U.S. Court of Appeals recognized the legitimacy of public funding for research on embryonic stem cells. The decision had become final chord in the three-year struggle of the National Institutes of Health (National Institutes of Health, NIH) with community organizations trying to ban the use of embryonic stem cells on ethical grounds.
"This is a real victory, and we are happy that the court has made this decision," - says Amy Comstock Rick (Amy Comstock Rick), lawyer, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, which supports stem cell research. However, some experts suggest that researchers early to celebrate. The fact that the three appeal judges differently justified rendered in favor of the NIH decision, so the plaintiffs a chance to re-review of the case.
The lawsuit was filed against the NIH in 2009, a month after President Barack Obama lifted restrictions imposed by George Bush on embryonic stem cell research. Some community organizations and individual scientists thought that the abolition of this restriction violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which for the past 16 years, prohibits public funding "research in which embryos are destroyed." In August 2010, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the executive authorities violated the Dickey-Wicker Amendment and imposed a preliminary injunction, resulting in research funding was suspended. In April 2011, the Court of Appeal decided that Obama can use public money to fund embryonic stem cell research.
One of the three jurors, David Sentell (David Sentelle), respondents agreed with the statement, claiming that the actions do not violate the NIH Dickey-Wicker amendment, as their study "using stem cells already extracted embryos, and we are not talking about destroying them." The Court also took into account the statement of the plaintiffs that such studies "stimulate" the destruction of embryos. The other two judges agreed with the decision, but for different reasons. They believe that the court is limited to the interpretation of Dickey-Wicker Amendment in this case, and that the search for the right balance in matters of bioethics - this is not the task of the court. These differences allowed the plaintiffs a chance to a new review of the case
"This is a real victory, and we are happy that the court has made this decision," - says Amy Comstock Rick (Amy Comstock Rick), lawyer, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, which supports stem cell research. However, some experts suggest that researchers early to celebrate. The fact that the three appeal judges differently justified rendered in favor of the NIH decision, so the plaintiffs a chance to re-review of the case.
The lawsuit was filed against the NIH in 2009, a month after President Barack Obama lifted restrictions imposed by George Bush on embryonic stem cell research. Some community organizations and individual scientists thought that the abolition of this restriction violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which for the past 16 years, prohibits public funding "research in which embryos are destroyed." In August 2010, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the executive authorities violated the Dickey-Wicker Amendment and imposed a preliminary injunction, resulting in research funding was suspended. In April 2011, the Court of Appeal decided that Obama can use public money to fund embryonic stem cell research.
One of the three jurors, David Sentell (David Sentelle), respondents agreed with the statement, claiming that the actions do not violate the NIH Dickey-Wicker amendment, as their study "using stem cells already extracted embryos, and we are not talking about destroying them." The Court also took into account the statement of the plaintiffs that such studies "stimulate" the destruction of embryos. The other two judges agreed with the decision, but for different reasons. They believe that the court is limited to the interpretation of Dickey-Wicker Amendment in this case, and that the search for the right balance in matters of bioethics - this is not the task of the court. These differences allowed the plaintiffs a chance to a new review of the case
No comments:
Post a Comment