An experimental Merck drug safely boosted good cholesterol to record highs while dropping bad cholesterol to unprecedented lows in a study that stunned researchers and renewed hopes for an entirely new way of lowering heart risks.

"We are the most excited we have been in decades" about a novel drug, said the study's leader, Dr. Christopher Cannon, of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. "This could really be the next big thing."

The drug, anacetrapib, won't be on the market anytime soon. It needs more testing to see if its dramatic effects on cholesterol will translate into fewer heart attacks, strokes and deaths. Merck & Co. announced a 30,000-patient study to answer that question and it will take several years.

But the sheer magnitude of its effects so far caused big excitement at an American Heart Association conference in Chicago, where results were presented on Wednesday.

"The data look spectacular, beyond what anybody would have expected," said Dr. Robert Eckel, a University of Colorado cardiologist and past president of the heart association. "It's like a rocket to Jupiter versus one to the moon. I can think of many of my patients who could use the drug right now."

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

On Thursday, a federal appeals court held that federal funding for embryonic stem cell research could continue.

The ruling comes nearly two weeks after Federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth blocked President Obama's 2009 executive order expanding stem cell research, citing a 1998 statute banning the use of federal funding for the destruction of embryos. Following that August injunction, scientists scrambled to asses whether they could keep research projects going without the expected government funds. This week's ruling by the United States Court of Appeals would save "research mice from being euthanized, cells in petri dishes from starving and scores of scientists from a suspension of paychecks." The New York Times' Gardiner Harris reports:

Among the projects whose financing was threatened by Judge Lamberth's order was one overseen by Dr. Ira J. Fox, a professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, who has used embryonic stem cells to successfully transplant new liver cells into animals.

Another threatened project was one by Dr. Xuejun Parsons of the University of California, Riverside, who hopes to use embryonic stem cells to create nerve cells that could replace those damaged by Parkinson's disease.

The temporary suspension of the ban will allow the National Institute of Health to provide $78 million to 44 scientists awaiting previously approved funds while the agency evaluates new applications from scientists seeking federal funding for stem cell research. The agency is likely to receive a glut of applications during this temporary window as research groups across the country look to capitalize on the sudden availability of funds.ks." The New York Times' Gardiner Harris reports:

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Many stem cell researchers have been left uncertain about their own future and the future of their field as they wait for a federal judge to decide whether to allow the NIH to fund human embryonic stem cell research, within and without of its walls.

A recent federal court injunction barred NIH labs from performing human embryonic stem cell research, and also stopped the NIH from funding grants that supported such research. The judge is currently considering an emergency stay which would temporarily allow the NIH to continue its research and to continue funding research.

The NIH has interpreted the court order to bar work with any human embryonic stem cell lines, but the plaintiffs in the case say they only meant to roll back the additional stem cell lines allowed by the Obama administration in 2009. Those plaintiffs, James L. Sherley and Theresa Deisher, said in a court filing Friday night that the Court’s ban does not apply to research approved under the Bush administration’s stem cell guidelines in 2001.

The judge, Royce C. Lamberth, is expected to rule early this week on the emergency stay, quite possibly as early as today.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

The Justice Department, as promised, moved Tuesday to block a court ruling preventing use of government funds for embryonic stem cell research.

The lower-court decision that bars the use of publicly funded stem-cell work had stunned the Obama administration, which had vowed to appeal.

"The government is seeking a stay of the court's injunction to prevent the irreparable human and financial harm that could occur if these life-saving research projects are forced to abruptly shut down," said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.

"The court's order causes irrevocable harm to the millions of extremely sick or injured people who stand to benefit from continuing research as well as to the taxpayers who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on this research," a Justice Department statement said.

The Justice lawyers filed the notice of appeal and the proposed stay with U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, who had granted the injunction sought by plaintiffs opposed to research in which embryos had been destroyed.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Supreme Court justices on Tuesday sharply questioned a lower court's decision that has prohibited biotech giant Monsanto Co. from selling genetically engineered alfalfa seeds, possibly paving the way for the company to distribute the seeds for the first time since 2007.

The case has been closely watched by environmentalists and agribusiness. A federal judge in San Francisco barred the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa nationwide until the government could adequately study the crop's potential impact on organic and conventional varieties.

St. Louis-based Monsanto is arguing that the ban was too broad and was based on the assumption that their products were harmful. Opponents of the use of genetically engineered seeds say they can contaminate conventional crops, but Monsanto says such cross-pollination is unlikely.

Organic groups and farmers exporting to Europe, where genetically modified crops are unpopular, have staunchly opposed the development of such seeds.

Environmentalists are concerned with the case's effect on a federal law that requires the government to review a product's effect on the environment before approving it. The U.S. Agriculture Department earlier approved the seeds, but courts in California and Oregon said USDA did not look hard enough at whether the seeds would eventually share their genes with other crops.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

A U.S. district court ruled against specialty pharmaceutical company Santarus Inc in its patent suit against Par Pharmaceuticals, sending Santarus shares tumbling 48 percent after the bell.

The suit filed by Santarus and co-plaintiff University of Missouri relates to Par's application to market a generic version of Santarus' heartburn drug, Zegerid.

The court ruled that the patents-in-suit are invalid due to obviousness. It also concluded that certain asserted claims are invalid for lack of written description.

The case is Santarus Inc et al v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware. No. 07-551.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

The three-judge panel Tuesday ordered the secretary of state to accept the group's petition seeking to recall Sen. Robert Menendez. That allows the tea party activists to begin collecting the 1.3 million voter signatures they need to get a recall on the ballot.

The court set aside the larger question of whether voters have a constitutional right to recall a federal lawmaker.

New Jersey is among 18 states that allow recalls of statewide elected officials. There is no right to recall congressmen and senators under the U.S. Constitution.

The court says it would take up that question if the petition drive succeeds.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.