Will The US District Court's Ruling Against Stem Cell Research Destroy America's Competitiveness?

Since their introduction into research, stem cells have been a persistent source of controversy. Prior to March 2009, U.S. researchers were forced to hold two containers, one governed by government rules, and the other derived from later lines which researchers were prohibited from studying using federal funding. This separation created logistical nightmares for lab managers, increasing costs, duplicating effort, and robbing researchers of precious research time. Moreover, it can be argued that these hurdles, both financial and administrative, have greatly inhibited the study of many diseases, including Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes, and prevented researchers from developing therapies which have saved and transformed many lives. On March 2009, the future for many working within the stem cell research community improved dramatically. Following months of speculation, President Obama lifted the ban that prevented federal funds from being used to study stem cell lines. Scientists, once burdened with unnecessary rules, were free to collaborate with other labs from around the world. Unfortunately, earlier this week, the US District Court issued an injunction against the President's executive order, ruling that federal money cannot be used for any research involving embryonic stem cells. This injunction sent shock waves through the United States research community. If research can simply be stopped and started without notice, is the United State's reputation as a research and development leader at stake? What areas of research and development will be targeted next? And how much, will Americans, as well as the world's citizens, suffer from this major setback?

No matter how you evaluate Judge Lamberth's decision, it is clear that this injunction has put American scientists at a significant disadvantage when compared with their peers. Currently, the U.S. is in danger of being surpassed as the leader in biomedical research by several countries, including South Korea, Singapore, and Great Britain. The loss of research competitiveness, even if temporary, significantly undermines the credibility of American biotech and pharmaceutical companies, while harming their ability to bring new therapies to patients. Moreover, while seeming procedural, the decision also has other significant implications. Until funding can be guaranteed, promising avenues of research will have to be halted. Grant decisions for even small projects, as well as those outside of the stem cell field, must be put on hold. Furthermore, the economic impact of the potential injunction is substantial. If the injunction stands, researchers could potentially loose millions of dollars in guaranteed funding, and will likely be forced to rely heavily on private funding to support their work. Sadly, as many within the research community know, accessing private and foundational funding comes with a price. Some of this cost is simply due to the time that top researchers must sacrifice to solicit funding from donors. Other costs come from reductions in research flexibility as well as the loss of control that may impact the productivity of outcomes.

While the issue is tremendously unsettling, the courts decision has also brought to the surface a recurring theme evident within biotechnology research community: misinformation and confusion. After all, why is stem cell research continuously under attack when over eighty percent of Americans are in favor of stem cell research. In fact, Congress has twice passed bills in favor of stem cell research, and the therapies that stem cell researchers created have saved and transformed thousands of lives. So why the persistent backlash? Despite arguments from the plaintiff's, it simply doesn't make any sense to continuously attack the stem cell research community, or to pit the adult stem cell community against the embryonic stem cell research community (particularly when they are both making extremely positive contributions and are not mutually exclusive). In fact, giving artificial and unmerited research preference to one type of cell over another would completely undermine the federal funding strategy, and more important, would absolutely constrain ongoing searches for treatment and therapy. Unlocking the potential of stem cells to cure disease requires comparisons of both adult and embryonic tissues. Adult stem cell research cannot succeed without embryonic stem cell research, and embryonic stem cell research cannot succeed without adult stem cell research. Sadly, by issuing an an injunction against the President's order, Judge Lamberth has inflicted major damage to stem cell research community across the United States. Moreover, by introducing more uncertainty into the research community, this decision has significantly hurt the United State's reputation as a research leader, damaged the United State's economic competitiveness, and destroyed the hopes and dreams of many families and patients that depend on stem cell research and therapy.