Science and the quest for cures to disease were dealt a devastating blow on August 23rd, when a Texas judge halted funding for embryonic stem cell research. This issue, historically used as a wedge issue for conservatives, has been unfairly politicized. Democrats need to make it an issue of their own.
On August 23rd, to the profound dismay and even despair of millions of scientists, patients, and progressive activists across the country, Reagan-appointed U.S. District Court Judge, Royce Lamberth, issued an injunction against President Obama’s 2009 executive order to expand federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. Judge Lamberth’s ruling was a result of a court case brought against the NIH from an adult stem cell researcher, who claimed that an expansion of funding for embryonic stem cell research was at the expense of funding for adult stem cell research – an incorrect and inflammatory claim supported by conservative Christian organizations. Central to the judgment was the opinion that federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research violates the Dickey-Wicker amendment: an annually reappropriated amendment to the health-care budget, which prohibits the federal funds to be used in the creation or destruction of an embryo for research purposes. In years past, including the years of the Bush administration, this amendment was correctly interpreted to allow funding for research on embryonic stem cells, provided the stem cell derivation process was conducted using private, not federal, funds. This was not changed under the new NIH guidelines. As frustratingly limiting as the Dickey-Wicker amendment has been for the 15 years of its existence, literally prohibiting important avenues of scientific research, it fortunately has not been allowed to preclude federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in its entirety.
That is, until now. Judge Lamberth’s ruling was a devastating, unprecedented, and unsound assault on critical, lifesaving scientific research. Lamberth ruled that all embryonic stem cell research violates the Dickey-Wicker amendment, which it decidedly does not. However, in addition, this ruling gives credence to two arguments that are particularly troubling. To begin with, the suit from which this ruling was established, in and of itself, lacks legitimacy. The suit was based on the claim that the current federal stem cell policy takes money away from adult stem cell research. This claim is not only inflammatory, it’s simply wrong, and needlessly pits one important avenue of scientific discovery against another. Posted squarely on the NIH’s Research Portfolio On-line Reporting Tools web site, which itemizes, "the annual support level for various research, conditions, and disease categories based on grants, contracts, and other funding mechanisms used across the National Institutes of Health (NIH)", is a breakdown of funds allocated to embryonic vs. non-embryonic, and human vs. non-human stem cell research. In every year since Obama’s federal policy has been in existence, 2008, 2009, and 2010, funds allocated to human embryonic stem cell research has comprised approximately 10% of the total dollars allocated for stem cell research, in general. To be clear, of all the stem cell research projects funded by the NIH in 2008, 2009, and 2010, those that the Christian right claims are stealing funds from others, make up only 10%. If this research is "stealing" funds from other research, it needs to do a far better job.
There is no doubt that the claim made in this suit is illegitimate, and years worth of data bear that out. What is infinitely more troubling, though, is the rejection of important scientific research – that, for the eight years of the Bush administration was denied necessary support – for political ends or for religious reasons. This is a potentially devastating precedent to set for the future of scientific and medical discovery. For far too long, stem cell research has been used as a rallying cry for anti-science, anti-knowledge ultraconservatives who have successfully pitted religion against rationality, ignorance against hope, establishing a false dichotomy between these ideas. Christian conservatism has dominated this debate, veritably removing from public discussion the very hope and promise that the research is founded upon. Stem cell research is about understanding the cause of disease and the enormous human toll disease takes. Stem cell research is about alleviating the suffering that millions face every day, and focusing our concern on those who need it most. This is not a political, judicial, or ideological issue, it is a human issue, one that speaks to the very core of what it means to show basic compassion. It is using the capacity for knowledge to create a capacity for care, and when we deviate from that basic correlation, we misunderstand the issue entirely.
An issue like stem cell research demands our concern, and a decision like Judge Lamberth’s demands our action. In a time when the flames of racism and prejudice are being so profoundly fanned by ultraconservative incitement, this issue and this decision can join progressive voices in a clear response. The time has come to reclaim this debate, so that decisions like that made by Judge Lamberth can no longer derail the necessary path to treatment and cures. Congress must act to codify stem cell legislation, so that it cannot be obstructed by the few who have worked to stand in its way. However, Congress will not act without encouragement. We need to give them the courage to believe that important scientific research demands our support. We need to make clear that the Dickey-Wicker amendment can and must come to an end, or else important scientific research will potentially come to an end. And, we need to be united in a front that places people’s lives before ideology.
I believe that the illegitimate and irrational grounds upon which this injunction was based will, ultimately, be overturned. However, at its very issuance, the ruling was an enormously damaging step backwards: damaging to the scientists who dedicate every day to the most difficult yet noble work imaginable, damaging to society’s responsibility to not only support but also embrace scientific research, and, most importantly, damaging to all who place their very lives in the future of this research. Judge Lamberth’s decision was damaging and ill-informed for sure, but can be used as an opportunity for Congress to end the barriers to stem cell science, once and for all. The promise is too great, the human suffering is too vast, and the need is too pressing to wait any longer.