that the reverse isn’t always true.

By: L. S.

L. S. — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:52:32 +0000

Thank you very much for this very informative yet accessible article. I’ve been looking for something just like this since the ruling was announced.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 18:37:58 +0000

The legal interpretation from the NIH/DOJ seems to be that current research has to stop. This seems to conflict directly with the ruling of the preliminary injunction: that current researchers would not be significantly harmed.

By: Naomi Most

Naomi Most — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 05:25:36 +0000

Why is there no one bringing up the seemingly-obvious and quite lawyerly point that no one’s doing stem cell research on EMBRYOS at all? These are BLASTOCYSTS. An “embryo” is attached to a uterine wall; a blastocyst is just a cluster of cells.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst

These are the same clusters that self-destruct all the time when they fail to implant in a uterus — a total natural occurrence.

If the root of this issue is ethical — which is most certainly is, given that there’s NO OTHER REASON to deny “embryonic” stem cell research from occurring — then why isn’t anyone questioning the factual basis of the situation that the ethics are supposed to be operating on??