In the decision granting an injunction, the court was required to consider four factors: The chance of succeeding on the merits, the injury suffered by the plaintiffs in the absence of the injunction, the harm caused to other parties by issuing an injunction and the furtherance of public interest. Although the court found for the plaintiffs in all four areas, the bulk of the decision focused on the first.
In assessing the likelihood of success, the court gave the broadest possible interpretation to the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. The new NIH guidelines in question clearly differentiate between deriving stem cells, which does destroy an embryo, and performing research on stem cells that were independently derived from discarded embryos as a result of an in vitro fertilization procedure. Accordingly, the government argued that the guidelines do not authorize federal funding for research that destroys embryos. The court held that the amendment doesn't distinguish between the research being done on independently derived embryos and the destruction of the embryos themselves. According to the district court, ''research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed...'' applies to any research done after the embryos were destroyed, even if the destruction of the embryos happened independent of the research or the research grant. The embryonic stem cells covered by the new NIH guidelines come from embryos that are destroyed or discarded because they are the unused byproduct of in vitro fertilization and will be destroyed regardless.
This decision, if upheld, is a major setback for stem cell research. Taken to the logical conclusion, it would bar federal funding for all ESC research.
