 |
 |
Linda Thanks for your advocacy and updates. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:28 PM Subject: Fw: Stem Cell Update > Subject: Stem Cell Update > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:31:00 -0400 > > Parkinson’s community, > > The stem cell litigation continues to wind its way through the US court > system. As you may recall, the lawsuit is currently in both the District > Court, before Judge Lamberth, and in the Court of Appeals, before a > three-judge panel. The District Court is receiving arguments “on > the merits” whereas the Court of Appeals is technically ruling on > whether Judge Lamberth was legally correct when he issued a preliminary > injunction on August 23. However, it remains our hope that the Court of > Appeals, in hearing arguments on the preliminary injunction, will issue an > order that resolves the whole case. > > Three significant briefs have been filed in the Court of Appeals in the > last few days. On Thursday, the Department of Justice (DoJ) filed its > brief. Once again, they did an excellent job representing the National > Institutes of Health. Their brief is particularly strong on why the > legislative history for Dickey Wicker supports the government’s > interpretation and on supporting the need for human embryonic stem cell > research to be conducted along with adult and induced pluripotent > research. I am hopeful that the Court of Appeals will find DoJ’s > arguments compelling. > > Two amicus briefs were also filed this week in support of the DoJ brief. > An amicus brief is a brief filed by an outside party in a lawsuit that > wants to offer additional information for the court to consider. The > Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR), in conjunction > with the State of Wisconsin and the Genetics Policy Institute (GPI), filed > an amicus brief on Monday and yesterday the University of California (UC) > filed its own amicus. The Court of Appeals requires that amicius filers > attempt to coordinate, so we are pleased that both Wisconsin and GPI > agreed to join with CAMR’s brief. Both the CAMR brief and the UC > brief do an excellent job supporting the government’s position, > although they are quite different from each other. The CAMR brief focuses > on the process of stem cell line derivation (which is not done with > federal funds) and the legislative history. The UC brief goes back to the > earlier decision of the Court of Appeals that grants standing to the two > plaintiffs. In my opinion, the UC brief makes an excellent case for why > the Court of Appeals should reverse its earlier decision and dismiss this > whole case on the grounds that the plaintiffs do not have standing. > > The DoJ brief and both amicus briefs can be found on the CAMR website at > http://camradvocacy.org/resources.cfm. > > The next significant dates in the Court of Appeals are October 28, when > the plaintiffs’ brief is due, and then November 4 when DoJ’s > final reply will be filed. We expect oral argument to occur shortly > thereafter although oral argument is not yet scheduled. The briefing > schedule for the District Court mirrors the Appeals court schedule so it > is our expectation that Judge Lamberth will wait for the Court of Appeals > ruling before he rules. > > On the legislative front, we are still urging you to reach out to your > Members of Congress to urge a legislative fix to this problem. We are > fearful that, in this complicated legislative year, Congress will not take > up this urgent issue. Without a legislative fix and until we have a court > ruling, we cannot guarantee that federal funding for this important > research will continue. Please contact your Members. > http://capwiz.com/pan/issues/alert/?alertid=16440761 > > Thank you for all of your support for PAN and the issues that are so > important to the Parkinson’s community. > > > Sincerely,Amy Comstock Rick > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn