" 

Whilst the article does mention these things in one form or another, it really does need to be succinctly in this location as well. Many readers will come to this page, read the headings and skip straight to the contraversy section. Without differentiating in a small way my two points, we risk the reader coming away with a very biased view of stem cell research as a whole.  
It is a defect of this article that it talks too much about “cures” which indeed gives a biased view. The controversy section is best kept short, as there is a main article. 
I agree, the Controversy section is best kept short, not incorrectly biased and lacking information, as it currently stands.  
The controversy is that some people think that it is immoral to use cells from embryos that will be put in the trashcan otherwise. That is all there is to it. 
Your anaolgy is about as crass as saying ""oh look, theres a dead body there, lets use it for fertilizer, after all, its dead"". Whilst you might not agree with that analogy, it is roughly how many people would view your point. Your opinion whilst well informed isn't any more right then someone else who adheres to a different belief system. And thank you for clarrifying that it is indeed a contraversial issue. As a side note ""some people"" covers a large portion of the people on this planet.  
No, because those embryos really do end in trash cans, whatever the whish of the family be. This is the general rule, whereas found bodies end up in the morgue, then are incinerated if not claimed. And the ashes are indeed used as fertiliser in this case. It might seem crass to say so, but it is still the truth. 

Stem cell research should be legalized everywhere. What would happen to people if they had any of their body part burned or worse? Stem cell research could help grow a new one based on the persons DNA et all and reattach back to the body. The wouldn’t reject it because it wont be foreign to it  

 Replace the whole page. 

Considering how badly written this article is. I suggest we simply copy the entire article from http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Stem_cell to here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.219.165   
 I don't think we can: AFAIK, the Creative Commons share-alike licenses are not compatible with the GFDL. h2g2bob (talk) 

 hmm.. 

for some reason why are people for and agasit stem cell research?it confuses me.what benifits are there,and are there any downsides-  

 Key stem cell research events 

I would like to add the following information to the key stem cell research events section.  

January 2008 - Publication of the Neural Colony-Forming Cell (NCFC) Assay as a simple assay to enumerate neural stem cells. Importantly, the assay allows discrimination between neural stem cells and neural progenitor cells.

I dont consider the March 2008 key event to be so notable given that it was only shown in one individual and has not been replicated since.  (# March 2008-The first published study of successful cartilage regeneration in the human knee using autologous adult mesenchymal stem cells is published by Clinicians from Regenerative Sciences[52])    

Added EL
I've added an EL, ""Ethics of Stem Cell Research"". As it's from the well-known Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, there shouldn't be any problems with this addition.  

HI, this is WRONG!

 23 January, 2009 - Under the new President Barack Obama, the restrictions placed on federal funding of Stem Cell research in t