Federal Judge Overturns Ruling Banning NIH Funding of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Today, District of Columbia District Court Judge Royce Lamberth overturned his own ruling in the case of Sherley v. Sebelius that had banned use of funds from the National Institutes of Health for human embryonic stem cell research.  The ruling is the latest, though by no means final, turn in this saga that has seen scientific arguments devolve into interpretations of dictionary definitions.

In 2009, the case against the NIH was first brought by researchers James Sherley and Theresa Deisher, who claimed that funding of human embryonic stem cell research was illegal based on the Dickey-Wicker amendment, which bans federal funding of “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed.” Judge Lambert initially declared that the plaintiffs, both of whom work on adult stem cells, lacked standing to sue, being unable to demonstrate that the “injury” they would suffer due to funds being granted to projects involving human embryonic stem cells “is actual or imminent and traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and…that a favorable decision would redress the plaintiff’s injury.”

However, this opinion was overturned on appeal, with the D.C. Circuit Court finding that “the undisputed increased competition that Plaintiffs face…is sufficient in and of itself to confer…standing.”  This ruling lead Judge Lambert to grant a preliminary injunction last August halting federal funding for all research projects involved with human embryonic stem cells, based on the merits of the case itself.

The injunction was stayed while the defendants appealed to the Circuit Court, claiming the so-called “Chevron deference,” in which the court “defer[s] to the agency’s interpretation of the statute if it is reasonable and consistent with the statute’s purpose,” applied to NIH’s interpretation of the Dickey-Wicker amendment. The Circuit Court ultimately agreed with the defendants, overturning the preliminary injunction and sending the case back to the District Court.

Forced to abide by the Circuit Court ruling, the latest ruling found that the NIH “reasonably interpreted the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to permit funding for human embryonic stem cell research because such research is not ‘research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed,’”  thereby dismissing the plaintiff’s argument that the Dickey-Wicker amendment unambiguously banned such work.

Judge Lambert approved the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, conversely denying the plaintiffs’ own motion, thereby removing the possibility of a jury trial.  However, the possibility of an appeal from the plaintiffs seems likely. Stay tuned to the Blotter for the latest on the case!

Rep. Holt Introduces Amendment to Reinstitute Office of Technology Assessment

Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) has offered an amendment to the Legislative Branch appropriations bill looking to fund the Office of Technology Assessment, an office of the United States Congress from 1972 to 1995 before being defunded by Congress in 1995. OTA’s purpose was to provide Congressional members and committees with objective and authoritative analysis of the complex scientific and technical issues of the late 20th century, i.e. technology assessment. It was a leader in practicing and encouraging delivery of public services in innovative and inexpensive ways, including distribution of government documents through electronic publishing. Its model was widely copied around the world.  Since the OTA is no longer in existence, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tried to fill the gap by establishing a technology assessment unit, but it is not on par with the OTA. The OTA would be an independent, non-partisan entity available to members of Congress to help explain to them complex scientific issues. The amendment proposes $2.5M for OTA, a tiny amount of money for a program with a potentially large.

UPDATED: The Holt amendment failed by a vote of 176-235.  Thank you to those of you who reached out to your representatives

Coburn Deficit Reduction Plan Supports NIH, Knocks NSF

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., released a deficit reduction plan on Monday, detailing over $9 trillion in savings over the next decade through cuts to nearly every government agency. Surprisingly, Coburn’s report, titled “Back in Black,” proposes a 1 percent annual increase in the budget for the National Institutes of Health, which it praised as “the nation’s premier medical research agency.” The report also expresses support for the scientific peer-review process, stating that “scientists are more qualified to determine what research holds the most promise and which grant applications have the most merit” than members of Congress.  However, the report retains for Congress the “responsibility…to conduct oversight on NIH spending,” and suggests consolidating “duplicative” medical research projects currently conducted across multiple agencies and transferring oversight to the NIH.

The report does contain some criticisms of NIH, in particular singling out various institutes, including the National Cancer Institute and National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, which have, in its estimation, “squandered money on studies and projects with no obvious health benefits.” It also directly calls for the elimination of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, and insists on a reduction in the amount of funding for travel to scientific conferences.

The generally positive tone of the report with regard to NIH comes in stark contrast to that towards the National Science Foundation.  Continuing a theme established by Coburn’s “Under the Microscope” report that eviscerated the NSF, the Back in Black report details “pervasive problems at the agency” that include:

• “Wast[ing] millions of dollars on low-priority projects”
• “Lack[ing] adequate oversight of its grant funding, which has led to significant mismanagement, fraud, and abuse”
• “Fac[ing] extensive duplication challenges within the agency and across the federal government”

The report proposes changes, including eliminating the Social, Behavioral and Economics Directorate and consolidating the Education and Human Resources with other federal educational programs, that it claims would save over $14 billion.

In a press release accompanying the report, Coburn stated that he would “welcome” congressional debate over the report, though whether any relevant legislation will be introduced is yet to be seen.

House Appropriations Committee Approves FY 2012 Budget for NSF

The full House of Representatives Appropriations committee voted yesterday to approve the Commerce, Justice and Science bill that funds the National Science Foundation, among other agencies.  The bill sets the NSF budget at $6.9 billion, equal to the agency’s FY 2011 budget and more than $900 million less than President Obama’s FY12 request.  Given the current appetite for cutting government spending, the scientific community is pleased that the NSF budget was flat-funded without any decreases.  Within the NSF, however, there were changes made to budgetary outlays.  The Research and Related Activities program received a $43 million increase, while both the Education and Human Resources and Major Research Equipment & Facilities Construction programs will be faced with decreased budgets.

Politicians on the two sides of the aisle offered contrasting viewpoints of the bill’s allocations.  CJS subcommittee chairman Frank Wolf, R-Va., called the legislation “a strong bill with strategic investments in national security, job creation and science” and argued that the bill “represents our best take on matching needs with scarce resources.” By contrast, Appropriations committee ranking member Norm Dicks, D-Wash., expressed concern about the long-term effects spending reductions would have on the economy, specifically commenting that the NSF’s Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account was “dramatically underfunded.”

The full of House of Representatives will vote on the CJS bill later this summer.  ASBMB will continue to monitor the bill’s progress.

ASBMB Releases Position Statement on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology this week called for passage of federal legislation to establish a uniform regulatory landscape for the derivation and use of human embryonic stem cells.

Calling existing legislation “ambiguous” and citing and “the constant specter of judicial challenges” that researchers face, the society representing thousands of biomedical researchers insisted that the promises of embryonic stem cell research are in peril and the development of much-needed therapies and cures is being delayed.

The statement said the lack “of a cogent, unified federal policy … has resulted in a discouraging and obstructionist research environment that has dissuaded many scientists from entering the field while driving others to work abroad.”

Benjamin Corb, Director of Public Affairs for the society, emphasized that a recent poll by the advocacy group Research!America showed that almost 70 percent of Americans approve of embryonic stem cellresearch.

Also, he said, there have been two bipartisan congressional efforts in the past decade advancing legislation to boost federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, which paved the way for the Obama administration to issue a 2009 executive order increasing the number of stem cell lines eligible for federal

ASBMB also recommended nullifying what is known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, saying: “This onerous law, which prohibits federal funding for any research ‘in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed,’ places ambiguous and unreasonable restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research, stifling progress and delaying the development of cures and treatments.”

To read the full statement from ASBMB, click here.

For more information about ASBMB’s advocacy efforts, contact Corb at bcorb@asbmb.org or 240-283-6625.

NSF FY 2012 Budget Approved by House Appropriations Subcommittee

On Thursday, the House Appropriations Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee marked up its FY 2012 funding bill.  Of concern to ASBMB members, the National Science Foundation was allocated $6.86 billion, identical to the FY 2011 level and more than $900 million less than President Obama’s request of $7.767 billion.  In a press release, CJS subcommittee chairman Frank Wolf, R-Va., stated that the bill “focused resources on the most critical areas” and served to “boost U.S. competitiveness through investments in science.”

ASBMB, in conjunction with the Coalition for National Science Funding, advocated for the President’s request of $7.767 billion for NSF in FY 2012.  The CNSF emphasized that “a healthy NSF is necessary for maintaining a prosperous innovation pipeline that ultimately leads to the development of new technologies, leading to new products and improvement of existing products.”  Reacting to the CJS markup, CNSF chairman Sam Rankin stated that “under the current political and economic environment, we should be grateful that NSF was level funded by the CJS Subcommittee.”

That the NSF budget avoided being cut is particularly impressive given the recent criticism the agency has received.  Just as encouraging is the support that NSF has received from various sources.  New York Times columnist David Brooks penned an editorial defending the agency’s Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences, which was targeted for elimination in the now-infamous report from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Ok.  Meanwhile, ASBMB has joined with over 100 other scientific societies and institutions to sign on to a letter drafted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science that similarly responds to attacks on the SBE Directorate.

ASBMB Responds to AARP Ad Criticizing NSF

The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology released a press statement yesterday that responded to a recent television ad from the AARP criticizing basic scientific research projects.  In the statement, ASBMB points out the societal benefits that have resulted from advances in scientific research, and urges the AARP to instead focus its efforts on “promot[ing] policies that will both improve human health and strengthen the American economy.”

To read the statement, visit http://www.asbmb.org/Page.aspx?id=13541

For more information about ASBMB’s advocacy efforts, contact Ben Corb, Director of Public Affairs, at bcorb@asbmb.org or 240-283-6625.