[Neither method] really quells the ethical debate, ... It's not clear it's going to answer all the critics. |
a huge chance to do pioneering high-risk research. |
A process that dooms an otherwise normal embryo to later demise |
California could become the global center for stem cell research with that kind of investment and the talent that's there. But within Harvard alone, we have as many outstanding scientists as arguably all of California. I think many of us are envious of the resources in California, but we're doing our best to organize and effort around somewhat more modest funding. |
I fully accept the ethical tradeoff. |
I think this effort points out that science is done on a global scale. We can establish restrictions here in the United States, but the science moves forward in other countries. |
I would say they also raise more questions than answers. |
I'm not sure you could ever satisfy the critics, ... They could say, 'Well, you might get it to work, but how often does it fail?' If you adhere to this absolutist position, you have to go to incredible lengths to satisfy these people. How many hoops do you have to go through as a scientist when you don't think you are doing anything wrong? |
is being driven by the realities of federal funding and the political climate in the United States. |
It's not clear it's going to work in human embryos. And in order to determine that we'll have to actually do the research on human embryos and likely destroy some in the process. |
The National Academy of Sciences guidelines for stem cell research prohibits payment to egg donors, and scientists in the U.S. have embraced those principles. There is a right way and a wrong way, and we must be sure to perform this vitally important medical research the right way. |
They demonstrate that you can isolate the equivalent embryonic stem cells by alternative methods that may not raise the ethical questions, |
This relies on generating an embryo and destroying the embryo to remove the stem cells. Some people in our society believe that would be wrong, |
We're now probably two years behind where we'd hoped to be. |