A recent district court ruling by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth placed a temporary hold on federal funding for stem cell research. The ruling comes after a year long lawsuit that Dr. Sherley and Dr. Deisher filed against Obama’s 2009 executive order that expanded the number of cell lines available to embryonic cell researchers. They claimed that their work with adult stem cells would be affected by the new policy because it would increase competition for federal financing (Harris, 2010). Although the district court initially dismissed the plaintiff’s charges the ruling was reversed in the Court of Appeals. After further review, Judge Lamberth ruled that the policy violated a ban on federal money being used to destroy embryos; a provision of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. This decision has many researchers up in arms because they cannot continue current projects until the details of this ruling are determined.
The pressure falls on Obama’s administration to draw-up an alternative policy that coincides with the court’s ruling which will be no easy task. If we frame this issue using the five stages of policy making outlined in Adolino and Blake (2010) we can forecast how this process may play out in the coming months.
In the Agenda Setting stage we have already witnessed the outside initiation model where interest groups attempt to raise the profile of an issue on the systemic agenda of the government. Groups like Nightlight Christian Adoptions, who was one of the original plaintiffs, have voiced their opposition to the use of embryonic cells and the Obama administration’s “attempt to circumvent sound science and federal law” (FoxNews.com, 2010, para. 15). Challenges to the ethical nature of stem cell research has been an ongoing debate however, the 2009 executive order put this issue back on the institutional agenda.
A major hiccup in the Policy Formulation stage will be the vast policy network of this issue. On one hand you have religious organizations and ultra-conservative opponents who want all stem cell research banned. On the other hand you have scientists and researchers who see the potentially life-saving applications of stem cell exploration and advocate for less regulation. This could be viewed as either a triadic network or an issue network given the nature of this ongoing discussion.
Since a district court judge ruled against the executive order by Obama the Decision Making stage may take the form of the incremental decision-making model. Obama does not want to lose all the advances made from stem cell research, yet he will have to alter the scope of current research. Perhaps this will take the form of reducing the number of cell lines available to researchers or prohibiting further cell lines from being created. Either way I think we will see an incremental approach to making this policy acceptable to all parties.
As far as the Policy Implementation stage I see the use of direct government instruments as the basis for regulating stem cell use.
Ultimately, the success of the new policy will depend on the final judicial evaluation and whether the provisions of the policy fall under federal law.
FoxNews.com. (August 23, 2010). Court blocks new federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/23/court-blocks-new-federal-funding-embryonic-stem-cell-research/
Harris, G. (August 23, 2010). U.S. judge rules against Obama's stem cell policy. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/health/policy/24stem.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
Thank you for your post Lindsey. This is a prime example of the agenda setting step of the policy process. In this case we see that conservative and Christian groups have brought forth their complaints with the current policy and have asked that their grievances are heard. They are operating under the defense that it violates federal law and this makes their case rather substantial and valid. The question I have is how their interests can trump others and whether or not they are in line with the majority. I find it troubling that special interests have the ability to overhaul and adjust systems so their perspective can be represented.
ReplyDeleteI read an article that quoted the Obama administration, “support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem research, to the extent permitted by law." I am now curious who then determines what is “responsible and scientifically worthy”. It is troubling that a group such as this one can have such an overwhelming impact. How can we overcome these challenges and advance when faced with such adversity????????????
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/08/23/2010-08-23_judge_puts_temporary_ban_on_federally_funded_embryonic_stem_cell_research_blow_t.html#ixzz0xeYFtxL5
Good post Lindsey! Stem cell policy is, and will continue to be, a touchy subject moving forward due to the implied ties with the abortion debate. I agree with your assessment that this legal action largely “reset” the agenda by reintroducing this debate to the national and administrative scene. Whether the issue becomes salient in light of the recent election-centered controversies is something we will have to see.
ReplyDeleteAnd I also agree that the decision-making steps that the Obama administration is likely to take will resemble the incremental model. If the issue is dealt with before the midterm elections, I think that this would be the safest way to try to make changes in policy without potentially alienating a significant bloc of voters (or increasing the oppositional energy of the currently alienated voters). A call for Congress to pass a bill that would negate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment during a time like this would risk too much politically, and bump a touchy issue much further up the agenda.
We could also see this decision reversed in a later court ruling. The policy and political implications of that would also be really interesting to see.
Hi Lindsey.
ReplyDeleteI think what's particularly interesting about your having chosen this issue to analyze is that it deals with judicial policy evaluation. Often, we think of policy as being driven by law-making, but judicial review is an unmistakable source of policy in the American system.
According to the Adolino and Blake model, this is a final stage of policy making. From my understanding of stem cell research, many years have already gone into the first four stages. Perhaps this surprise ruling will serve to go back and reexamine previous stages.
The decision here by a federal judge overturned what was essentially an incremental decision-making move by the Obama administration to gradually increase stem cell research.
As far as policy implementation, up until this point, this issue has been implemented in a decidedly top-down fashion, and I don’t foresee that changing. Because the research has been so rigidly constricted at a federal level, there really doesn’t seem to be much wiggle room for any bottom-up or market-based implementation.
An important issue, definitely. What is your sense on the likely next step for stem cell research policy?