The legal battle over federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research in the US continues: in yet another court filing today (PDF here), government lawyers reiterated their arguments for why an appeals court should lift a ban on such funding imposed by a district court judge last month.
On 23 August, Washington DC district court judge Royce Lamberth called a halt to federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research while a lawsuit charging that such funding was illegal was in process. On 9 September, responding to a plea from lawyers representing the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services (the defendants in the case), the district’s appeals court (right) temporarily stayed Lamberth’s injunction while considering the issue.
Last week, lawyers for the plaintiffs, adult stem cell researchers James Sherley and Theresa Deisher, filed documents opposing the appeals court’s move (PDF here). Today’s 12-page document from the defense refutes the claims made in that filing.
The document argues against the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, an annually re-approved law at the heart of the case that bans federal funding for research that destroys embryos. It also contests the claim that the current policy on funding human embryonic stem cells will cause the destruction of more embryos, and that “money that would have funded human embryonic stem cell research could be redirected to [adult stem cell] projects.”
The document also denies that the NIH has fast-tracked funding for human embryonic stem cell research following the 9 September stay. “This tendentious assertion implies impropriety where it plainly does not exist,” the defense writes. “NIH simply resumed the activities that the preliminary injunction had prohibited.”
Lawyers for both sides will present 15-minute oral arguments before the appeals court to a panel of three judges next Monday.
Meanwhile, even if the appeals court upholds its stay, the plaintiffs have asked Lamberth to grant a summary judgment, which could conclude the case in their favor without a full trial as soon as the middle of next month.
Image: Wikipedia