Appeals Court Hears Arguments for Stem Cell Funding
In yesterday's appellate arguments for the federal funding of research on human embryonic stem cells (hESCs), the 3-judge panel* focused on several issues, according to transcript excerpts provided at The Great Beyond blog.
In one exchange, Judge Thomas Griffith shot down the government's (ie, Beth Brinkmann's) argument of precedent (on the basis of repeated Congressional ratification).
In an exchange with Thomas Hungar (who represents the original plaintiffs, Sherley et al), Judge Douglas Ginsberg emphasized the exact wording of the Dickey-Wicker amendment that relates to whether research on existing hESC cell lines necessarily means the continued destruction of hESCs.
The harm factor (to the plaintiffs and defendants) was also discussed by the panel. According to The Great Beyond blog, spectating proponents of hESC research were pumped about the government's performance during the appellate hearing.
The panel's decision, whenever that happens, will determine whether a preliminary injunction against the federal funding of hESC research, issued on August 23rd by US District Court judge Royce Lamberth, is upheld or overturned. On September 9th, the appeals court stayed Lamberth's preliminary injunction, while preparations were being made for yesterday's hearing. But Lamberth could also decide, either before or after the latest appellate decision, to permanently block federal funding for hESC work—which would, no doubt, be appealed by the losing party.
* A previous post here indicated that the 3-judge panel consisted of Brett Kavanaugh and Janice Rogers Brown, in addition to Griffith (and this was the panel that temporarily lifted Judge Lamberth's preliminary injunction against hESC research). It's not entirely clear why the judge panel is different, but maybe the judges of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit perform a kind of round-robin in their judicial duties.
Image of undifferentiated hESCs from http://www.nih.gov/catalyst/2007/07.01.01/page1.html.
