How to use this Page

Tweet

By Mark Warby

My mum told me the other day that she found all this publicity about privacy, super-injunctions, and Twitter most confusing. So do I, because the way it is reported seems to bear little resemblance to the world I thought I worked in and knew. So in case anybody else out there is befuddled I thought I would have a go at clarifying things by providing a glossary. Here are some of the key terms, and some definitions. In some cases I have offered alternatives, to help understanding.

A bit of cross-referencing is necessary here, so I have used asterisks to mark out terms you will find explained elsewhere in the glossary.

Privacy law glossary

Apply to the court: (1) what a person has to do if they want to obtain an injunction* (2) what any person has a right to do if served with or notified of an injunction* with which they disagree, and want to challenge (3) an expensive and uncertain alternative to Contempt of Court no 2* (4) see Waste of time and money.

Appeal: (1) what any person can seek to do if a court makes an order that affects them with which they disagree (2) see Apply to the Court no 3 (3) see Apply to the Court no 4.

Contempt of court: (1) speech or act which defies an order of the court, or defeats or undermines its purpose (2) see Making a Mockery.*

Court of Appeal: (1) one of the Houses of Parliament (2) Twitter (3) place staffed by Judges* to which you can go to obtain a fair hearing and challenge an injunction you disagree with (4) see Apply to the court nos 3 and 4.

Democracy: system of government using. See Votes.*

Fair hearing: (1) a fundamental human right (2) what people go to a court to get, when asserting their rights (3) reading Twitter, not consulting the people affected, deciding unilaterally what is right or wrong, and announcing it to the world.

Freedom of expression: (1) unequivocally good thing in all possible circumstances, when exercised by the print media or online (2) one fundamental right which may come into conflict with another, namely privacy*, so that a delicate balance has to be struck.

Gagging order: bad thing; order of a Judge that prohibits something being said that ought to be made known.

Hemming: fearless campaigner for the freedom to use parliamentary privilege to name with impunity well-known people who have obtained injunctions* from Judges* to prevent disclosure of information in the public interest* (2) not.

Injunction: (1) court order which prohibits things being said or done which the court considers ought not to happen (2) gagging order* made by a Judge.*

Issuing: (1) what celebrities do with injunctions, apparently (2) the act of starting legal proceedings, preliminary to asking a court to rule on a claim.

Judge: (1) person who makes it up as they go along, treats freedom of speech with contempt (2) fantasist with delusions of omnipotence (see also Unelected*) (3) individual appointed by the state to decide disputes about legal rights after a fair hearing.*

King Canute: see Judge no 2*. See also next section.

Making a mockery: (1) an exercise of freedom of speech* on Twitter or otherwise which involves deliberately disobeying a court order, undermining its effect, and so demonstrating Judges to be King Canute* (2) see Contempt of Court.*

Parliamentary privilege: fundamental right of any MP to do with impunity an act which would be a contempt of court*.

Privacy rights: (1) bad thing; synonym for adulterous

Tweet

By Frederick Grinnell

On August 23, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction blocking NIH-funded research on human embryonic stem cells (hESC). According to Judge Lamberth’s ruling, NIH-funded research on hESC violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, originally passed by Congress in 1996, which prohibits use of federal funds for research in which human embryos are destroyed. The judge rejected the federal government’s claim that hESC research comes in separate pieces, i.e., human embryo destruction in the private domain on one hand vs. investigation of hESC by NIH-funded investigators on the other. Instead, he cited the holistic language of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment and the Random House Dictionary to conclude that the common definition of research includes development, testing and evaluation. According to Judge Lamberth’s ruling, destruction of human embryos and research on stem cells derived from human embryos are part of the same piece.

Destruction of human embryos occurs in the context of diverse research purposes. Some researchers aim to develop hESC-based therapeutic applications. However, others propose to improve the outcome of in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures or to learn about early embryo development and disease progression. Currently, funding for research in which destruction of human embryos occurs is provided by non-Federal sources ranging from IVF clinics to biotechnology companies to state-sponsored biotechnology initiatives. Some of the research involving human embryo destruction has resulted in production of hESC lines. Some of the hESC lines that have been produced have been authorized to be used in NIH‑funded research, at least until the recent court order. Therefore, while one cannot deny that NIH-sponsored hESC research would be impossible without destruction of human embryos, destruction of human embryos is a research activity whose scope is much broader than and independent from the NIH‑funded work. From the point of view of research practice, the relationship between embryo destruction and hESC research is indirect.

In response to the judge’s preliminary injunction, the federal government has filed an appeal. The appeal challenges the judge’s understanding of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment regarding what constitutes the meaning of “research.” The appeal also challenges the judge’s conclusion that his decision would not seriously harm hESC researchers. On the contrary, if left in place, the injunction will have a potentially catastrophic effect because of its total disruption of NIH intramural and extramural hESC research.

One implication of Judge Lamberth’s ruling that has not been discussed but is of potential concern is whether the injunction against NIH-funding of hESC research might also apply to the FDA. The Dickey-Wicker Amendment concerns all of HHS not just the NIH. FDA is another major HHS agency that plays a role in hESC research. FDA develops guidelines and provides oversight for human clinical trials, including those involving hESC. As mentioned in the government’s appeal of the preliminary injunction, the FDA recently approved the enrollment of spinal cord injury patients in the first ever U.S. clinical trial of a hESC-based therapy. User fees from industry cover about half the costs of FDA drug review, but the remainder comes from federal f