In 1995, Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker amendment. This amendment prohibits federal funding of research where an embryo is “destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.” It has been added to the Department of Health and Human Services appropriations bill, under which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) falls, annually since FY1996. Under the amendment, federal funding for the creation of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines from destroyed embryos has been banned, but research using existing lines, created with private funds, has been permitted. A recent court decision calls into question this interpretation of the amendment.
On Aug. 23, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled in the preliminary motions of Sherley v. Sebelius that funding hESC research violated the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. The court issued an injunction blocking all NIH funding for hESC research, which resulted in NIH removing all hESC grants from review and blocking funding to existing grants, approximately $140 million. Research at NIH’s Bethesda, Md., campus was halted as well. Since the original ruling, the Department of Justice appealed; and a federal appeals court permanently stayed the injunction. Though this permits hESC research, Lamberth’s decision could ultimately ban funding regardless of the appeals court’s decision. These tumultuous court rulings have left scientists uncertain of the future of grants currently funded by NIH.
On Monday, Oct. 4, the Baker Institute event “The Fate of Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Examining the Legal Battle Behind the Science” will examine this issue. Richard Behringer, Ph.D., and Robert Riddle, Ph.D., J.D., will address the recent court rulings regarding the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.
Behringer, a professor in the Department of Genetics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, will discuss the background biology and therapeutic potential of embryonic stem cells, elucidate the ethical implications in their use, and describe how recent court rulings have impacted scientists and stem cell research. Riddle, an associate in patent law at Baker Botts L.L.P., will explain the recent district and appeals court actions and potential future legal actions by both courts, as well as offer his thoughts on how the Obama administration and Congress can address the issues created by the district court’s reinterpretation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.
To attend the event, please RSVP at the event website.
Learn more about stem cells and public policy in these previous Baker Institute blog posts:
“Stem cell ruling hurts Texas scientists, too,” Aug. 31, 2010
“Congressional legislation should protect stem cell research,” March 18, 2010
“Texas and Obama’s stem cell policy,” Nov. 23, 2009
“Why are we afraid to regulate embryonic research?” Oct. 16, 2009
Maude Rowland is a graduate intern for the Baker Institute Science and Technology Policy Program. She is working on a Ph.D. in bioengineering with Dr. Jennifer West and plans to graduate in 2011.
Kirstin Matthews is a fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute. Her research focuses on the intersection between traditional biomedical research and public policy. Matthews’ current projects include the Baker Institute International Stem Cell Policy Program, the Civic Scientist Lecture Series and policy studies in research and development funding, genomics and climate change.