Foundation on Economic Trends v. Bowen

722 F. Supp. 787 (1989)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Foundation on Economic Trends v. Bowen

United States District Court for the District of Columbia
722 F. Supp. 787 (1989)

Facts

In 1976, the National Institute of Health (NIH) (defendant) published guidelines setting forth safety and environmental standards for NIH-sponsored rDNA research. In 1977, the NIH published an environmental-impact statement (EIS) that evaluated the likely consequences of research conducted under the 1976 guidelines, concluding that the guidelines would protect against many possible harms from rDNA research. The EIS also stated that the guidelines should be flexible to account for the environmental impact of new biological developments. In the years after publishing the 1976 guidelines, the NIH periodically relaxed the guidelines based on the lack of apparent environmental harms and new research. The Foundation on Economic Trends (the foundation) (plaintiff) sued the NIH to enjoin further NIH support for several areas of research until the NIH completed a new EIS to supplement the 1977 EIS. Specifically, the foundation pointed to three new areas of research that had not been evaluated under the 1977 EIS. The NIH addressed each of the foundation’s concerns, contending that no new EIS was necessary. Regarding the concern that oncogenic viruses introduced into E. coli could reproduce, the NIH argued that the use of oncogenes did not present greater risks than other forms of cloning and that it was nearly impossible for a viral segment to create a virus. The NIH noted that the decision to remove the ban on research with oncogenic viruses had been made after an in-depth expert analysis, public hearings, and scientific comment. Regarding the concern over genetically engineering HIV cells into new host cells, the NIH noted that because humans were already susceptible to HIV, engineering HIV cells did not increase the range of hosts susceptible to HIV. Finally, the NIH pointed to specific safeguards in the NIH guidelines ensuring that the genetic engineering of AIDS in mice could not pose harm to humans exposed to the mice, because the safeguards ensured that the mice could not escape the controlled environment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Revercomb, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership