“We are working on human embryonic stem cells and we are working with other types of stem cells that are produced here at MSU,” he said. “Funding has been coming from foundations and private donations. So far, we have no projects funded by the National Institutes of Health, but we do have some projects under review at NIH right now.”

Currently, federal law prevents the destruction of embryos to be used for stem cell research under the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, MSU law professor Frank Ravitch said.

The NIH is referring all inquires to the U.S. Department of Justice. The Department of Justice did not respond to calls Wednesday afternoon.

Ravitch said Lamberth has put a temporary injunction on research in that area, meaning Lamberth feels the case will be eventually ruled in favor of those suing to end federally funded stem cell research.

“Issuing a temporary injunction under these circumstances is questionable as a legal decision,” Ravitch said. “It strikes me that he’s making a moral decision based on stem cell research. It’s not a good judicial decision.”

Most research, like Cibelli’s, done at universities and research facilities does not fall under the category of destroying embryos for research, Ravitch said. Cibelli’s research proposals focused on simply using stem cells as a model, not any particular therapy.

“It seems to be that the judge may have misinterpreted the Dickey-Wicker Amendment,” Ravitch said.

“Stem cell research itself doesn’t involve the destruction of human embryos. What concerns me is all the suffering human beings that could be helped by this research that won’t be helped.”

Ravitch said President Barack Obama’s administration has pushed for the appeal of the decision and if a success appeals occurs, the case will be turned over to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

Cecilia Cody, administrative director of California Right to Life, said her organization believes that life begins at fertilization.

“We believe that embryonic stem cell research is the killing of an early stage human being,” she said. “We’re against embryonic stem cell research and are very pleased with the federal judge’s decision to put a restraining order on the federal funding of stem cell research.”

Cibelli said his research proposals, if funded by the NIH, would allow him to study the creation of cells identical to those of a patient.

“Eventually after these cells are tested in animals, they could be potentially used for diseases that are the product of aging or injury or the genitive disease like Parkinson’s (disease),” Cibelli said.

James Trosko, professor of pediatrics and human development and adult stem cell researcher, said the scientific community feels political imposition shouldn’t play a part in making these kinds of decisions.

“Obviously, this decision to ban federal taxpayers money for embryonic stem cell research will have a chilling effect on basic research because underlying that decision is a political attempt by the government to restrict the kinds of research being done,” Trosko said.

“Embryonic stem cell research should be done and I just don’t believe the
government via political impositions by people who have ideological differences should impose those differences on scholars who feel that their research could in fact improve the human condition.”