COLUMBIA, MO. • In a refrigerator-sized incubator in a small lab on the second floor of the Bond Life Sciences Center at the University of Missouri-Columbia, researchers are growing tiny colonies of embryonic stem cells.

Every day, a small squad of scientists nurtures and feeds those controversial cells, searching for clues about pre-eclampsia, a disease that causes hypertension in pregnant women.

Until last week, the research was supported by tax dollars. But a federal judge's ruling has cast doubt on the future of such research, in Columbia and in labs across the nation.

For now at least, the impact at Mizzou is virtually unnoticeable — unless you count the dampened spirits and wounded morale of scientists who've invested years of their lives in research that could end prematurely for lack of funding.

Professor Michael Roberts, who's been leading the school's embryonic stem cell research since 2003, isn't all that worried. Yet.

"I can keep going for at least another year," said Roberts, who is using other funding sources to pay for work no longer supported by federal dollars. "But ultimately, I'll have to stop."

That's if lawmakers don't intervene. Or if a higher court doesn't reverse the decision by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who ruled such research is a violation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment of 1999, which says federal dollars cannot be used to destroy human embryos.

On Tuesday, President Barack Obama's administration said it had appealed Lamberth's order, while asking the judge to reconsider his restraining order.

As it stands, the ruling affected all lines of embryonic stem cells, including 21 lines approved for research during the administration of President George W. Bush in 2001. The range of lines was expanded by President Barack Obama in 2009.

Researchers at Mizzou and Washington University, both of which have received federal support for stem sell research, have bemoaned the court decision.

There is a certain irony in the timing of the ruling, which comes at what could be a crossroads of sorts for stem cell research.

That's because researchers across the nation and at Mizzou have been using federal funds for projects that could determine whether noncontroversial adult stem cells show as much promise as embryonic stem cells. Researchers say without the federal funds for embryonic research, those comparisons will be tougher to achieve, with the financial burden falling on private or state funding.

Mizzou, for example, was close to securing a $1.8 million grant from the National Institutes of Health. Among the goals of researchers was a hope that treatments for pre-eclampsia could be pursued without the need for embryonic stem cells. The research was asking if so-called induced pluripotent stem, or IPS, cells — adult cells coaxed into behaving like embryonic cells — might be just as useful.

But last week, Roberts learned that he won't be getting that money.

And while his faith in the future of IPS cells has softened the blow of last week's court ruling, he stops short of concluding they will be as useful as embryonic stem cells. This, despite the fact that he believes IPS cells are the future of stem cell research.

"That's my suspicion. But I've been in this game long enough to never bet on one horse," Roberts said.

There are those, however, who argue that embryonic stem cells no longer offer anything for scientists. Critics point out that embryonic stem cell research has not provided a single cure for any disease or illness. In fact, no treatments have even been tested on humans, though there is a trial about to begin dealing with blindness and spinal cord injuries.

Supporters of IPS research also point out that those cells, which behave remarkably similar to embryonic stem cells, can be taken from a patient's own body, eliminating the threat of the body rejecting the treatment.

"It seems that the science has passed beyond embryonic stem cells," said David Prentice, a senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council. "Shouldn't we be focusing on things that are going to help people now?"

But others argue that it's too soon to proclaim the superiority of IPS cells. Among their pitfalls is the fact that they tend to retain some residual memory of what they once were — a skin cell, for example — making them potentially less useful in treating disease elsewhere in the body.

"The IPS field is still in its infancy," said Elaine Fuchs, president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research.

Echoing the concerns of many researchers, Fuchs said embryonic stem cells are still needed essentially as a reference point — to make sure IPS cells behave as they should: "It's the gold standard that allows us to eliminate the need for embryonic stem cells."

Without access to those cells, researchers like those at Mizzou say they'll lose a valuable tool, even if their focus is on adult stem cells.

"I have to have something to compare it to," said Bhanu Telugu, a Mizzou research scientist who's spent the past two years working with embryonic stem cells.

For Telugu and fellow researcher Toshihiko Ezashi, last week's court ruling has been a particularly unnerving event. Both have dedicated a significant portion of their research lives delving into this arena.

Both are left wondering about their future and a larger debate that just doesn't make sense to them.

"I just don't get the point," Ezashi said. "We're trying to use this technology to help others."