A federal judge's ruling has thrust the issue of embryonic stem cell research back into the news. Following are five questions and answers about the decision.
-- Did the judge's ruling block all stem cell research?
No. Judge Royce C. Lamberth issued a temporary injunction blocking only federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Federal funding for the other two types of stem cell research -- adult stem cell and induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) research -- is still allowed, as is private funding for embryonic stem cell research. The judge said a 1996 law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment -- which is attached to a yearly spending bill and must be renewed annually -- prohibits federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The amendment bars research "in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." Lamberth's injunction could remain in place until he considers the case itself, in which he said the pro-life coalition that filed the suit has a "strong likelihood" of winning. Among the pro-life groups involved in the case are the Alliance Defense Fund, Advocates International and the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
-- What are the differences between the three types of stem cells?
1) Adult stem cells are found in various parts of the body and even in umbilical cord blood; 2) embryonic stem cells are found only in embryos; 3) induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) are skin cells that are reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells. As the body's master cells, all stem cells have the potential to develop into other types of body tissue and cure diseases and other ailments. Adult stem cells are "multipotent," meaning they can develop into some, but not all, of the cell types in the body. Embryonic stem cells and iPSC cells are "pluripotent," meaning they can potentially develop into all of the cell types in the body. Embryonic stem cell research is controversial because it requires the destruction of human embryos. Adult stem cell research and iPSC research do not involve embryos and are not controversial.
-- How does the Obama administration interpret the Dickey-Wicker Amendment?
The Justice Department says the Dickey-Wicker Amendment allows research on embryonic stem cells as long as the embryos themselves were destroyed using private money. Lamberth, though, said the two parts of the research "cannot be separated" and that the language of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment is "unambiguous." Congress' intent, he said, was to "enact a broad prohibition of funding research in which a human embryo is destroyed." Lamberth was nominated by President Reagan.
-- Has stem cell research led to any cures?
Embryonic stem cell research has not, and any cures could be years away, at best. In 2006 a California institute, set up to oversee $3 billion in state embryonic stem cell funding, acknowledged that at the end of a 10-year period, it simply hoped to have "preliminary evidence" from at least one embryonic stem cell trial. The research has been slowed because embryonic stem cells have a tendency to produce cancer in animal trials. The first FDA-approved embryonic stem cell trial in the U.S. got under way this year. By contrast, advances in adult stem cell research and iPSC research are moving rapidly. Adult stem cell treatment has led to treatments for 73 diseases and ailments, according to the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. IPSC research may be the most promising field. Dr. Oz, of "Oprah" fame, said in 2009 he believed researchers were "single-digit years" away from finding treatments using induced pluripotent stem cells. "The stem cell debate is dead," he said, noting the problems with embryonic stem cells. In 2009, Al Gore announced his partnership in a $20 million venture to fund iPSC research.
-- What's the next step in the legal case?
The Obama administration is appealing the ruling and wants the judge to stay the ruling -- meaning to prevent the ruling from going into effect -- until the appeal is exhausted. Some Democrats in Congress say they will move to pass legislation reversing the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, although it is unclear whether Congress will have the time or political desire to pass such a controversial bill before the November election. It is possible it could be taken up during a lame duck session after November.
Contact: Michael Foust
