Stem cell ruling could set back U work

Eight research projects at the University of Minnesota could lose millions of dollars in federal grants as a result of this week's federal court ruling against embryonic stem cell research, university officials said Wednesday.

The irony is that the ruling mainly will hurt experiments aimed at using adult cells -- not embryonic ones -- to treat disease, said Jonathan Slack, director of the university's Stem Cell Institute.

Why? Because the scientists need the embryonic cells as controls, he said, to measure their progress with adult cells.

"It's a ridiculous ruling," Slack said of Monday's court order, which overturned President Obama's 2009 executive order easing limits on such funding. "This is actually going to hamper adult stem cell research very seriously."

University researchers are hoping to find new treatments for cancer, diabetes and heart disease, among other ailments.

Stem cell researchers throughout the country were stunned by Monday's order from U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington D.C., who ruled that Obama's policy violated a federal law against funding research on human embryos. Last year, Obama lifted restrictions on such funding that had been imposed by President George W. Bush in 2001.

The ruling was cheered, however, by groups that oppose the research on moral grounds.

While the White House has vowed to appeal, scientists are bracing for the possible fallout.

A spokesman for the Mayo Clinic, which also conducts stem cell research, said its research grants did not appear in jeopardy. "I don't know of anybody who has a specific grant that would be affected," said spokesman Robert Nellis. However, he could not say how many Mayo scientists are working on research involving embryonic stem cells or how it's funded.

At the University of Minnesota, Slack said he's uncertain if any grants will be cut off immediately. But if the ruling stands, he said, the university stands to lose several million dollars in future grants.

"I think all of these eight grants are mostly about [adult] cells, which the opponents of stem cell research [say] are just fine because they're not embryonic," he said. "It's very unfortunate that it should be impeded, particularly by the people who say they support it."

Slack said that he's one of a handful of University of Minnesota scientists working on studies that involve embryonic cells.

In the last few years, scientists discovered how to turn ordinary skin cells into "induced pluripotent stem cells" -- the equivalent of stem cells -- by adding certain genes.

At the university, Slack said, they're conducting tests to see if those cells can turn into healthy blood cells to treat leukemia and lymphoma, for example, and new muscle cells to treat muscular dystrophy.

In 10 years, he predicts, embryonic cells won't be necessary if this research pans out. But for now, he said, a cutoff in funds would "really be catastrophic."

Critics, though, aren't so sure. "I just am not convinced by that argument," said David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council, which opposes embryonic research. He noted that researchers were able to use a limited number of embryonic stem cell lines under guidelines adopted by the George W. Bush administration and that there's no need to create new ones. "Obviously, one of our hopes would be that money would go to adult stem cell research," he said.

Slack, though, said the judge's ruling "turns back the clock" by barring all federal funds for research that uses embryonic stem cells. "It even reverses President Bush's policy," he said. "So it's actually worse."

"They're going to have to be very clear about how they want taxpayer funds spent," Prentice said.