This is somewhat breaking news. If it has already been mentioned, I will delete. But I think this is great news for the stem cell research supporters, and a win for the Obama administration.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia lifted an injunction imposed last year by a federal judge, who said all embryonic stem cell research at the National Institutes of Health amounted to destruction of embryos, in violation of congressional spending laws.
It was a 2-1 decision by the appellate court panel. The Obama White House in 2009, issued an executive order, reversing a Bush WH ban on federal funding for stem cell research. Two researchers, then sued, saying that the EO violated the Dickey-Wicker amendment, which doesnt not allow federal funds for research that destroys human embryos. A DC district court judge agreed with them. However, the appellate court, in the ruling today, overturned that decision, allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
It's a win, as I said, for the supporters of embryonic stem cell research supporters, who believe that research could find eventually find treatments for diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and neurological diseases, like Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. I read that funding for some some 200 research projects could have been affected had this ruling gone the other way.
Also, as I noted, it is a win for the Obama administration, who reversed the Bush ban on federal funding. I think as we get into the campaign, Obama really needs to highlight these kinds of issues, because there are stark differences between him and the Republicans. I'm not sure any of the current potential GOP candidates would have reversed Bush's ban, and they certainly wouldnt defend this EO in court. This is a victory, but this case could still move forward, as the plaintiffs could appeal to the full appeals or the SCOTUS. One of our legal experts(Adam B) can explain whether that would happen, and how successful it would be. But this is, to me, one of those "little" issues, that is very significant, where there are clear differences between the parties.
UPDATE: Thanks to wilderness voice for more analysis on the decision. We've been seeing such partisanship on the healthcare lawsuits, but not here. A Reagan(Ginsburg) and Bush 43 appointee(Griffith) siding with the Obama administration, and a Bush 41 appointee(Henderson)dissenting.