Judge strikes down Obama’s stem cell research guidelines
A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked government rules on embryonic stem cell (ESC) research funding, a blow to the Obama administration which by executive order had lifted Bush-era restrictions and a victory for pro-lifers fighting to stop the destruction of human embryos.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth granted the preliminary injunction because he held opponents of Obama’s executive order had demonstrated they are likely to succeed at trial. Lamberth’s injunction is also important in that it rejects the government’s legal rationale for getting around federal law explicitly forbidding the use of taxpayer dollars to destroy a human embryo.
The case initially got hung up on a technical issue: whether those bringing the challenge had the legal right to do so. Initially, Judge Lamberth held that several plaintiffs — including a Christian adoption agency, the Christian Medical Association, and several individuals including two doctors who perform research on adult stem cells — lacked legal standing. A federal appeals court held that physicians James Sherley of the Boston Biomedical Research Institute and Theresa Deisher of AVM Biotechnology were entitled to sue, and that led Lamberth to move the case forward.
Sherley and Deisher demonstrated they were harmed by the guidelines that unfairly favor research on embryos over research on adult cells. The two claimed the Obama guidelines make it too difficult to compete successfully for National Institutes of Health stem cell research money. They also argued a 1996 federal law clearly prohibits funding of research that resulted from the destruction of embryos.
Those arguments persuaded Judge Lamberth. Significantly, his ruling suggests that the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations all wrongly assumed that because taxpayer dollars never funded actual human embryo destruction — the destruction was done privately — but rather research on the resulting stem cell lines, that they were in technical compliance with the law. Bush’s executive order allowed research on 21 lines created prior to 2001, but banned research on newly destroyed embryos. In his first two months in office, Obama lifted the restrictions altogether and has funded research on 75 lines so far.
Lamberth flatly rejected the government’s attempt to distinguish between the destruction of the embryo and research on the destroyed embryo as distinct “pieces of research” — one ineligible for funding and one eligible. They “cannot be separated,” the judge said.
“ESC research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed,” Lamberth wrote. “To conduct ESC research, ESCs must be derived from an embryo. The process of deriving ESCs from an embryo results in the destruction of the embryo. Thus, ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo.”
The nonprofit group Nightlight Christian Adoptions and the Christian Medical Association (CMA) were among the original plaintiffs. CMA chief executive Dr. David Stevens told WORLD he is pleasantly surprised by Lamberth’s ruling. “We thought we had a great case, but you never know what the courts going to do in this day in time,” he said. “But they interpreted strictly on the facts in the case.”
Supporters of embryonic stem cell research claim their work has the potential to produce breakthroughs in treating life-threatening conditions — from spinal cord injury to diabetes to Parkinson’s — that have resisted traditional treatment. Scientists say they need to do research with embryonic stem cells as well as so-called adult ones because the former are more flexible.
Dr. Stevens noted that researchers have yet to begin to test the use of embryonic stem cells in humans. On the other hand, there are around 1,200 studies being conducted on adult stem cell research, he said, and this research has met with much greater success.
The adoption agency Nightlight contends that, unless reversed, the government’s guidelines will decrease the number of human embryos available for adoption. Nightlight helps individuals adopt human embryos that are being stored in fertilization clinics. The group provides domestic, international, and embryo adoption services to families in all 50 states.
Nightlight helps individuals adopt human embryos that are being stored in fertilization clinics. It began the program in 1997, using some of more than 400,000 frozen embryos.
The NIH declined to comment, referring calls to the Justice Department.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top32 Comments to “Judge strikes down Obama’s stem cell research guidelines”
Well, praise God that ONE judge is being reasonable on this issue. I researched this issue for a class in Cell & Molecular Biology and was disgusted at the weak arguments used to justify continued research on embryonic stem cells. The scientists have SO far to go before ESC therapy is viable in humans, and adult stem cells have been so successful, that the choice seems obvious.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t understand the insistence of the left that they use embryonic stem cells when adult stems cell use is not only less destructive to human life but demonstrably more effective.
The only thing I can conclude is that they have an agenda, and facts be darned. They want the right to destroy life as they see fit.
Report comment to moderator
“We thought we had a great case, but you never know what the courts going to do in this day in time”
Man, isn’t that the truth. You win some you lose some, but you can never tell when.
I’d like to hear what NJLawyer thinks about that statement. To me it seems that going to an American court is about as reliable as going to a casino.
Report comment to moderator
How many years have they been doing “research” on embryonic stem cells? And they keep saying they KNOW it will do this or CURE that. They have NO EVIDENCE. Yet using adult stem cells continue to show that they are on the right track.
Could there be thoughts about purposely eliminating embryos on the one hand and purposely NOT curing people on the other hand? Some professors do feel that the earth would be better off without humans poluting it.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for this article. I read about this in the local paper and couldn’t make sense of what happened.
I agree with MIM. Easier to get adult stem cells and they have proven far more effective and exciting.
I suspect it’s two things–a way to make people feel better about abortion and a hope that “new” cells could be manipulated to do what researchers want. Understandable, but the embryonic ones have demonstrated themselves to be almost rogue while the adult stem cells seem far more cooperative–if you get my drift. Sort of like real life in some circles . . .
Report comment to moderator
Adult stem cells are quite successful at a number of things, but embryonic cells have the potential to do much much more, because they are what is called pluripotent. That means they can become any kind of cell in the body, which adult cells cannot do.
And it’s not surprising there’s not been success yet, because the research has been hobbled from the start. There have been serious limitations on what scientists could do from the very beginning of ESC as a field of study, so of course there hasn’t been a lot of progress.
Make It Man: The only thing I can conclude is that they have an agenda, and facts be darned. They want the right to destroy life as they see fit.
This is precisely the kind of assuming ulterior motives I was talking about in the “fight nice” thread.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and lets not forget that embryos are created in fertility labs, and unused ones are destroyed by the hundreds or thousands every day. The small number used in research pales in comparison to the numbers that are just discarded because the clients who had them created have had the children they wanted and no longer need the “spares.”
I never hear anybody upset about all these human beings just being thrown away. The right only speaks up when the talk turns to using some of them for research into possible cures for disease. If I were prone to assigning unwarranted ulterior motives, I’d say that there must be an agenda to prevent diseases from being cured.
And to be clear, no I don’t think that’s true, I’m just demonstrating how MIM’s assumed ulterior motive is not reasonable. What I actually think is that many conservatives don’t really understand where embryos come from (these are being created in laboratories, not through the natural process) or what normally happens to them — it’s only when the research issue is under discussion that they even think about it, so that’s where the attention naturally goes.
Report comment to moderator
Adult stem cells have show remarkable progress because they are easier to utilize and there have been no restrictions on their use. There is no doubt that certain ailments will be best treated by application of adult stem cells because they are generally obtained from the sick person’s body and therefore aren’t likely to be rejected. There is no point in using embryonic stem cells when one’s own adult stem cells can be used because it’s so much easier to use the adult stem cells.
The problem with adult stem cells is that they have already undergone a certain level of differentiation. There are for instance muscle stem cells and nervous system stem cells that can be used for treating problems with those specific tissues. Unfortunately not all tissue types have associated adult stem cells and will only be treatable with embryonic stem cells. Undifferentiated embryonic stem cells from a blastocyst can become any cell type, and therefore have the potential to treat diseases that adult stem cells can’t.
The fact that these embryonic stem cells come from a blastocyst that has barely begun to differentiate into different issue types means that there is absolutely no way that it can be considered human in any meaningful way. It has no nervous system so it’s incapable of suffering or even of being aware of its own existence. Denying the hope of medical treatment to potentially millions of people in order to grant human rights to a lump of cells less developed than a skin-tag is weird and perverse in my book.
Report comment to moderator
Conan:
While the Embryonic stem cells’ pluripotency could be an advantage, it is also a major disadvantage, because that power must first be controlled. Until the researchers uncover the myriad control mechanisms for differentiation of the ESCs into the various tissues, the ESCs are not useful. ESCs are less stable in a lab than adult stem cells and are more difficult to grow. In addition, much of the research on ESCs has been done with mouse ESCs, not human ESCs. Most of my information comes from NIH’s ebook on stem cell research http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309076307
Report comment to moderator
That may be true, College Student, but how are researchers supposed to learn how to control the pluripotency when they keep getting their hands tied with restrictions on research?
Imagine if you put Muhammed Ali and Joe Frazier in a ring to fight the Thrilla in Manila, but you tie Ali’s hands behind his back. Would it then be reasonable to argue that Frazier is clearly the superior fighter as he knocked Ali out and Ali didn’t land a single punch?
Report comment to moderator
“A federal appeals court held that physicians James Sherley of the Boston Biomedical Research Institute and Theresa Deisher of AVM Biotechnology were entitled to sue, and that led Lamberth to move the case forward.”
These are the people who have the great case. This judge was looking for standing, and the appeals court found it for him. We have a statute that says you can’t use embryos, and an executive order that says you can. Of course, Conan doesn’t see the statute as a problem because he wants what he wants. The Congress made a decision to honor the humanity of the embryos and said human experimentation isn’t a road we want to go down. These researchers are the people who can provide the evidence that ESC doesn’t work. You harm more people by diverting funds to a non-viable experimentaion, but that doesn’t matter to Conan. Put the funds into the hands of the people who can accomplish something.
Report comment to moderator
College Student-
Thank you for your learned posts.
Conan and Truthteller, you both seem reasonably educated on this matter. I look forward to you three discussing this.
BTY, Conan and Teller, what are your credentials for this topic? Laymen or?
(I appreciate laymen’s insights, so this is not a set up. But please be upfront on whether or not you are regurgitating propaganda or real, un-biased opinion.)
How’s that for “fight nice”? TT?
Report comment to moderator
“embryonic stem cells come from a blastocyst that has barely begun to differentiate into different issue types means that there is absolutely no way that it can be considered human in any meaningful way”
If DNA and the biological processes that define life, all present within the embryo, are inadequate as “meaningful” markers of human life, then there can be no such thing. Consiousness and self-awareness defy objective definition, and vary within individuals, depending on medication, sleep states, etc. (In my daily commute I have grounds to wonder about the conciousness of many of my fellow drivers!) All are subjective, metaphysical concepts, the secular doctrine of “ensoulment,” the amorphous and hazy threshold of value for those unimpressed with life itself as intrinsically worthy.
Report comment to moderator
Ken,
Ask yourself what it means to be human. I bet the presence of a particular type of DNA or the existence of some particular biological process wouldn’t be part of your answer. My hangnail is human by your standard.
Consciousness without a nervous system or some other elaborate information processing system is impossible. You might as well argue that Rocks may be conscious.
The concept of ensoulment is Christian, not a secular. Demonstrate ensoulment, and then you might have an argument.
Report comment to moderator
Conanthelibrarian wrote:
“That may be true, College Student, but how are researchers supposed to learn how to control the pluripotency when they keep getting their hands tied with restrictions on research?”
“And it’s not surprising there’s not been success yet, because the research has been hobbled from the start. There have been serious limitations on what scientists could do from the very beginning of ESC as a field of study, so of course there hasn’t been a lot of progress.”
What limitations are you talking about? I thought they just couldn’t receive federal funding.
Report comment to moderator
What’s truly absurd about this ruling is that the demonstrated harm in this case is that a couple of adult stem cell researchers might get a smaller piece of the funding pie. This must be the first time in history that a promising line of research was blocked because it would potentially reduce the amount of funding for a similar line of research.
It’s hard to imagine this sort of thing happening in any other field of science, and it reveals the length this judge will go to in order to enact his own personal agenda.
If you are really concerned about the fate of un-implanted embryos than what you should really be fighting is the practice of in-vitro fertilization. The death of a significant portion of these embryos is inevitable. As many as 24 fertilized eggs are placed in a special incubator, and only the most healthy looking are chosen for implantation. In some cases, the ~20 extra embryos are simply discarded as trash, and in some cases they are frozen. Of the embryos that are frozen, many die during the freezing process, and many more die during the thawing process. Of those that remain, many will be damaged and be spontaneously aborted after implantation. The vast majority of these extra embryos are guarantied to die. Even if you could somehow find enough women to volunteer to take the ~400,000 frozen embryos in this country, as soon as you thawed them you would start having to discard many thousands of dead embryos. Fetal stem cell research or not, I don’t see how pro-life advocates can so readily ignore the holocaust that is in-vitro fertilization
Report comment to moderator
Self-proclaimed Truthteller, your counter argument that a hangnail is human by Ken’s standard is false, as a hangnail does not meet the biological requirements to be considered a living organism, as Ken clearly stated in his first sentence. Neither do rocks meet the biological standards of life.
What Ken said was that if a human embryo is not considered living, even though it meets all the biological definitions of life, then none of us are living. The 7 parts of the accepted definition of life by biologists are: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaption, response to stimuli, and reproduction. The human embryo meets all, as do human adults.
Biologically, the human embryo is alive. Those who argue from the viewpoint that human embryos are not living do not do so from a biological point of view.
Report comment to moderator
#16 Kwatson
There is nothing absurd about this ruling. This was a case of a clash between an executive order and federal law. A federal law trumps an executive order, it is part of our system of checks and balances. If the judge did anything else, it would have been unconstitutional. If the Obama administration wishes to use federal dollars for embryonic research, they will need Congress to repeal that law off the books, which I do not think would be too hard considering Congress is on his side.
Secondarily, the idea that embryonic stem cells have promise is controversial, as they are not as controllable as adult stem cells, and that there are adult stem cells that are just as flexible, like the stem cells of the inner ear.
You are however completely correct that it is sad that pro-life groups are not fighting against in-vitro fertilization, as, from the point of view who sees human embryos as human, is a massive modern day holocaust like abortion. I must admit I am not much of a fan of in-vitro fertilization for that reason and a few others, one being that several women end up having multiple children at the same time, endangering the lives of the babies and the mother. A test case would be New Jersey where the percentage of women having triplets is much higher than the rest of the nation due to in-vitro fertilization.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson, you need standing for the case to go forward. There has to be a case or controversy. Now they have one.
This decision has to do with an amendment that is attached to appropriations bills and will determine congressional intent.
Report comment to moderator
This case has NOTHING to do with whether an undifferentiated mass of cells constitutes a human life form. No, it’s a matter of interpreting a statute. None of the above comments suggest that anyone has read the statute.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, can you read? Can you not read the first paragraph of post number 18? Shall I simplify the level of English to that of “Go, Dog , Go!” for you? Or are you simply a picky reader who reads what only what you want to see?
Report comment to moderator
Being human has nothing to do with the Christian soul. The Congress denied funding embryonic stem cell research because the stem cells are HUMAN.
Report comment to moderator
“KWatson, you need standing for the case to go forward. There has to be a case or controversy. Now they have one.”
That’s precisely what’s so absurd. Basically this Judge was so eager to strike down this executive order he allowed scientists to claim damage in court because other scientists are now allowed to compete for federal funds. Are we now supposed to believe that scientists can be justified in claiming damages because they have to face more completion for research dollars? That’s crazy, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the plaintiffs lose standing on appeal.
Report comment to moderator
stem cells are HUMAN.
That’s silly. I don’t think anyone can claim a stem CELL is human anymore than they can claim a skin cell is human, or a blood cell is human. Only slightly less silly is the notion that the blastocyst, a small lump of these cells surrounded by cells that will later develop into the placenta, is human.
Report comment to moderator
Rom,
Nothing in your post suggests that you’ve read the statute. Maybe you have, but your comments don’t necessarily convey that.
Further, the nasty tone of your response is a bit unwarranted, especially in view of the fact that your comment in 18 doesn’t say much.
Lastly, if you have read the statute, you should at least point out that Judge Lambeth’s ruling creates a more expansive prohibition than that required by the text of the statute. Accordingly, certain kinds of research activities, whose connection with the use of embryonic stem cells is tenuous, may be halted.
Report comment to moderator
#25 RSD
I stated that the case was about a clash between federal law and an executive order. According to the Constitution, Obama’s executive order does not overrule federal law. Thus the judge overturned the President’s executive order.
I responded in a manner somewhat harshly, which I apologize for. Please however accuse people of not doing something they did when you are without proof.
Indeed the judge’s ruling expands the level at which the law was enforced. I said already however that for Obama this is not much of an issue as Congress can repeal the law for him.
Report comment to moderator
” I don’t think anyone can claim a stem CELL is human ”
Congress did.
Report comment to moderator
” I don’t think anyone can claim a stem CELL is human ”
Congress did.
Ok now where in made up stuff la la land. I was hoping for an intelligent argument based on facts and all I get is this sophomoric nonsense.
I think I’ll watch a DVD, this is getting boring
Report comment to moderator
Actually Kwatson, might I not recommend reading a biology book and reading the section about the definition of biological life?
Report comment to moderator
I invite you to compare World editorial staff’s piece to this one
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244637/stem-cells-life-and-law-adam-keiper?page=1
and tell me why I should ever come to this site again.
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis, I don’t need to read the other article to tell you why you should come back here again and again. We want you here so that we can pray for you.
Are you a Christian? If so, than fellowship with us. If not, debate us. But please, don’t leave.
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis, thanks for including the link to the National Review article. It was very interesting. But I don’t think it’s a reason to never come back to Worldmag.
I hope this ruling on ESC research is not repealed.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!