Reply #39: Good NYT OP on the issue: [View All]

[elleng]

'The case involves an obscure rider, known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, that has been attached to annual appropriations bills for the Department of Health and Human Services since 1996. It prohibits the use of federal funds to support research in which embryos are destroyed or discarded. It does not directly address research on stem cells derived from embryos, a field that developed later.

The Clinton administration and now the Obama administration drew a fine distinction: deriving the stem cells — which results in destruction of the embryos — could not be supported by the federal government but research on stem cells after they were derived with private funds could be financed.

The Bush administration also implicitly accepted this distinction by funding research on a handful of stem cell lines derived with private funds. At no time has Congress disputed this distinction or rewritten Dickey-Wicker to address stem cells directly.

Now Judge Lamberth has ruled that Dickey-Wicker prohibits funding of all research in which a human embryo is destroyed, even if the destruction occurs before the research begins. He claims that the Dickey-Wicker language “unambiguously” prohibits work on stem cells derived from embryos.

How can that be true if the federal government has interpreted it the other way for 11 years and Congress has not disputed that interpretation? If there is any ambiguity, the courts typically give deference to agency interpretations.

The judge also finds that the two adult stem cell researchers who brought the case would suffer imminent and irreparable harm without the injunction because they would have to compete with embryonic stem cell researchers for research funds. That is absurd. Adult stem cell research is funded far more generously than work with embryonic stem cells. And there is no firm limit on the amount of money that can be spent on each.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/opinion/25wed1.html?_r=1&hp