A state appeals court told a local research laboratory late last Friday it could resume testing toxic nerve gases, despite a lower court ruling less than two weeks ago which upheld Cambridge's ban on such research.

Chief Justice John M. Greaney of the Massachusetts Appellate Court granted a temporary injunction which gives the Arthur D. Little (ADL) firm permission to resume the testing of chemical warfare agents in Cambridge.

"I see no real risk to the city or its citizens if [ADL] is permitted to continue its testing of the chemical agents for the short period it will take to resolve the appeal," Greancy wrote in his decision.

ADL, which is currently conducting research on chemical warfare agents for the Department of Defense, challenged a one year-old Cambridge ban on the testing, storage, and transportation of nerve gas.

Reverses Lower Court

Last month a Middlesex Superior Court judge upheld the city's ban, ruling that it was both "reasonable and enforceable."

After complying with the court ruling and temporarily halting all nerve gas testing at ADL's Levins Laboratory, lawyers for the research firm filed an appeal on March 5.

Justice Greancy stipulated that the North Cambridge laboratory may use no more than 100 ml. of liquefied chemical agents--Savrin (GB). Soman (GD). (V.N.). Mustard (HD) and, Lewisite--at any one time on the site.

Although the judge questioned the procedures used to impose the ban. Justice Greancy speculated that "the health commissioner [of Cambridge] will prevail on the legal arguments he raises."

Legal Tennis

City officials will present Cambridge's case to a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court--the highest judicial authority in the Commonwealth--this Wednesday so that the full court may take up the matter and "short-circuit the lengthy appeals process," Cambridge City Solicitor Russell B. Highley said last night.

"Our opinion is that the law is still on the side of the city," said City Manager Robert W. Healy, who compared the ADL case to a tennis match going back and forth.

Higley added that however the Supreme Judicial Court eventually rules, one side or the other will probably, appeal its case to the highest court in the country.