Listing of Comments on Draft NIH Human Stem Cell Guidelines
Entire Comment Period: 04/23/2009-05/26/2009

Browse Comments Beginning With:
Record ID:
Entry Date:
On April 23, 2009, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published draft stem cell guidelines for public comment in the Federal Register. The purpose of these guidelines are to implement President Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13505 “Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells,” which was issued on March 9, 2009.

NIH received 49,015 comments by May 26, 2009, the closing date of the comment period, and have compiled these comments on this website. Any comments received via email or mail after the May 26 deadline are not included on this website. In reviewing the comments, NIH determined that 60 comments were inappropriate (i.e., contained SPAM responses or offensive language), and these comments have been excluded from this website. In addition, to protect the identities and personal information of individuals who submitted comments, NIH has removed personally identifiable information from the comments on this website even though individuals consented that the information provided could be made available for public review and posting.



Records 1 - 100 of 49015 Forward 100 Records   Forward 1000 Records   Last 100 Records|

ID Entry Date Affiliation Organization
Name
Organization
Address
Comments Attachment
1 04/23/2009 at 11:50:58 AM Self     My comment is in references to the owners of the in vitro derive embryos. I am sure that there will be the mandatory consent form to use embryos no longer needed for the purpose of implantation. I would like for the owners to also have a final consent form before the embryos are used for research. As it maybe years when embryos are frozen before they are used.

 
2 04/23/2009 at 12:12:52 PM Self     I support the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research and the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines to govern this important research. For those of us with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, these actions have renewed our hope for a cure.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that currently receive federal funding as well as those derived privately under the prevailing ethical guidelines so that NIH can fund research using these existing lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
3 04/23/2009 at 01:02:34 PM Self     Please utilize whatever means posssible to research and develop a cure for this disease. Seeing my strong and independent mother suffer through the symptoms was unbearable.

 
4 04/23/2009 at 01:59:49 PM Self     Because stem cells contain all the genetic information of donor's including all propensity to disease in those gene lines, I am concerned that although this research may result in solutions to minimizing or healing effects of some medical conditions, there is a great chance of introducing other medical problems into the population that will result in more complex issues. I consider Genetic Manipulation to be inherently opposed to the Natural Order of populations, and think that DNA transfers w/o cytoplasmic inclusion is unrealistic and problematic.

As a former cell-tissue culture researcher and my experiences at the time, along with my concerns, I am led to oppose Stem Cell Research and oppose Executive Order 13505.

 
5 04/23/2009 at 02:45:07 PM Self     This is a step in the right direction however I would also support allowing derivation of stem cells by somatic nuclear transfer for the purposes of therapeutic cloning.

 
6 04/23/2009 at 03:01:01 PM Self     http://www.*****.com/*****poetry.html

OPERATION CREATION The Eve of Man’s Manipulation

Dying for designer genes Trying every new pair Acid washed, custom made Branded DNA wear

We the people have a greed A better breed’s the answer Our self-enhancing power only Spreading like a cancer

Scientists increase their scope Scalpels, needles, knives Off they go down the slope Crashing into lives

They break into the master plan And make a master copy They try to freeze a mortal man And throw away the floppy

Oh highest tech intellect Think about the scar Think before dissecting us Controlling who we are

You scrub away and scour And carefully inspect us With microscopic power You claim you can perfect us

So slipping down the slope we go To the deep abyss below Design a mind, create a face A polished, finished human race...

Copyright *****/***** Publishing 2009 http://www.*****.com

File Link (.txt)
Poem "Operation Creation"
7 04/23/2009 at 03:13:38 PM Self     To me, a major problem presented by the guidelines is that they make ineligible for federal funding many of the presently used lines and essentially all of the registered lines. Most of the registered lines were derived in the early to mid 90s and the informed consents used then conformed with the prevailing norms but do not comply with the requirements of the NIH guidelines for informed consents. As I understand NIH's position on this, NIH has said that if one is working on a federally funded project with these cells then can finish the project but for new funding they will need to comply with the guidelines. It is hoped that there will be grandfathering but there are no guarantees. If the cells can’t be used, the changeover could take up to a year and may jeopardize projects and data. This would affect essentially all of the researchers at my home university --Wisconsin and the same may be true for many schools around the country. So I view this as a undesirable twist, that Bush made cells derived prior to Aug.9, 2001 fundable, but not later derived cells. President Obama is making cells derived prospectively fundable but not earlier derived cells. Plus in President Obama’s case it will require researchers to immediately start using new embryos, which feeds into the embryo farm scenarios of pro-life. So who wins here? I urge you to modify the guidelines to permit use of existing cell lines as well as cells from new embryos. The goal should be to facilitate stem cell research, not to create new obstacles nor to make research more expensive. Thank you.

 
8 04/23/2009 at 03:23:19 PM Self     A solution to an ethical debate and advancement in medical science Adult stem cells can save lives without destroying another life to do it. Everyone has purpose here on earth, and another human being should not have the authority to dictate which embryo gets to live or not. As Horton the elephant once said, ‘Even though you can’t see them or hear them at all, a person’s a person no matter how small.’ This is one of my favorite quotes and it is the absolute truth. Even though we may not be able to see the life, there is still purpose in the embryo that has yet to be fully developed. I am firm in my walk with God as well, and try to live a Christian life as best as I can with God as my first priority. His word, the Bible, is truth; therefore, it is what I live by each day. In the 10 commandments God gave to Moses it specifically says ‘Thou shall not murder’, Exodus 20:13. Abortion is murder, and using embryonic stem cells is considered abortion. There are many reasons I make this claim, not only for a solution to the ethical debate, but also for further advancements in medical treatments to be made. Throughout this paper, I plan to explain stem cells and provide the alternatives to conducting stem cell research and its medical benefits. It is for this reason that I encourage stem cell research, however at the adult stem cell level because of its multiple benefits. The history of stem cell research in the government is essential, and contributes to why I am so passionate regarding this topic. The government seems to be more lenient on the guidelines and funding for the research, and is losing the ethical aspect as well. During the mid 1990’s the Dickey Amendment was passed by Congress. It stated the inability of federal funding to go towards the ‘creation of a human embryo for research purposes or research in which a human embryo is destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to the risk of injury or death for research purposes’. It allowed for embryonic research; however the lack of federal funding prohibited extensive research (ACOG Committee on Ethics, 2006). In 1999, the Clinton Administration argued against the mixed interpretation of the Dickey Amendment and proposed the idea of federal support for embryonic stem cell research. The embryos could be gathered through excess of infertility treatments, but did not allow for embryos to be created specifically for the stem cell research (ACOG Committee on Ethics, 2006). In 2001, the Bush Administration spoke upon the federal funding policy for that time. The policy allowed for the funding to go towards stem cell lines that were present up until August 9, 2001; excess embryos from infertility purposes; and the use of fetal tissue stem cell research (ACOG Committee on Ethics, 2006). On March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama removed the restrictions I had previously mentioned. He has allowed and approved federal funding towards the use of embryonic stem cell research, and the creation of new stem cell lines (Joyce, 2009, A1). President Obama has also given scientists the power to create guidelines without having ethical or moral prohibitions upon them (The National Archives and Records Administration, 2009). As you can see, stem cell research has come a long way since the mid 1990’s at a rapid speed. Therefore, it is crucial to act now, before the government passes any further bills that may permit additional or more flexible embryonic stem cell research. Congress is currently working at passing the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2009 that states guidelines as to what kind of embryos can be used for stem cell research (THOMAS: Library of Congress, 2009). Those who are passionate and are concerned for our future need to act now before our government acts out of its own wants and desires instead of moral and ethical reasoning. Stem cells are very essential due to the fact they have the ability to develop into any cell in the body (Joyce, 2009, A1). They can act as an internal repair system once inserted. After the stem cells have established inside the body they have the ability to remain as an unspecialized stem cell or become a specialized cell to help the body. Specialized cells include muscle, blood, and brain cells in which they target a specific area (National Institutes of Health [NIH], 2009). Stem cells in general have the potential to treat and even cure certain disease. Research is conducted on different types of stem cells; however, the main contributor to the research is the embryonic stem cell. A benefit of this specific type of stem cell is it can develop into any cell throughout the body. On a heavier note, the cells are gathered from the destruction of embryos through in vitro, laboratory generation, and/or human embryonic donation (NIH, 2009). Embryos derived through in vitro are described as eggs that have been fertilized by a sperm outside of a woman’s body. The excess embryos have the ability to be donated after consent of the responsible party to stem cell research (NIH, 2009). Laboratory embryos are laboratory grown stem cells, have the ability to be shipped and frozen to use later, and are generated in large quantities (NIH, 2009). Is this the beginning of cloning? Last, but certainly not the least impacting nor crucial way of gathering embryos is through human embryonic stem cells. These cells are derived from the eggs fertilized by the sperm inside a woman’s body. The embryos are 4-5 days old and have begun the life long process of development (NIH, 2009). This aborted embryo now has no chance of fulfilling its purpose on earth, in which God designed for it to do. Another type of cell research is conducted on, however is not as favored by scientists as the embryonic stem cells are, is the adult stem cells that are found in many different tissues and organs throughout the body including the brain, bone marrow, peripheral blood, blood vessels, skeletal muscle, skin, teeth, heart, gut, liver, ovarian epithelium, and testis (NIH, 2009). However they are only able to maintain and repair the tissues that they are originally found in (NIH, 2009). Is this a negative attribute of adult stem cells, or is it positive and will help guarantee the establishment and effectiveness of the stem cell in the body as it repairs and renews? Scientists believe that in using adult stem cells they have the least likely chance to be rejected in the body, because of its familiarity of the tissue or organ prior to the extraction of the cell (NIH, 2009). It has also been proven that the use of adult stem cells is a cheaper and easier way of producing genetically matching cells (Levin, 2009, p.17). Along with adult stem cells includes iPS cells, or induced Pluripotent Stem cells. The iPS cells are adult stem cells genetically altered to mimic embryonic stem cells (Levin, 2009, p.17). This is a major benefit as to why adult stem cells should be used, however additional research and funding needs to be conducted in order to guarantee the similarity of characteristics between the two stem cell types and for additional questions to be answered that will in turn possibly persuade scientists in favor of adult stem cell research. The iPS cells have the ability to reprogram and repair damaged tissues throughout the body and have already been proven useful in the aid of drug development and the modeling of diseases (NIH, 2009). In fact, as of fall of 2008 approximately 800 stem cell laboratories are conducting their research on iPS cells (Levin, 2009, p.18). With the push and funding towards this research, it may help eliminate embryonic stem cells altogether, in addition to solving the ethical debate. Potential cures have been stated by scientists with the use of human embryonic stem cells (NIH, 2009). These potential cures are affiliated with Parkinson’s disease, Diabetes, traumatic spinal cord injury, heart disease, and vision and hearing loss (NIH, 2009). These ‘potential cures’ are only those, ‘potential cures’. Due to specific studies, both stem cell types, embryonic or adult, have the ability to move towards the injured myocardium and both have an equal chance of treating the injury (“Systemic Stem Cell,” 2008). Regardless of this projected assumption gathered from studies, they are not proven nor are they guaranteed to work based on experimental research (Levin, 2009, p.18). Based on this evidence my question is why the federal funding is favoring embryonic stem cell research without sufficient support as to if this will help become an efficient internal repair system within the body. The federal funding should be granted to adult stem cell research only due to its remarkable benefits and ability to transform and resemble embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells have also proven it to be of somewhat of a use (NIH, 2009). Although embryonic stem cell research does have its benefits of reproducing quickly and at high quantities it is the killing of life. An embryo, a fertilized egg, is the beginning, and destroying the embryo for research is prohibiting its ability and purpose in life. Some argue Leviticus 17:11, a verse God inspired, states that the Life is in the blood, and the blood is not present in embryos at conception and therefore the embryo is not considered the beginning of life. The blood may not be present during the embryonic stage; however, this verse has been taken out of its context to serve as a false support for the opposition. It portrays a different meaning when presented in the context of the Bible. In addition, the bills that Congress is attempting to pass may sound okay on the surface, however in reality is this considered an easy way out of pregnancy and it still be legal; donating embryos with consent? At the rate of the freedom of stem cell research, will donors be paid for their embryos in the future? These are just some questions to ponder. If embryonic stem cell research isn’t stopped now, who knows where it will be ten years from now! Stem cell research is important and can be very beneficial towards developing cures for certain diseases. With this information one no longer will be quick to disagree with stem cell research because of the great medical treatments that could be discovered. Instead, fight against the use of embryos, and enforce the use of adult stem cells for research. Remember, Jeremiah 1:5, a verse in the Bible inspired by God and written by Jeremiah reads, "Before I made you in your mother's womb, I chose you. Before you were born, I set you apart for a special work. . .” We all have purpose, so who are we to choose who gets to live or not?

References Joyce, Tom. (2009, March 10). Stem cells divide locals. York Daily Record, p. A1,A6. Levin,Yuval. (2009). Biotech: What to Expect. A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life, 17- 20. Retrieved March 30, 2009, from www.ebscohost.com National Institutes of Health. (2009). Stem Cell Basics. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from http://stemcells.nih.gov/staticresources/info/basics/SCprimer2009.pdf Systemic Stem Cell Improvement in Cardiac Function After Ischaemic Injury: Leaping Forward Slowly. (2008). Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, 35, 105-106. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from www.ebscohost.com The National Archives and Records Administration. (2009). Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-5441.pdf THOMAS: Library of Congress. (2009). Bills. Retrieved March 30, 2009, from http://www.loc.gov/index.html Using Preimplantation Embryos for Research. (2006, November). ACOG Committee on Ethics, 347, 1-13.

 
9 04/23/2009 at 03:37:04 PM Self     I applaud the NIH for opening up the number of cells that researchers can use, it saddens me that somatic cell nuclear transfer remains prohibited. If stem cells are to live up to their full therapeutic potential, this is an area of research that must be fully explored. The potential to revolutionize the field of transplant medicine outweighs the ethical concerns in my opinion.

 
10 04/23/2009 at 04:17:51 PM Self     I believe these guidelines to be fair, ethical and necessary for progress towards finding cures to several diseases. Please also grandfather in stem cell lines that are already moving foward in research so they can also benefit form federal research funding. Thanks!

 
11 04/23/2009 at 04:18:15 PM Self     Research which involves the use of embryonic stem cells is not ethical and should not be allowed. The reason is simple: An embryo is the first stage of a human life, i.e. it has all the information and capability to grow into that being which emerges as a human.

 
12 04/23/2009 at 04:21:16 PM Self     Thank you so much for finally moving on science and not politics. after reviewing the guidelines, i find that it would be an added benefit for you to also include stem cell lines that are within the ethical requirements but have had research conducted before these new policies were implemented.

 
13 04/23/2009 at 04:25:51 PM Self     I support embryonic stem cell research. Please consider grandfathering existing lines so that we can build on progress already made.

 
14 04/23/2009 at 04:27:11 PM Self     Thank you for moving forward on embryonic stem cell research. I support this research and want you to broaden it beyond leftover IVF donor embryos.

 
15 04/24/2009 at 06:17:14 AM Self     Here are some suggestions for the NIH relating to SC research regulations. These ideas come from a 25 year old diabetic, diagnosed at age 2 with diabetes and blind by age 24 as a result of complications of the disease. My first and most important suggestion is stop studying lab rats that have been purposely altered to have disease. Start treating humans who have fallen ill as a result of circumstances beyond their control.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/56231.php The above link talks about researchers finding a cure for blind rats. That is nice and all but seriously I don’t care either way if blind rats can see or not, call me cold hearted. It’s just that rats don’t hold down jobs. Sure as a blind person I can get a job. I’ll get right on it as soon as I relearn how to perform all of the other tasks I used to take for granted, like the simple act of walking out the front door and crossing the road. Maybe some of the money used to conduct research on rats could be used to treat people. Sad that Canadian government alone spends yearly millions sometimes billions of dollars to treat our furry little rat friends yet as a human I can’t get government to supply myself as a human being monies to travel to China for HUCSC treatments. Even worse is the fact that I would have to travel to China for such a treatment, that I can’t simply get it in Canada or at least some place in the states.

The cost of the procedure is around 25 thousand dollars American as a human getting money from the government for any such treatment is absurd, but Ottawa gets 3 million dollars to treat rats. Why can’t we spend money like this to perfect treatments in humans?

The above link provides one example of monies granted to treat rats. There are thousands more like it on the web and in the papers. It is sad really. I I refuse to spend much longer living life as a blind diabetic having to depend on others for everything, because I can’t get any treatments. There are no counsellors that are going to change my mind and tell me it’s going to be okay blind people can be happy. No Prozac or anti depressant pill is going to solve my problem. I can’t sit around waiting for cures that never come, at least to me. Rather hearing about rats that have their diabetes reversed or their vision restored. Millions of dollars are used to treat rats. While I and others like me go blind, suffer from kidney failure or have body parts amputated. I want to get SC treatments. Yesterday couldn’t have been soon enough. I want these treatments until I can see again, or until it kills me whichever comes first. I am willing to find out because I can’t live a life of needles, finger picks, total darkness, sadness and total depression for much longer. That’s no way to live, if I am going to go out I don’t want to go out like a coward at the very least I want to die with dignity trying to find a cure for a life altering devastating disease and it’s complications. NIH if you are going to spend time money and man power setting regulations for something, worry about people not lab animals. I and others like me need treatments now. We can’t wait for five to ten years that actually end up being like 20 plus years. Don’t regulate research, regulate the manner in which researchers dangle a false sense of hope in front of patients and their families desperate for a cure. I don’t feel that treatments should be regulated people should be able to get any treatment they want in their pursuit of happiness. If regulations must be set allow the regulations to be set by dying cancer patients, people slowly being deteriorated by diabetes and it’s complications, allow the people who will need and possibly benefit from the treatments to regulate their treatment. If there is one thing I don’t need is a healthy, happy person telling me how I should treat my disease!

Sincerely,

 
16 04/24/2009 at 09:25:42 AM Self     Stem cell research is not moral or ethical and there are other ways to obtain the same infromation. Please consider alternative methods.

If stem cell research is to continue, then please ensure there are guidelines with specific limitations on what, who and how stem cells are to be used. We do not need to be creating a master race.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,

 
17 04/24/2009 at 09:37:17 AM Self     I believe in the sanctity of life, and embryonic stem cell research violates that principle at the most vulnerable level. Further no diseases have been cured with this approach, so it is a life destroyed for no reason. I can agree with Adult stem cell research which is more promising and has helped people. i beleive we are playing God and this is and extremely dangerous slippery slope that we are starting down.

 
18 04/24/2009 at 12:05:42 PM Self     The Obama administration is proposing new guidelines for embryonic-destructive stem cell research. Using our tax dollars to pay for medical experimentation on tiny human beings is wrong.

As I have done in the past, I must make my voice heard!

Not only is this kind of research reprehensible, it is unnecessary. Adult stell cells are the way to go. Adult stem cells have been more promising. We must stop wasting human life.

 
19 04/24/2009 at 02:02:16 PM Self     As a taxpayer, I do not want my hard earned dollars to go toward such a reprehensible act as doing research on human embryos, especially when it is proven to have no benefit whatsoever. On the other hand, adult stem cells has shown great promise and one does not have to destroy a human life in the process. I do not believe that "NIH-funded research in this area is ethically responsible, scientifically worthy"

If the government wants to fund this type of research, the funds should not come from taxpayers.

I strongly oppose this.

 
20 04/24/2009 at 02:02:44 PM Self     I have been diagnosed with Type II Diabetes since l997. Doctors said that my condition was due to being basically "over 40, over weight (but not obese) and sedentary. Since then my condition has been controlled with a variety of medications, diet and exercise. I support any efforts by the U.S. Government, its agencies or contractors to use stem cell research to find a cure for all major illnesses, including Type II Diabetes.

 
21 04/24/2009 at 04:32:59 PM Self     Please allow somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) for funding to promote and expedite progress in the regenerative medicine field.

 
22 04/24/2009 at 05:11:02 PM Self     While stem cell research is certainly of great potential value, the problem of immunogenicity associated with ESCs makes them less likely to be clinically beneficial than iPSCs. Given that, expansion of ESC research does not seem warranted, especially since the ethics of this work is questioned by many.

 
23 04/24/2009 at 05:35:10 PM Self     Please do not proceed with stem cell research. Adult stem cells have produced much better results and do not require the death of an innocent human being. Thank you.

 
24 04/24/2009 at 05:39:05 PM Self     Please allow funding for research using human embryonic stem cells. Stem cell studies may yield valuable information about serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects. Human embryonic stem cells may also be used to test new drugs which would be far more accurate than the current method of testing on organisms dissimilar to humans such as rats or dogs. Stem cells can also be used to generate cells and tissues that could be used for cell-based therapies instead of depending on donated tissues and organs that are in such short supply. Stem cells can also be used to treat diseases and injuries such as Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, spinal cord injury, burns, heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis. Again, please support funding for embryonic stem cell research.

 
25 04/24/2009 at 07:26:50 PM Self     Stem cell research is unnecessary and reprehensible. I believe it is a crime against those with no voice of their own. Life starts at conception and we should not do research of this type or any type of human. It robs us of our human dignity.

 
26 04/25/2009 at 10:13:51 AM Self     To Whom It May Concern:

These comments are in response to the Draft National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research (Federal Register April 23, 2009, Volume 74, Number 77, pages 18578-18580). In summary, I argue that the new guidelines mark a significant step forward for United States science, but they remain unnecessarily restrictive.

On March 9, 2009, President Barack H. Obama lifted the restrictions placed on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research by President George W. Bush in August 2001. President Bush’s rules on this area greatly reduced the scope of research conducted by federally-funded researchers in the United States by limiting such research to just a few preexisting lines of hESCs that were not representative of the significant genetic diversity that exists in our population and would have not been suitable for therapeutic work due to the means by which they had been extracted. These rules limited the research activities of many scientists and caused great hardship for investigators who chose to pursue research on hESC lines not covered by federal funds. These restrictions had a measurable impact on the quantity of hESC research produced in the United States, thus limiting the contribution of America to this exciting and important burgeoning scientific field (Levine, 2008).

Recently, the NIH announced its new draft guidelines for hESC research. The new guidelines will greatly expand the scope of federally-funded research by allowing funds to be used for work on stem cell lines derived from excess fertility clinic embryos (Section II.B). The scientific community, with the support of much of the public, has long argued in favor of such a measure. This marks a significant step forward, and it will increase the potential of research in the United States. For this reason, the NIH and the administration of President Obama should be applauded.

However, under the draft guidelines, unnecessary restrictions on hESC research remain in place. In particular, federal funds will not be available for work on hESC lines derived from embryos that have been generated specifically for the purpose of stem cell work (Section IV.B). This is a severe limitation that basically ensures that if a cell line was derived from an embryo that was not left over from a fertility clinic, work on that cell line can never be funded by federal dollars. This is unfortunate, as the ability to generate specific hESC lines will be very important--and likely essential--for therapeutic cloning to be possible and even just for scientists to be able to use hESCs for the study of a wide variety of diseases. Considering that national hESC policy is so closely correlated with research performance in this area, I would ask that the NIH consider easing this particularly harsh restriction.

Sincerely, **********

References: Levine, A.D. (2008). Identifying Under- and Overperforming Countries in Research Related to Human Embryonic Stem Cells. Cell Stem Cell, 2, 521-4.

 
27 04/25/2009 at 12:08:05 PM Self     NIH Director Raynard Kingston, claim that embryonic stem cell research would boost overall scientific progress even though, unlike adult stem cells, it has never helped a single patient. This is outrageous and disinformation.

I am against fetal farming for the use of research. Funding should go to existing adult stem cell research.

 
28 04/25/2009 at 12:19:51 PM Self     Dear Natianal Institute Of Health Personnel,

I oppose any research on Human Life; the ends do not justify the means. You may fool some of the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time.

In addition to being immoral, embroynic destructive stem cell research is 'Fred Flinstone Science' only catering to the research fanatics and elites

Please save your reputation as well as our tax money and follow the INTELLIGENT SCIENCE in ADULT STEM CELL RESEARCH.

Sincerely,

 
29 04/25/2009 at 07:06:04 PM Self     Human Embryos are living. Human embryos are human. Human Embryos are living humans.

murder is taking a life with forethought.

Stem Cell research on embryos that ends their life take forethought and a living human is no longer living.

Stick to adult stem cell or anything that does not end human living beings.

 
30 04/25/2009 at 07:37:13 PM Organization Arizona Chapter of the National Parkinson Foundation 20280 N. 59th Ave., Suite 115-714 Glendale AZ 85308 Guidelines should permit SCNT or Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer to receive federal funding.

SCNT is about cell research not cloning of humans. It involves using an unfertilized egg and one's own DNA. No fertilization or implantation ever takes place.

People who suffer need strong federal support for all kinds of research. Research that could help people should not be prohibited.

 
31 04/25/2009 at 07:37:35 PM Self     Human Stem Cell Research should not be allowed.

 
32 04/25/2009 at 08:09:33 PM Self     Stem Cell Research should be allowed.

 
33 04/26/2009 at 11:25:08 AM Self     Embryonic stem cells should be abandoned in favor of alternatives, such as those involving adult stem cells.

The use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.

Furthermore, adult stem cell research may be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.

Moreover, there have been many advances in adult stem cell research, including a recent study where pluripotent adult stem cells were manufactured from differentiated fibroblast by the addition of specific transcription factors. Newly created stem cells were developed into an embryo and were integrated into newborn mouse tissues, analogous to the properties of embryonic stem cells.

Moreover, the use of embryonic stem cell in therapies is fundamentally flawed. For instance, one study suggests that autologous embryonic stem cells generated for therapeutic cloning may still suffer from immune rejection. In other words, therapeutic cloning may not always produce matched tissues. In contrast, there are reports of adult stem cells being successfully reintegrated into an autogenic animal. Embryonic stem cell treatments also have a tendency to create tumors.

Scientists have long promised spectacular results from embryonic stem cell research, and this has not yet occurred.

 
34 04/26/2009 at 12:49:09 PM Self     I would have to agree with Dr. Irv Weissman (see article at: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/146675.php) that (out-of-context) "As head of the National Academy of Sciences' panel that unanimously endorsed research using SCNT, and as a drafter of the guidelines for the International Society for Stem Cell Research, I know that this suggested ban on federal funding of SCNT-derived human embryonic stem cell lines is against our policies and against President Obama's March 9 comments. The NIH has not served its president well." Dr. Weissman is director of stem cell research at the Stanford University School of Medicine.

Research using SCNT-derived cell lines is sanctioned by both the National Academy of Sciences and the International Society of Stem Cell Research, according to Dr. Weissman, and is a technique to create disease-specific human embryonic stem cell lines on which to conduct research and test therapies.

Please consider removing the federal funding ban on SCNT-derived cell lines so that further research can be performed with the hopes of providing much-needed therapies for many diseases.

Thank you in advance,

 
35 04/26/2009 at 02:50:15 PM Self     I approve of President Obama's decision:

On March 9, 2009, President Barack H. Obama issued Executive Order 13505: Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells. The Executive Order states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law.

 
36 04/26/2009 at 03:41:49 PM Self     Any use of stem cells for research in finding cures for neurological diseases could change my life. I am 57 years old and have Parkinson's Disease. I support any and all legislation that would allow the use of any stem cells.

 
37 04/27/2009 at 08:20:17 AM Self     It is unnecessary and reprehensible to promote or fund the use of human embryonic stem cells for research. Wonderful progress is being made in research on adult stem cells, and it is from these adult stem cells that the real possibility of cures are being seen. Human research at any age is questionable ethically (consider Dr.Mengele or our own sickle cell experimentation). Human embryos are human life. Please, no experimentation or research!

 
38 04/27/2009 at 08:55:00 AM Self     I am morally opposed to any destruction of human life. Embryos are life forces. Mankind has no right to destroy life. Your argument that these were for invitro fertilization and no longer needed only furthers my argument. The sole purpose of harvesting embryos should be for creating human life and in these cases you say they were. Therefore you are destroying human life which means you would be murdering babies. I refuse to allow my hard earned money to go toward killing babies and am very concerned that the government can use it to link my soul to the murder thereby forcing me to sin against God.

 
39 04/27/2009 at 09:04:46 AM Self     President Obama,

I am saddened to hear that you are considering new guidelines to expand embryonic stem cell research. I firmly believe that life begins at conception which means that these embryos that will be destroyed are in fact tiny human beings. To destroy these human beings is simply immorral and can not ever be justified. I hope and pray that you will reconsider this decision and put this funding/research towards adult stem cell research which to my understanding shows so much more promise and does not rely on killing innocent human beings.

Thank you for your time and may God bless you,

 
40 04/27/2009 at 09:07:03 AM Self     changes in U.S. federal funding rules, lifting of the ban on federal funding being used to support research on hESC lines derived after Aug. 9, 2001, is much welcomed, though does not go far enough in my opinion. Federal funding needs to be extended to establishment of NEW hESC lines, and to include SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer) techniques. The advancement of Science in this new field has been nonexistent for too long. Please help those of us dealing with devastating neurodegenerative diseases, predicted to be helped thru the application of hESC.

 
41 04/27/2009 at 09:26:55 AM Self     PLEASE LOOK AT ALL THE ASPECTS OF THIS BEFORE IT IS DONE.I VOTED FOR YOU MR OBAMA BUT I AM DISAPPOINTED WITH YOUR STADN OF THIS ISSUE..PLEASE SEARCH YOUR HEART ABOUT THI

 
42 04/27/2009 at 09:38:53 AM Self     It is our governments responsibility to provide for the common defense, negotiate treaties but unquestionably in no way does the Constitution grant the federal government the authority to decide such things as providing money to STEM CELL research. The ethical boundaries that our federal government has crossed over the past 50 years in regards to deciding what is moral and what is not is beyong disheartening. Stick to politics folks and let the religions of our nation determin what should be moral.

DO NOT ALLOW MY MONEY TO BE USED FOR THIS RESEARCH!

 
43 04/27/2009 at 09:42:12 AM Self     No embryonic stem cell research should be conducted! To get the cells that are needed for this research requires killing unborn humans.

If we start spending a billion dollars a month on health instead of war, we won't need to kill more people to figure out if we can save more lives.

 
44 04/27/2009 at 09:45:53 AM Self     Please do not rescind the Executuve Order halting Federal funding for Embrionic Stem Cell research. As an educated biologist, it is clear that there is no valid scientific evidence to support the need for stem cells other than Adult Human strains. The rescission only serves to create additional medical care cost where none is needed. Medical research whether in universities or private corporations has not been hampered in the slightlest under the current order. If you feel strongly that Stem Cells are the path to dramatic new therapies, please improve funding to universities and corporations currently conducting this research using Adult Stem Cells. Please do not increase helthcare expense and create further political divisions within this United States of America.

Sincerely,

 
45 04/27/2009 at 09:51:15 AM Self     In 1998 a scientist first realized fertilized eggs left over from couples trying to have a child through in vitro fertilization had potential for treating people with illnesses. My 1997 Webster dictionary defines an embryo as ;" in humans the stage approximately from attachment of the egg to the uterine wall until about the eighth week of pregnancy." Since the collection of cells in the petri dish are much earlier than that they cannot be called an embryo. In 2006 Dr. Steven Teitelbaum called these cells in the petri dish a blastocyst. Others refer to them as pre embryo. A clear definition must be established to protect embryonic stem cell research and SCNT. There is no baby in the petri dish and this needs to be made clear to the American people. Ones religion may have a different opinion but no baby has ever been created with out a womb. Outlaw the introduction of cells to the womb for research and everyone is in agreement. In the petri dish they are just a cluster of cells.

 
46 04/27/2009 at 10:08:45 AM Self     These guidelines do not fully address the ethics and moral issues surrounding the destruction of a human life. Frozen embryos that are no longer "needed" for reproductive purposes may still be donated for adoption/implantation. My biggest concern is that the use of adult stem cells is far superior to embryonic cell lines. Adult stem cells do not carry any of the ethical or moral issues that surround embryonic stem cell research. Our government should focus its financial resources to fully develop adult stem cell lines and avoid the controversial and less fruitful research with embryonic stem cells.

 
47 04/27/2009 at 10:10:08 AM Self     The debate over human embryonic stem cell research - that is, research involving stem cells derived from a human embryo – is one of the most controversial issues of our time. The divisions rest not on mere technicalities but considered assessments of the essential nature and value of human embryos. Given these disagreements, one would hope the ideal of deliberative democracy would be upheld and the NIH would, in issuing these draft guidelines, offer publically acceptable reasons justifying the proposed policies and a clear account of how they came to be. Regrettably, neither has been provided at this juncture, and these very comments lack information crucial to constructive criticism and reasonable debate.

The doctrine of deliberative democracy states that, when an important policy question is under discussion in a society, the body which ultimately makes a policy decision must a) provide reasons which, even if other sides disagree, at least can be sensibly justified; b) allow debate to occur in an open forum rather than via backroom deals not accessible to public scrutiny; and c) be publically accountable for its decision to the electorate, courts or other entities. The third requirement is more or less satisfied here, as the Acting Director of the NIH serves at the pleasure of the duly-elected President. However, the entire requirement and part of the second are entirely absent in this decision-making process.

On the first requirement, the policy draft offers no supplementary reasons justifying its particular determination. In the debate, some such as former President Bush justified banning federal funding for stem cell research because the human embryo is a unique human being and no innocent human being should be sacrificed for the medical benefit of others. Others believe embryos are not at all persons, but just clumps of cells which have little if any intrinsic value. Still others endorse a gradient view – the embryo has some intrinsic value that gradually increases as it matures into a fetus, infant and so on. Any reasonable policy must address these various arguments; in the very least, Bush’s view has been repudiated by the policy. We need to know why, both so we can adequately criticize the policy and understand the reasons which determine the way we will be governed.

If the policy itself must avoid particular justification because the draft was the result of the pragmatic compromise of a group of individuals who themselves offered public reasons for their various positions, the above worry would be at least partially ameliorated. However, discussion up to this point on the NIH’s policy has not occurred in public view. Some crucial questions then remain: why this particular middle position – research is alright as long as embryos are not created for the purpose of research? Was that the policy a majority of the individuals involved thought proper, a predetermined policy administration officials had decided months before, or the result of a dynamic back-and-forth, the kind of compromise that often come out of congress? Without answers to these questions, the second requirement cannot be met and the policy does indeed appear to be just the kind of back-room deal we strive to avoid.

It could be argued that the call for comments satisfies the second requirement, by essentially holding a public debate. However, proper deliberation is not one-way, with a policy being set forth, comments heard, then revisions made without comment. Firstly, one cannot properly object to a policy if one does not know the justification for the policy – what makes this particular policy the most ethical/pragmatic solution. Secondly, proper deliberation needs a back-and-forth. Each group offers its arguments, then responds to the other group’s concerns, and we can thereby see why and how particular criticisms are integrated. It is possible that such public back-and-forth will ultimately be part of the process, but at this point it is glaringly absent.

Similarly, simply referring to President Obama’s speeches will not be sufficient here. The President specifically entrusted the Acting Director with the responsibility to determine the policy. That may have been a mere procedural move, and the NIH policy is essentially what the President asked for and all of his arguments apply to this policy. Perhaps then at least the first requirement would be satisfied, and we could engage Obama’s arguments directly. However, it would be very important for us to know that that is the case – and the best way to do that would be by fulfilling the second requirement. But because the process of forming this policy has been opaque, we cannot reasonably assume the NIH’s policy is justified by Obama’s arguments. Indeed, it would probably be rather unfair to assume that the Acting Director’s authority to determine this policy was a charade and the outcome had been predetermined all along. We should rather assume Obama was acting in good faith, and it is therefore incumbent on the Acting Director to fulfill those two requirements of deliberative democracy which are crucial to good, transparent governance.

Fulfilling these requirements would not necessarily require changing any particular policies of the draft, but rather releasing more information about the process. The production of a White Paper akin to what the President’s Council on Bioethics periodically releases or the extensive and detailed opinions produced by the Supreme Court would go a long way towards addressing the above concerns. In addition, minutes of the relevant meetings where the draft was written or substantially altered should be made easily accessible. If the draft was written outside the context of a meeting, or legal restrictions prevent the release of said minutes, the White Paper could give a summary account of the proceedings.

It is difficult to see how meaningful public deliberation on this policy can proceed without those materials. In these comments, concerned citizens may criticize the literal policy but will be unable to properly engage the underlying force of the document. That engagement is essential to a topic as important as stem cell research and I strongly urge the Acting Director to release the above materials as soon as possible, and certainly before the policy is finalized.

The views expressed are the authors’ own. They do not reflect any position or policy of the National Institutes of Health, US Public Health Service, or Department of Health and Human Services.

 
48 04/27/2009 at 10:52:03 AM Self     I am againstembryonic stem cell research. My taxpayer dollars should not be funding this research, especially since overwhelming evidence suggests that adult stem cells have shown more promise in providing medical cures.

 
49 04/27/2009 at 11:50:26 AM Self     Please discontinue embryonic stem cell research. The embryo is a human life and should not be used for science.

 
50 04/27/2009 at 12:32:41 PM Self     1.Hundreds of stem cell lines have been derived from leftover IVF embryos since 2001 but may not meet all the informed consent criteria. These stem cell lines should be grandfathered so that scientists can continue to use them and be able to obtain federal funding 2. the procedures involved in IPS formation do not involve an egg or sperm so that should researchers produce totipotential cells from this procedure they shall be deemed pseudo-embryonic and eligible for federal funding with no conflict with the Dickey Wicker amendment. This should be stated directly in the current guidelines. 3. scientific equipment and reusable supplies purchased with NIH funds, when not being used for their NIH sponsored research may be used for not allow stem cell research and the shall not constitute a breach of the Dickey Wicker amendment.

 
51 04/27/2009 at 02:20:15 PM Self     I do not want my tax dollars supporting what I believe to be an abuse of human beings. No embryonic stem cell research of any kind, under any guidline is acceptable.

 
52 04/27/2009 at 02:25:40 PM Self     I am opposed to embryonic-destructive stem cell research. The ending of one life to save others or to find cures is reprehensible. Human life at any stage should be protected. There are other sources for stem cells, without sacrificing a life.

 
53 04/27/2009 at 03:03:27 PM Self     My comment is general, as I am not a qualified scientist or researcher. I believe that stem cell use from embryonic cells is absolutely moral, ethical, and essential. Polio, kidney failure, ALS, Parkinson's, and ADD are conditions that have gravely shortened the lives of those close to me.

 
54 04/27/2009 at 03:27:16 PM Self     I am against any use of embryos for research or testing. There have been great advances in steam cell research in other areas without the use of an embryo. I do not support any guidelines or policies regarding this subject. I regret that my tax dollars are even used or will be used for such use. This country has lost sight of what is moral and just.

 
55 04/27/2009 at 03:34:58 PM Self     Please continue the prohibition of NIH funding of stem cells from human embryos prohibited by the annual appropriations ban on funding of human embryo research (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. 110-161, 3/11/09), otherwise known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. As a taxpayer, I do not wish to pay for something I find morally unacceptable.

 
56 04/27/2009 at 06:04:12 PM Self     The goal of the Executive Order 13505 is to enable researchers to use existing hESC lines that have been developed since 2001 under the essential ethical principles. However, some of the proposed eligibility guidelines, especially those describing the informed consent forms (B7), seem to be better suited to perspective derivation of hESCs than to establishing the eligibility of the already existing lines. I doubt that the currently allowed hESC lines, developed prior to 2001, would pass all of the eligibility criteria in this draft document. The eligibility guidelines for the lines developed in 2001-2009 should not be more stringent than for the older lines. Entities that have been developing hESC lines without federal support should be contacted and involved in developing the final guidelines, to assure that the researchers will have access to most of their lines for federally funded stem cell research.

 
57 04/27/2009 at 07:05:18 PM Self     How is the term "no longer needed" defined, as it is applied to embryos created by in vitro fertilization. One could argue that couples wishing to adopt might need an embryo that was "no longer needed" by the originating couple.

What is the definition of a "human embryo"? Human development has been defined as transitioning from embryo to fetus at about the eighth week of gestation. Is this what you mean or are you referring to a specific, limited, period of time in the culture dish?

"All options pertaining ... were explained ..." What do you mean by this? Are they clinic-dependent? Some clinics, for example, have an active embryo-adoption program while others do not.

"clear separation between ... donor(s)'s decision ..." How is this defined? Is it necessary for the donor to be ignorant of the clinic's participation in this kind of research or ignorant of this type of research at all? Do pamphlets and such that describe this aspect of the clinic's operation violate this separation?

"...free from the influences of researchers..." If the IVF clinic advertizes itself as a research enterprise, does this invalidate its eligibility to participate in recruitment?

Under what circumstances would the situation wherein the attending physician and the hESC deriver are the same person not be a conflict of interest and be acceptable?

Shouldn't the information about what would happen to the embryos in the derivation of human embyonic stem cells explicitly say that they will be destroyed unless under the conditions of PGD?

In the section on breeding of animals that have been transplanted with PSCs: how does one determine that the PSCs have not contributed to the germ line?

 
58 04/27/2009 at 07:50:19 PM Self     There is definitely something ethically and morally wrong with using those embryos not used in IVF procedures. It also brings up the fact that IVF is also ethically and morally wrong since these embryos are real human life discarded and misused. But, to the point of my comment, the idea of using these embryos for research and experimentation that has proved to be very unsuccessful is totally misguided. All the numerous successes have been with Adult Stem Cells, and umbilical cord blood. Let's continue with what is successful, and poses no ethical or moral dilemmas.

File Link (.txt)
Adult Stem Cell Success Stories 2008 Update
60 04/27/2009 at 08:09:21 PM Self     Our new president has brought hope on many fronts. For many. I am most hopeful about positive forward thinking and the change that took place on March 9. With our nation's stem cell research policy. As someone who is living with a spinal cord injury as a quadriplegic. I know the everyday struggles, physical pain and mental stress that me myself and others deal with in order to try to live productive lives. I have learned to have patience, especially when it comes to depending on others such as home health aides and family members for whom I am blessed and thankful for, But there is nothing like your own independence and freedom. So I call on President Obama to continue his support for embryonic stem cell research and to enact ethical and responsible federal policy around embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research has shown great hope these past 10 years. It deserves the chance to be shown. Its real power in treatment and cures, allowing lives to be changed for those who have hoped and prayed for an opportunity like this.

Sincerely,

 
62 04/27/2009 at 08:49:58 PM Self     This proposal in its own words show the complexities of this issue without resolving them. "When the research involving human adult stem celles...constitutes human subject research, Institutional Review board review may be required and informed consent may neet to be obtained." Stem cells are available only from human beings. The cells are being harvested from human beings by their very definition. These human beings have no possibility of giving informed consent. While some may argue that they are subhuman as embryos and cannot give consent, this same logic was used as a basis for legal segregation by calling people of color non humans. It is the obligation of our government to protect the lives of all its citizens. If these cells were in a woman, and the woman was killed, the assailant could be charged with two murders. The same logic must be applied to those outside the womb.

 
63 04/27/2009 at 08:57:14 PM Self     I strongly disagree with any experimentation involving human embryos on the basis that life begins at conception, and it is morally and ethically wrong to inflict harm on an innocent human being (human embryo in this case), even if it may result in a benefit to another human.

 
64 04/27/2009 at 09:00:14 PM Self     I believe it is not necessary to do any research on embryonic-destructive stem cell since it is morally wrong and unnecessary.

 
65 04/27/2009 at 10:06:20 PM Self     I am against embryonic stem cell research. Human life begins at conception, and it is morally and ethically wrong to destroy innocent human life regardless of the reason.

 
66 04/28/2009 at 05:58:04 AM Self     We all started out as embryonic stem cells. To harvest embryonic stem cells— even to help human life— is wrong because it kills the embryo. It means in effect using tiny human body parts for scientific purposes.

The end does not justify the means.

We know that the genetic package is really complete when conception takes place and sonar pictures of the living infant in the womb clearly show human life as it grows and develops.

Human-life issues are the bedrock of our faith. Respect for life is central to Catholicism, and thus we defend every life where it is threatened— from conception to natural death. We are committed to a consistent ethic of life. Hence, we oppose abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia and capital punishment. As a religious leader I have a serious obligation to share this teaching with others. I am aware that some will not agree.

Some will say that human embryos are in frozen storage and ultimately will be discarded anyway so why is it wrong to try and get some good out of them? Well, in the end we will all die anyway, but that gives no one the right to kill us.

These embryos will not die because they are inherently unable to survive, but rather because others are choosing to hand them over for destructive research instead of letting them implant in their mother's womb. The idea of experimenting on human beings because they may die anyway also imposes a grave threat to convicted prisoners, terminally ill patients and others.

 
67 04/28/2009 at 06:08:11 AM Self     Human beings should not be used as raw materials for scientific research. You are heading down a dangerous path with the use of embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells can be used effectively to further science, there is no NEED to use embryos. When we start down the path where we take life to allow others to live where do we draw the line? Justifying the use of the embryo in this way could later lead to the use of other human beings, without thier consent for the "betterment"of the human race. Bottom line this is unethical and morally illicit and is CONTRARY TO NATURAL LAW!

The first ethical problem, which is fundamental, can be formulated thus: Is it morally licit to produce and/or use living human embryos for the preparation of ES cells?

The answer is negative, for the following reasons:

1. On the basis of a complete biological analysis, the living human embryo is - from the moment of the union of the gametes - a human subject with a well defined identity, which from that point begins its own coordinated, continuous and gradual development, such that at no later stage can it be considered as a simple mass of cells.[xiv]

2. From this it follows that as a Ahuman individual" it has the right to its own life; and therefore every intervention which is not in favour of the embryo is an act which violates that right. Moral theology has always taught that in the case of Ajus certum tertii" the system of probabilism does not apply.[xv]

3. Therefore, the ablation of the inner cell mass (ICM) of the blastocyst, which critically and irremediably damages the human embryo, curtailing its development, is a gravely immoral act and consequently is gravely illicit.

4. No end believed to be good, such as the use of stem cells for the preparation of other differentiated cells to be used in what look to be promising therapeutic procedures, can justify an intervention of this kind. A good end does not make right an action which in itself is wrong.

The second ethical problem can be formulated thus: Is it morally licit to engage in so-called Atherapeutic cloning" by producing cloned human embryos and then destroying them in order to produce ES cells?

The answer is negative, for the following reason: Every type of therapeutic cloning, which implies producing human embryos and then destroying them in order to obtain stem cells, is illicit; for there is present the ethical problem examined above, which can only be answered in the negative.[xvii]

The third ethical problem can be formulated thus: Is it morally licit to use ES cells, and the differentiated cells obtained from them, which are supplied by other researchers or are commercially obtainable?

The answer is negative, since: prescinding from the participation - formal or otherwise - in the morally illicit intention of the principal agent, the case in question entails a proximate material cooperation in the production and manipulation of human embryos on the part of those producing or supplying them.

In conclusion, it is not hard to see the seriousness and gravity of the ethical problem posed by the desire to extend to the field of human research the production and/or use of human embryos, even from an humanitarian perspective.

The possibility, now confirmed, of using adult stem cells to attain the same goals as would be sought with embryonic stem cells - even if many further steps in both areas are necessary before clear and conclusive results are obtained - indicates that adult stem cells represent a more reasonable and human method for making correct and sound progress in this new field of research and in the therapeutic applications which it promises. These applications are undoubtedly a source of great hope for a significant number of suffering people.

The President *****

The Vice President *****

Vatican City, August 25, 2000.

 
68 04/28/2009 at 06:11:14 AM Self     stem cell research can be successful without taking an unborn child's life

 
69 04/28/2009 at 07:20:47 AM Self     I can not, and will not, support research involving the destruction of human embryos. I am protesting this move and am encouraging everyone I know to do likewise. The process of destroying life is never acceptable, regardless of the age of the proposed victim. I encourage President Obama to rethink this decision.

 
70 04/28/2009 at 08:45:58 AM Self     I do not want my tax dollars to pay for research on a program that is immoral and unnecessary. Embryonic stem cells are not required for Stem Cell research. We should not degrade the importance of the most vunerable of our society, and we do not have to. Research should go toward adult stem cells and cord blood.

 
71 04/28/2009 at 08:47:43 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
72 04/28/2009 at 08:48:24 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future. The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines. Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes. We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
73 04/28/2009 at 08:48:49 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
74 04/28/2009 at 08:48:52 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future. The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines. Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes. We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
75 04/28/2009 at 08:50:13 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
76 04/28/2009 at 08:50:30 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future. The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines. Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes. We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
77 04/28/2009 at 08:50:45 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards.  I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
78 04/28/2009 at 08:50:51 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
79 04/28/2009 at 08:51:05 AM Self     Please approve!!!

 
80 04/28/2009 at 08:51:05 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner

 
81 04/28/2009 at 08:51:07 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future. The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines. Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes. We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
82 04/28/2009 at 08:51:17 AM Self     "For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration's expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration's Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner."

Please let us know if you have any questions. You can send us an email at advocacy@jdrf.org.

Thank you!

JDRF Government Relations

 
83 04/28/2009 at 08:51:21 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
84 04/28/2009 at 08:51:26 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future. The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines. Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes. We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
85 04/28/2009 at 08:52:00 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
86 04/28/2009 at 08:52:07 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
87 04/28/2009 at 08:52:10 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
88 04/28/2009 at 08:52:19 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
89 04/28/2009 at 08:52:22 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future. The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines. Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes. We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
90 04/28/2009 at 08:52:23 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
91 04/28/2009 at 08:52:32 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
92 04/28/2009 at 08:52:36 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
93 04/28/2009 at 08:52:43 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
94 04/28/2009 at 08:52:53 AM Self     I am opposed to government funding of embryonic stem cell research and horrified that the President supports creating new life only to take it. What is wrong with the picture? How can we say it is ok to destroy one life for the remote possibility that it may save another. In fact more success has been made using human stem cells vs embryonic. Let us promote the funding of human stem cell research which does not harm nor take the life of another.

 
95 04/28/2009 at 08:52:53 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
96 04/28/2009 at 08:52:58 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future. The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines. Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes. We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
97 04/28/2009 at 08:53:08 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
98 04/28/2009 at 08:53:13 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future. The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines. Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes. We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
99 04/28/2009 at 08:53:17 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
100 04/28/2009 at 08:53:18 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 



Go to NIH Stem Cell Information Page