The government refusing to fund Stem-Cell research can be likened to the Catholic Chrch banning the works of Galileo back in the 16th century. Meanwhile, we are losing scientists to countries like the UK, Germany, and China, places which have no such convictions.

Important research. Use of unbilical cords should be the usual and normal mode of operation

Who are we to say which life is more precious, that of a child yet to be born, or of someone dying of cancer? I have no such arrogant presumptions. As for the issue, I believe there are ways to extract stem cells without having to harm an unborn child.

I think all stem cells that can be used should be used to find cures but I was once told that there's no profit in a cure only the disease so why cure it. It makes alot of sense but doesn't make it right. I think if you're a woman and unfortunately you can't see yourself having a child or for some reason need an abortion why not use those stem cells? Aren't they going to be destroyed anyways?

Someone need to do research to determine if bush even has a brain

This is an important issue that needs to be given much attention. I can not make up my mind on this issue, I know it could really help people but there still the idea of if it is morally right. I will say no to cloning individuals but maybe cloning organs and such would be alright. Whatever your belief this is a major issue that needs to be given more attention.

This is extremely important. We need to fund stem-cell research........it will help cure many diseases but fifty year old bible-thumpers don't really care. This really pisses me off. Bush is an idiot in this respect....it's a freakin' petre dish. I feel so strongly about this.....WE NEED TO FUND STEM CELL RESEARCH. Let Bush get Parkinson's and then see if he feels differently.

In reality, none of the claims promoted by embryonic stem cell enthusiasts are actually anywhere close to the research already being accomplished using adult stem cells. Adult stem cells avoid many of the practical problems associated with embryonic stem cell research.

1. You use your own cells instead of those of an embryo with another DNA makeup, which would require taking immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of your life (like one does when they have an organ transplant).

2. You avoid the problem of having to clone yourself to get cells genetically identical to your own to avoid problem 1.

3. You avoid having to obtain scores of human eggs to get the stem cells via cloning. (A South Korean experiment required 242 eggs to get one embryonic stem cell line.)

4. Adult stem cells are already specialized and require less cell specialization to work. (Avoids problems of unspecialized embryonic cells becoming tumors.)

5. Lastly, adult stem cells dont have the moral problem of requiring the destruction of living human embryos for the research.

While we all are concerned that we find cures for those suffering from disease, such cures do not lie in destroying LIVING human embryos. They lie instead in research developments that, in many cases, are already here. For the animal rights wack jobs, animal trials with embryonic stem cells repeatedly kill many of the animals because of formation of brain tumors.

"Men fear death, as children fear to go in the dark; and as that natural fear in children is increased with tales, so is the other."
-Francis Bacon

If God told Bush that Ronald Reagan went to Hell because Alzheimers made him forget Jesus, Do you think Bush would change his mind? Nah, I doubt it.

Anybody who supports restrictions on stemcell research deserves to suffer from every disease that stemcell research could potentially cure.

Actually Bush did not ban stem cell research at all, he is banning funding for further research on stem lines not yet established. Making stuff up does no one any good. Here see for yourself. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html

Stem cells should (and will) be obtained from any number of sources, and studied to determine which source provides the greatest efficacy. Personally, I'm banking on adult stem cells because of their custom-tailored natures (common diseases react and progress differently within individuals, and by using material from your own body, side effects and rejection factors will be dramatically lessened). The embryonic variety are admittedly more malleable, but I just can't see them hopping past the slide phase into wide-scale applications. Cord blood is super-promising, and America's lackadaisical response to it has been tragic (why there aren't federally-mandated storage reservoirs in each state is a question that should be put to EVERY Congressional member before, during, and after all elections). The first big test (teeth) is, from what I understand, currently undergoing human trials even as this was typed. If successful, braces, cavities, and dentures will all end up as Smithsonian displays in ten years. A SERIOUS issue, one that can ill afford to be bogged down and buffaloed by the zealous prate of antiquitous Luddite clansmen.

I'm not even going to read anyone else's review. I guess all I have to say is I am agains't abortion, but you know, if it's going to remain legal in some of these states, we might as well benefit from it. I think research is a healthy way to explore through the depths of some of our mysterious planet. And hey, if you wan't to get an abortion, whatever. I think of this research as a kind of recycling process, and since I've been alive, I've never known a bad type of recycling.

Should only be 1 star, but with all the misinformation out there, I'll give it two.

O.K. New studies show that the same stem cells can be derived from amniotic fluid as opposed to living human embryos. Still wanna smash up babies? What is wrong with you people?

Yet another important issue that shouldn't be. To a logical mind, I think it's rather obvious that this is a good thing. A lot of these shouldn't be issues. Many illogical and unreasonable minds have made them issues. To me, stem cell research is kind of an obvious, necessary thing. Knowing the possibilities, and being against it, is idiotic to me. Maybe I'm crazy? I don't know, I think it's obvious.

I understand why some have a problem with this but their has to be some middle ground where research can continue. The possibilites are endless, if it can save lives and help people walk, then we have to move forward

Americas stem cell research is just about the only thing other countries praise it for. Keep it up!

We should be on the cutting edge on science, not bringing up the rear. The religous arguments are stupid- these are cells in petri-dishes.

Our society has an obligation to find a way to heal the people. The government needs to let science do it's best. Policy for science should be the standard developed by medicine.

I doubt peoples so-called religious ideals would turn them against this opportunity for Medical breakthroughs if THEIR child,spouse or loved one could benefit from such research.

This issue is very complex and I would be lying if I said I understood all there is to know about it... for that reason I am neutral. What worries me though is that such powers that result from this fall into the wrong hands. It is too far-fetched to worry about a world leader creating the perfect soldier out of stem cells.

I find it extremely irritating how religious groups, primarily right-wing christians, feel that, even though their religious views are tolerated by those who are not Christian, feel they have the right to force their beliefs on others by blocking abortion clinics, and lobbying governments to ban embryonic stem-cell research. The potential benefits to all of humanity, the potential to aleviate unneccessary suffering...what rational person would not seek these? The argument that embryos and fetus' represent a human life is erroneous, given that until a minimum of 2 months into a pregnancy, the embryo has no capacity to reason, no brain-waves and until 21 weeks into the pregnancy has no higher-brain functions. Many religions other than Christianity, including Judaism and Buddhism have no problem with embryonic stem-cell research, so what right to Christians have to force their beliefs on Jewish and Buddhist people? I'm tired of the Christian conservative groups showing their truly hypocritical and intollerant colours by denying the rights of others to their own freedom of conscience.

I have to side with Nancy Reagan on this one. I've lost one grandparent to Alzheimer's disease and another to Parkinson's disease. It was painful for the whole family to watch them slowly reduced to ghosts of their former selves, and no longer able to recognize their loved ones for years. My parents are starting to show signs of age, and I don't want them to inherit the same fate. I believe in the necessity of not further delaying stem cell research, a sentiment which corresponds with a sizable bipartisan contingent in the U.S. Congress. Two months before Ronald Reagan's passing, 200 members of Congress (about three dozen of this group oppose the right of a woman to get an abortion) sent an open letter to President Bush asking him to expand his 1991 policy on stem cell research. At that time, Bush approved a limited number of embryonic stem cell lines to be studied, but only 19 of these 78 lines offered have proven usable. This is a huge setback for many families who have a family member faced with a health scare, who no longer has the benefit of time. As a society, why would we conclude the cells from embryos left over and discarded from fertility treatments are more sacred than the lives of millions of people faced with a debilitating disease? Some American medical researchers are going to Europe to pursue their important studies, but the end result will probably be other countries making breakthroughs in medicines and reaping the profits, while American companies are held back from the race for cures. Who can blame Nancy Reagan for speaking out? She only wanted some hope and mercy for her husband.

I don't understand why this has to be such a controversial and religious issue. Stem cells can be obtained from umbilical cord blood with no harm to the newborn baby. They can also be found in the pulp of a child's old baby tooth. It's pretty easy and a tad arrogant to get on a soapbox and say how this is against God's will, but hopefully none of these people will have to sit there and watch a child die agonizingly from a disease that can be cured with stem-cell research. The research will continue regardless, if not here, then somewhere else in the world.

The issue of stem cell research is both controversial and emotional as it is yet another issue that begs the ultimate question of when life begins, and how one answers that question results in vastly different, yet reasonable positions. Despite the arrogance of some who claim to know when life begins, no one really knows, and stem cell research (as well as abortion) boils down to whether the risk of possibly taking a human life is worth the benefits. In abortion, the benefits of risking the intentional taking of a life are limited to one or a few individuals (eg the potential mother and father). With stem cells, the benefits are for everyone. However, there is no real risk of people intentionally getting pregnant with the intent to take this risk, while stem cell research opens the door for just this type of activity (ie creating a possible life with the previous intent to kill). While reading the other comments, I noticed a couple of poor logical arguments. First, there are real policy concerns in increasing human life expectancy. The first is the amount of new wealth that must be created to replace the wealth that had been passed down to subsequent generations upon death. This transfer would potentially be eliminated or at best substantially delayed. Second, some have argued that some stem cells will just be destroyed anyway, but often substances must be completely banned in order to stop abuses (eg the trade in ivory). The bottom line is that despite the vast potential of stem cell research, ethical and philosophical hurdles must be overcome first.

Who says humans are not supposed to live forever? I am all for Stem Cell Research. Diseases will be cured, including AIDS, Cancer, and some day, OLD AGE! Stem cells are not living beings--this has been proven--and the longer humanity lives, the better. I would love to live to see the life expactancy jump past 150 or ever 200! As for the issue of the body part market, humanity is too good to fall into such a dark hole. The gains from this will be used for the greater good. Now, if we could just get free health care for all...

You people do realize that if we use stem cell research, We could cure hundreds of babies with anencephaly, a disease which requires parts of skulls and brains for infants who lack them, yet are still living.

As much as I would love to see horrible diseases like Alzheimers and Parkinsons obliterated, I just can't shake the feeling that there is something morally wrong with stem cell research. Somehow the practice of taking body parts from aborted children gives me the creeps. Who are we to playing God like that? It sounds just like another step closer to cloning-something that would dehumanize the whole human race. There are some things that science just shouldn't tamper with and I believe this to be one of those examples.

Fraudulent.

The potential for humanity is tremendous. Unfortunately it will only be available to those who can afford treatments. . . for now at least. This whole issue ties into the abortion discussion, but what if we could have a limitless supply of stem cells without involving a fetus. Try baby teeth. I don't recall which issue, but I will locate it for those who might want to read it. Earlier this year I read an article in Popular Science about a dentist who noticed that his childs freshly lost baby teeth contained healthy living fetal stem cells in the core of the tooth. I don't know what the outcome of the final research was, but it sounded very promising. Isn't science great, but what do we do if the Tooth Fairy corners the stem cell market?

Stem cell resaerch is vital to finding new cures for diseases. It should be kept legal.

This is one of the next great barriers in medicine. . .it must be crossed. Only an idiot with two neurons in his or her head would be against Stem Cell Research. Anti-stem cell twerps were the same people that tourtured Galileo after he told the silly masses that the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

Laws are funny. A man was convicted of double homicide when he pushed a pregnant woman down a flight of stairs, killing her and her 6 week old child. *PROPS TO THE COURT ON THAT ONE* Stem cells are amazing things, but at what cost? This could be a modern version of sacrificing a baby for better crops or a longer life. Being a Christian, but on top of that an ethical human being, I stand against needless abortions. If a woman doesn't want the child, there are hundreds of thousands of couples in the United States that are unable to conceive a child. BUt now I'm getting off topic.

I'm all for stem cell research. If we have the ability to cure and prevent illnesses like Parkinson's, cancer, muscular dystrophy, and many others, and grow organs for transplantation, then why don't we do it?

I think this song by Dream Theater will some up my opinion. "The Great Debate" What if someone said, Promise lies ahead, Hopes are high in certain scientific circles. Life won't have to end, You could walk again. What if someone said, Problems lie ahead, They've uncovered something highly controversial. The right to life is strong, Can't you see it's wrong. Human kind has reached a turning point, Poised for conflict at ground zero, Ready for a war. Do we look to our unearthly guide, Or to white coat heroes Searching for a cure. Turn to the light. Don't be frightened of the shadows it creates. Turn to the light. Turning away would be a terrible mistake. Anarchistic moral vision, Industries of death, Facing violent opposition, Unmolested breaths. Ethic inquisitions breed, Antagonistic views, Right wing sound bite premonitions, In a labyrinth of rules. Are you justified, Are you justified, Are you justified, Justified in taking Life to save life, Life to save life, Taking life to save life. This embryonic clay Wrapped in fierce debate Would be thrown away Or otherwise discarded. Some of us believe It may hold the key To treatment of disease And secrets highly guarded. Are you justified, Are you justified, Are you justified, Justified in taking Life to save life, Life to save life, Life to save life. Human kind has reached a turning point, Poised for conflict at ground zero, Ready for a war. Do we look to our unearthly guide, Or to white coat heroes Searching for the cure. Turn to the light. Don't be frightened of the shadows it creates. Turn to the light. Turning away would be a terrible mistake. We're reaching, But have we gone too far. Harvesting existence, Only to destroy, Carelessly together We are sliding. Someone else's future, Four days frozen still, Someone else's fate We are deciding. Miracle potential, Sanctity of life, Faced against each other We're divided. Should we push the boundaries, Or should we condemn, Moral guilt and science Have collided. Turn to the light. We defy our own mortality these days. Turn to the light. Pay attention to the questions we have raised. .....If anything else, I do not trust any man, science board, or form of goverment with such power.

Nazi medicine. Don't think so? Then you should examine the court records of the Nuremberg Trials and the medical literature of the Soviet Union. China is at the forefront of Fetal Stem Cell research today and that alone should give everyone pause but the horrific mutagenic results they have produced are more than adequate to recommend caution. The following comments are applicable to the acquisition of Embryonic Stem Cells from aborted fetuses for research and not the stem cells harvested from umbilical cord blood or the use of adult stem cells (Yes there is such a thing.) Judging from some of the silly hyperbole of some of the supporters of the use of fetal stem cells research resort to you would think that this type of research is well proven. Sorry it isn’t. We’ve heard these claims before. Remember the claimed miraculous potential benefits of Fetal Tissue Research in the 1970's and 1980's. Since the 1993 lifting of the 1988 moratorium on the use of Fetal Tissue in federally funded research there has been not one substantive demonstrable breakthrough in any of the targeted diseases. Most of the literature of the proponents of both embryonic stem cell research and fetal tissue research point to the development of the Salk Polio vaccine as example of fetal tissue research in spite of the fact that it was a spontaneously aborted child’s kidney, which was used, and that occurred in the 1950’s. Research on fetal tissue has been in place since the 1930s and the relative few examples of its successful use point to its limitations. In a society where a large number of poorly educated and informed animal rights radicals have so intimidated Scientific research community about the use animals as test subjects based on the tenets of ”animal rights” why would anyone think that we should not afford our own species greater protection and consideration than dumb animals. I am dumbfounded by people who spring to embrace every scientific or cultural novelty when they have fail to even grasp the significance of their own being in the present.

A 2-edged sword. How to harvest stems non-invasively, what to use it for. A lot of issues have to be viewed reasonably and dispassionately, traits politicians are not known for. Why politicize science, anyway? FDA out of my lab!

This is an extremely valuable line of medical inquiry that all of humanity is counting on our American medical system--the most advanced and well-funded in the world--to pursue. Yet it is being held up, here in the nation that leads the world in science and technology, by religious objections. The United States is not a theocracy, regardless of how much Messrs. Bush, Ashcroft et al. would like it to be, and religious opinions on the nature of life (which here just happen to be conveniently tied to the political war over abortion) should not be premitted to thwart the advancement of medical science or our ***secular*** government's funding thereof.

By far some of the most exciting and important research of our time. To hell with the whining conservatives, people's lives are on the line as is our chance to gain an unprecedented knowledge of ourselves biologically.

Indeed, this is one of the most important issues today--the use of undifferentiated cells to cure a host of the most destructive diseases we face. Frankly, I'm thrilled at the opportunity to see my brother overcome his type two diabetes, to witness my grandmother overcome the ill effects of her spinal surgeries, and to experience the glorious moment when my greatest teacher, a paraplegic, stands atop his own two feet. So it is perfectly evident to me that the answer to the question, "Should we...?" is a resounding "yes." The potential for alleviating suffering seems so compelling, so advantageous to our people, that to waver over a contrived moral dilemma or to offer hysterical admonishments rooted in fantasy is to deprive needlessly a segment of the human population the rights and quality of life we the healthy sometimes take for granted. Thus, such contrivances and doomsday scenarios have no place in the debate. However, I will take issue with one particular moral dilemma presented by others, for I find it the most disturbing. Folks assert that to create embryos for the expressed purpose of using the undifferentiated cells (thus discarding the said embryos) is outrageously presumptuous, tantamount to "playing God." That is to say, utilizing or otherwise displacing biological materials that might be used to create another human being is morally reprehensible. Tackling the second statement above first, I must caution one who dabbles in such logic to recall that our technology already affords us the power to clone a human being from genetic material obtained elsewhere. Thus, it might be possible in the decades to come to create new humans from all skin cells, hair roots, unused sex cells, etc. discarded from their source--a living, breathing human. Thus, by this logic, that living, breathing person has denied not just a single potential human being, but an astronomical population of would-be persons, the chance to live! Of course, any rational folk would dismiss this accusation leveled against the common person as wildly irrational. Therefore, the logical source of this argument must also present significant problems in its proof. So for those who would cling to the aforementioned argument, please remember that to elevate the moral status of all that might possibly be transformed into a human being onto the level of that of a full-fledged human being is an ever more expensive assertion, especially in light of today's technology. Thus, onward to the weightier (sounding) of the problems with this so-called dilemma--are we indeed "playing God" through this type of research? Yes, I must confess we are. But don't we "play God" in virtually all arenas of existence? Haven't we always tried to secure longer, healthier, happier lives for ourselves and our fellow humans? Haven't we made difficult decisions in deciding the futures of others (namely criminals) in the hopes of bettering society? Doesn't every parent "play God" by creating children, then presuming to raise those children as they see fit? The answer to these questions is "yes." So the real moral dilemma here, as with many (if not all) dimensions of life, is in choosing our battles wisely, determining what's really worth fighting for--and, to me, assuring my fellow, full-fledged humans a greater chance at happiness, health, and long life is the most noble battle of all. Thanks for reading. :-)

I have no problem with this, since they are not using tissue from a living fetus/child. The research that can be done to find cures for various diseases would certainly ease my mind.

Stem Cell Research is very promising. I know that there are many people against it and that they believe to use aborted fetuses morally and physically horrid, but I do believe that one day science will be able to synthesize fresh stem cells without using aborted fetuses. Until then we work with what we have. I have heard that fresh stem cells can be taken from the umbilical cord of a newborn baby.

I feel that stem cell research should be allowed to be done with the support of the government. It was the wrong decision on Dubya's part to consult the pope, the definition of a religious figure, for advice on a secular issue. The embryos that they use can help to cure debilitating diseases. People may call this murder or abortion, but the thing is that they are confined to a peach tree dish that will be discarded either way. So, why not make the obvious choice (in my mind) and use it for a greater good than to just let these cells go to waste?

This is a sticky issue, and I can see both sides of the argument. I don't see it as very important except as a symbolic thing that Bush might use to promote his "culture of life" stuff. But the thing that I think is funny is how there are people on the Left who fully support using parts of fetuses for research but who are adamantly opposed to bio-engineering when it comes to corn and tomatoes. Being reflexively anti-religion and anti-capitalism can lead some people to take some absurd positions...

I've said it before, I'll say it again. STEM CELL RESEARCH, ALL THE WAY! This fits in with medical research, which is the most important issue out there. We MUST cure terminal diseases. At all costs! Here's a multiple-choice question for anyone interested. Which is more important: 1) Seeing to it that no more innocents have to die of AIDS, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, etc., no more families have to go through long periods of grieving, no more people have to spend $10,000 a year to keep themselves or a loved one alive, OR 2) Keeping a bunch of little deep-frozen things that cannot be considered independent, living organisms and are not doing anyone any good in a lab just so we can keep their hearts beating? Feel free to send me a personal message with your answer. I shall take a survey. And keep in mind all of the innocent victims who, if we had thought of stem cell research before, would still be alive today. Take care.

Ellajedlicka, please stay up with current events. President Bush DID allow stem cell research with federal funds but on a limited basis which I agree with. He also mentioned that the embryos would be thrown out anyway so I guess some of us 'right wingers' are up on the topic and not just you. The President's decision favored both sides of this hot political issue. Please read about the subject prior to posting as misinformation, a liberal speciality as well as name calling, doesn't serve anyone ! Based on your post you shouldn't be calling the President (or anyone for that matter) ignorant.

Stem cell research is a very important issue which will ultimately affect us as a community, as a nation, and the entire human race. I believe that President Bush's decision on this issue was the correct one. We must be prudent with how we step into this technology. Stem cell research is still a very new technology, only in 1998 was the possiblity of taking stem cells from human embryos a reality. Stem cells are the basic building blocks for creation of human tissue, specially myelin tissue which can ultimately be implanted (theoretically) in patients with spinal cord injuries. Other dibilitating diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's may certainly be cured by stem cells. No one really knows the consequences this research may have; this is the stuff of "A Brave New World." We must be prudent in how this research may be carried out. I believe that the information in those 60 genetic strands should be made public information as to then avoid profittering from the 2 or 3 corporations who have a monopoly on this critical information. This will allow the government to have jurisdiction over this critical research. We do not need a mad scientist getting their hands on this research; the potential for abuse is very great. There are also moral questions which need to be answered when doing this research, specifically, when does life begin? Does an embryo which is frozen really life or just "potential" life? Do these ends justify the means? I personally believe that the true "pro-life" position is to allow stem cell research to continue. By doing this, we may be savings millions of lives by finding cures for horrible diseases like Alzheimers.

Wow, another touchy issue. For a lot of people, stem cell research presents a lot of hope against some dreaded diseases, and for others a huge moral dilemma on what is and isn't a good source of embryonic stem cells and whether the whole issue is ethically sound. It's an incredible technology, and I think it's great that our race has reached the point that science has learned how to fight some diseases that we previously thought were undefeatable. I'm going to have to take the moral high ground on this one, though. As CastleBee pointed out, the market for body parts is already extremely lucrative (what's a kidney going for now?) and I feel certain that this is a technology that would effectively enable the rich to live forever (or at least much longer.) Our bodies are designed to wear out; joints falter and ache, skin sags and wrinkles, muscle tone goes down the tube-- we're not supposed to live forever. We're incurring diseases and problems with aging Americans that were not issues in the 1800's, but as medicine advanced, the life span was extended. My fear is that, since we are already facing global overpopulation, we're going to run ourselves right off the planet. Also, there is the issue of where to get these stem cells-- what is an acceptable source? Is there an acceptable source? And then the issue of cloning-- as much as I hated the fantasy/sci-fi movie "The Sixth Day," I have to admit that it did raise some interesting issues. I've not been following the issue closely enough to know what technology is available at this date, but one issue that the movie raised was the fact that someone can make a clone of me, put them in my place, and even my own family wouldn't know the difference, as far as what I looked like, etc. Is this a technology that could prove medically useful? Sure. Is it something that most of us are comfortable with? No, not really. And is it okay to play God? That one the verdict's still out on. I think that what we have here is another example of the atomic bomb-- scientists so concerned with "can we do it" that they're not first facing the issue of "should we do it."

I am in no way against research to help solve the major medical problems of our day. But this just seems so sick on a certain level. Just think about it - there now exists a potentially very lucrative market for the body parts (cells) of the aborted and unwanted. Decisions as to whose life is more important or valuable will have to be made. We should think long and hard of the consequences - just because science can accomplish it doesn't always make it the right thing to do. Think about what has already been done with all the futzing around with fertility. Implanting here, using this sperm doner and that egg donor - people will no doubt be inadvertently having children with their brothers and sisters in a few more years! Won't THAT be great! As for clones, well I'm not even ready to think about that one. What a society of self-centered, pathetic freaks we are becoming.

Wow, is this an interesting issue. For those of you who haven't been following, stem cell research involves the potential of human stem cells to be used to fight some of humanity's most terrible diseases: diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimers, to name a few. Stem cells taken from embryos that are just a couple of days old are showing the most potential to be able to adapt themselves to a variety of uses. This of course brings up a number of morality issues: by destroying the embryo, you are of course terminating the development of cells that may have become a human. One of the many ethical discussions that is arising from all of this, is what is an acceptable source for embryonic stem cells? Is it ok to use unwanted embryos from fertility clinics? Is it ok to use discarded fetuses from abortion clinics? Or is it ok, as a private agency is doing in Virginia, to actually create embryos for the express purpose of mining them for stem cells? In an even more complicated development, a group in Massachusetts is attempting to clone human embryos for their harvest of stem cells. Obviously this is an issue that is inciting passionate responses on both s