The NIH, which has an annual budget of over US$31 billion, is the world’s largest biomedical research agency and is a major strength for science in the USA [101]. Despite the political nature of stem cell research, this area of science has flourished across the country [1]. In 2010, the NIH funded approximately US$1.3 billion in stem cell research [101]. According to the ISI Web of Science, more than 4000 US-authored stem cell publications were produced in 2010 – approximately 40% of the world total. The average citation rate was 4.12 per article, with six articles amassing 100 citations in less than 18 months after release.
Unlike other areas of science, stem cell research has had a complicated funding history in the USA, with restrictions related to human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). These issues looked like they would be resolved when President Barack Obama was elected in 2008 followed by the release of new guidelines for federal funding of hESCs by the NIH in July 2009. Prior to 2009, only 21 cells lines were available for funding, but by July 2011 128 lines were approved by the NIH [101]. Unfortunately, in 2010 the NIH policy was called into question by the federal courts. The lawsuit Sherley v. Sebelius claims that the NIH policy violates the Dickey–Wicker Amendment. The Dickey–Wicker Amendment is an appropriations rider attached to the NIH funding bill each year that forbids the use of federal funding for research that creates or destroys a human embryo [2]. On 23 August 2010, a US district judge sided with the plaintiffs and ordered a preliminary injunction halting all NIH-funded hESC research – impacting grants worth approximately $143 million [101,102]. Ultimately, the injunction was lifted and the courts ruled for the government, but not after impacting the confidence of researchers across the country [3]. There is also fear of future changes since the policy is based on executive orders and not legislation. The issue could be resolved permanently if the US Congress alters legislation to include hESC specifically, or stops passing the Dickey–Wicker Amendment.
Read the full article in Regenerative Medicine.
