The Bush policy was different from prior limitations by its explicit extension to cell lines derived from embryos and in the possibility of extending that limitation to indirect support. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the case of Sherley v. This approach was validated in the 2011 decision by the U.S. Because of Dickey-Wicker, scientists have needed to use non-Federal funds to establish cell lines from embryos before using their NIH funds to study these cells. For example, research in which human embryos are either created or destroyed has been precluded from federal funding since 1995 by an annually renewed amendment to the NIH appropriation known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment ( 3). Since the construction of our national research enterprise during and after World War II, funding limitations govern what can be done scientifically. This is a policy consistent with precedent. The Bush policies did not prohibit any experiment of any sort it simply stated what is eligible for federal funding. The public debate focused on the limitations imposed by the Bush stem cell policy but a second important aspect of the federal policy is what it did not do. Much of the public criticism of this policy focused on the small number (less than two dozen) and limited biological utility of the “eligible” cell lines. The Bush “compromise” limited federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research to the cell lines already in existence at that point in time. Although Bush outlined the policy in an Augspeech ( 2), the policy was not formalized into an Executive Order until 2007. Instead of a simple bifurcation of policy between what is funded by federal grants and what is funded by anything else, there are layers of policy derived from policy promulgated by President George W. There is federal policy and then there is a collection of divergent state policies. The stem cell research policy in the United States is a “Tale of Two Laboratories” both in the practical sense of how the research is organized and in the policy sense. A possible prison sentence and a fine in the millions of dollars discouraged the testing of limits. Perhaps that same Louisiana scientist could have used stem cell lines established by a California colleague, although even the legality of use of embryo derived cell lines established outside of Louisiana had not been clearly established. No in vitro fertilized human ovum will be farmed or cultured solely for research purposes or any other purposes.” ( 1) In other words, no Louisiana scientist was allowed to establish new human embryonic stem cell lines in order to obtain cells that might provide insights into the nature and treatment of human disease. Construction of separate laboratories would not be sufficient as a local statute at that time stated, “The use of a human ovum fertilized in vitro is solely for the support and contribution of the complete development of human in utero implantation. One set of facilities would hopefully be used for the experiments that the taxpayers of California were funding, while those same experiments might be strictly prohibited in the laboratory funded by those same taxpayers via their federal taxes.Ī scientist at Tulane University, which was under re-construction after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in August of 2005, who wanted to do similar ESC experiments would have faced a different problem. These separations existed solely because of federal funding policies-not to serve any scientific purpose. No scientific rationale compelled the scientist to keep separate rooms, perhaps even in separate buildings with distinct support infrastructures, along with a separate set of account ledgers about the funding source of each experiment, the time allocation for each employee, and the use of all materials. A scientist who planned to do human embryonic stem cell (ESC) research at UCM would have needed to organize the new laboratory facilities into two physically and functionally separate suites of laboratories. The University of California opened a new campus in Merced (UCM) in 2005. Bush’s first term and during the first several years of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine formed the federal-state stem cell policy conflict that continues today.Ī comparison of two events of 2005 may provide some perspective on those policy choices. This article will also include an update of more recent events at its conclusion, but the decisions made during President George W. This article will focus on that period, as the directions chosen in that period greatly influenced the policy course for the foreseeable future. American policy regarding the experimental use of human embryonic stem cells was forged in the period 2001–2006.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |