The researcher, who triggered a lawsuit to halt all embryonic stem cell research, may have been trying to settle a personal score, said a columnist in today's Boston Globe. Alex Beam called the researcher, Dr. James Sherley, "a histrionic, aggrieved and vengeful man who is striking back — successfully — at the academic biomedical complex that humiliated him just a few years ago".
Shirley, who works for Boston Biomedical Research Institute, staged a 12 day hunger strike when his previous employer, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, denied him tenure in 2007.
Sherley, an African-American, accused the university of racism. He was able to enlist the support of Noam Chomsky, Junot Diaz, and Mel King. "Either I would get tenure, “or I will die defiantly,’’ Sherley wrote at the time, said Beam.
Follow me below the fold for details:
Sherley claims to be a man of faith opposed to embyonic stem cell researchy. His attorney, Steven Aden, was able to convince a federal judge to issue aninjunction, halting all federal research. How Aden has defined federal is rather novel and somewhat specious reasoning. Yet I fear that a Scalia-Alioto-Thomas troika of rigid religionists will uphold the injunction.
According to Aden, "his client would suffer “irreparable harm’’ if the National Institutes of Health funded embryonic stem cell research, and not the adult stem cell research that Sherley works on." Essentially, Aden argues for a Stupakian argument that all stem cell research is related to the publicly funded research, regardless of if funds are completely private.
But shouldn’t the NIH fund the best research, not the research that some judge deems to be politically correct? Aden said Sherley has received NIH funding in the past, and had a grant denied around the time the lawsuit was filed. “I think it’s a mistake to conclude that there are pecuniary motives in this lawsuit,’’ he said, “because there aren’t any.’’
It is a good question, but does anyone honestly believe his attorney that money isn't even a factor?
I would argue that Sherley is a radical wingnut who wanted to use his position as a research scientist to halt all stem cell research. A quick google search revealed this jem. Sherley was seeking to remove abortions from MIT's medical coverage. The above link from MIT Pro-Life (I only linked to prove his ties) describes him as "an outspoken critic of human embryonic stem cell research and abortion, because both promote the destruction of innocent human beings."
Despite a fellow scientist's observation of the slim odds of the suit, Sherley insisted the new policy violated federallaw:
The complainants assert that federal policy, which allows the use of human embryonic stem cells but not their derivation by federally-funded scientists, violates the Dickey-Wicker amendment, a provision in the NIH appropriations law which prohibits federal grantees from doing research on human embryos. Federal guidelines "authorize public funding of research that depends upon and, indeed, requires the destruction of living human embryos," the group reasons.
Tony Mazzaschi of the Association of American Medical Colleges in Washington, D.C., says the suit hasn't "a chance in hell" of succeeding. A similar suit was filed last March in the Maryland U.S. District Court by Nightlight and others.
A trade publication noted that President Bush would also have violated such a broad reading of Dickey-Wicker:
Despite the amendment, however, Pres. George Bush, a staunch pro-lifer, issued an executive order in August 2001 that allowed the use of federal funds for research using stem cell lines derived from human embryos prior to that date.
Under that executive order, thousands of dollars were disbursed for human embryonic stem cell research under the Bush administration.
An industry insider, Bob Atreides, said the lawsuit may actually have the opposite intended effect:
According to at least one observer in Washington, the suit “may spur efforts in Congress to modify or rescind entirely [the] Dickey-Wicker [amendment], which might put the Sherley-Deisher complaint in a curious legal gray area.”
House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said earlier this year that she expected Congress to pass legislation that would enhance support for stem cell research and ensure that future presidents couldn’t unilaterally change the policy without congressional approval.
“It is one of our top priorities,” Pelosi said.
Hillarious, but also absurd. Then why else would the Talibangelists try to sue only to see a stricter law on the books? It's the election, stupid. They want to use it as a wedge issue. I'm not sure it will work since the people who oppose embryonic stem cell research generally are Republican. Obviously, there are Democrats that oppose it and Republicans like Nancy Reagan that support it, but it is an issue that I doubt is high on the radar screen for most voters.
What is scary was that Sherley and Aden were able to convince a federal judge to enjoin NIH. The reasoning is wingnuttia 101:
"Each time a human embryonic stem cell research grant is funded and a human adult stem cell research grant is not, patients lose to unethical research that is also a waste of the scarce dollars available for biomedical research. Not only is human adult stem cell research being compromised by the funding diverted to human embryonic stem cell research, so is all other ethically responsible human disease research."
Obama officials vowed they would appeal the injunction:
"The president said very plainly when he laid out his stem cell policy that this is important, potentially life-saving research that could have an impact on millions of Americans and people all around the world," White House deputy spokesman Bill Burton told reporters in Massachusetts, where President Barack Obama was on vacation.
"He thinks that we need to do research. He put forward stringent ethical guidelines and he thinks that his policy is the right one," Burton said.
I did not realize, but Judge Lambreath already dismissed the suit last year. However, a federal appeals court, had reversed him and reinstated the case in June.
That being the situation, Lambreath figured that his decision was going to be reversed anyway, so he might as well hear the case.
In the meantime, scientists at MIT were already painting a grim picture of future research:
Institute Professor Robert S. Langer ScD ’74 said “I think its disappointing — it sets progress back.” Langer works with human embryonic stem cells approved under the Bush administration.
Biology professor Richard A. Young said “there is a huge cost today to being in an environment where we’re deciding to shut down experiments. These experiments are involved in understanding the fundamentals in human genome control.”
Young said he was prepared to leave the problem in the hands of politicians and legislators — at least for now. If he were to engage in lobbying and trying to find funding, he said, he would not be doing his job as a biologist.
So that's what we have to look forward to if Sherley wins his suit. Even if the courts rule against him, which despite the wingnuttery of the legal briefs, still could succeed should it reach SCOTUS.
The lawsuit dovetails with Republican obstructionism in Congress, since the GOPers will probably try a faux filibuster to block any fixes to Dickey-Wicker. Moreover, conservatives know that should the Republicans gain control of either or both houses this fall, they will try to advance legislation that upholds Sherley's suit. Of course POTUS Obama will veto any bill like that, but we're dealing with Republicans here.