Federal funding to UC for stem cell research resumed, petitions to intervene in case debating appropriations
By Sarah Jo
Sept. 27, 2010 11:08 a.m.
Correction: The original version of this headline published on September 27 contained an error. The headline should read “Federal funding to UC for stem cell research resumed, petitions to intervene in case debating appropriations.”
Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research has resumed across the University of California system, after a recent court reversal of an order that banned grant support to all national research institutions.
All 10 UC campuses use millions of grant money through the National Institutes of Health to find cell-based therapies to treat diseases injuries using embryonic stem cells.
At UCLA, 16 NIH-supported research projects, which receive $8.7 million in annually awarded budgets, are in full operation again, for now.
An ongoing court debate over the government’s monentary support of human embryonic stem cell, or hESC, research has university officials and campus researchers feeling uncertain about existing and future research projects.
“The main thing that we would like to see is an end to this revolving political door because it creates an environment of uncertainty when it comes to support of stem cell research,” said Steven Peckman, associate director of the Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UCLA.
Peckman said he recently heard of NIH program managers asking several researchers to outline what their plans are should a freeze of federal funding become permanent.
In court documents, the University of California petitioned the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals last week to participate in the Sherley v. Sebelius case, which involves two adult stem cell researchers arguing that hESC research provides unfair competition for government funding.
The university’s motion to weigh in on the case marks the general claim among the research community that much can be lost with the potentially permanent absence of federal funding.
In a declaration filed in support of the UC’s motion, Steven Beckwith, UC vice president for research and graduate studies, said the grants help UCLA pay for dozens of full-time researchers and staff and for additional administrative costs, lab construction and maintenance support.
However, the appellate court must rule on whether NIH funding may continue funding hESC research while the case makes its way through the court system. A three-judge panel already temporarily suspended an earlier U.S. district court judge’s Aug. 23 preliminary injunction that froze all federal funding, but it can later reverse its decision.
The NIH can continue its grant proposal application submission, review and allocation processes for now with the knowledge that the case is far from resolution.
Campus hESC researchers directly feel the effects of the court battle taking place in Washington, D.C., and are bracing themselves for the future judicial rulings and possible congressional action.
Dr. Jerome Zack, an associate director of the UCLA AIDS Institute, said two NIH-funded projects dealing with hESC he is involved with ““ one of which he is a principle investigator for ““ still remain in jeopardy.
But if the NIH cannot provide a stream of funding or be allowed to renew grants annually anymore, Zack said the future of his colleagues’ and other young researchers’ hESC work look bleak.
“I don’t know if it’s going to be resolved or not,” the professor of medicine and microbiology, immunology and molecular genetics said. “I have to prepare for the worst and hope that it doesn’t happen.”
Peckman said faculty should still be encouraged to submit grant applications in the meantime in the case the courts rule in favor of federal funding.
Yet a larger issue overshadows the injunction court battle.
The two plaintiffs pressed the original district court judge, Royce Lamberth, to make a final judgment on whether the federal government funding of hESC research is illegal.
Lamberth claimed in his preliminary injunction that the NIH allocations violate the 1996 Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which forbade federal funding of research involving the destruction of human embryos. He has yet to make a final ruling in the Sherley v. Sebelius case.
Russell Korobkin, a UCLA professor of law and author of “Stem Cell Century: Law and Policy for a Breakthrough Technology,” said the issue of interpretation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment can be easily resolved by Congress by passing a statute clarifying that federal money can be used for hESC research.
Korobkin pointed to a bill re-introduced to Congress earlier last year, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2009, as a possible resolution to make hESC federal funding legal. Though former President George W. Bush vetoed the act twice during his tenure, the act is still in its preliminary stages.
Yet the university has to participate in the waiting game, as the appellate court moves forward by hearing oral arguments by both parties today on whether the courts should continue the stay on the injunction.
Peckman said he hopes for continued support from the government because the impact of a funding freeze might limit research and potential medical benefits.
“Scientific discoveries, much to the dismay of some people, do not happen in one day,” he said. “Science takes time, and it takes a tremendous amount of resources and collaboration and commitment.”
