2006 UTC Okay I accept that the stem cell article itself has improved recently especially in terms of presentation clarity and succinctness however I can help but feeling that we ve done the wrong thing by creating sub articles and divorcing much of the content away from the main article Firstly I suppose you could say that I object for philosophical reasons As things stand with the main article focusing on the science and the sub article focusing on the ethics the Wikipedia community appears to be embracing the commonly held positivistic assumption that science is driven by its own internal logic and can be distinguished from other pursuits such as ethics theology and sociology For obvious reasons this illusory distinction is bound to appeal to the pro research lobby who have sought to clearly and definitely draw a line in the sand between the authoritative word of science on the one hand and ethical moralistic luddite concerns on the other Secondly I also object to recent changes on practical grounds Maintaining multiple articles is inevitably more difficult than maintaining a single article If a stable version of Wikipedia is ever to be published and I m not sure that this will or even should happen it is going to be much more difficult to merge all the existing stem cell material into a useful and coherent whole Thirdly readers must now trawl through several different articles in order to get the big picture So I accept that recent changes have improved the stem cell article itself but this minor improvement has come at the expense the communities coverage of the topic as a whole which is now fragmented all over the place and inconsistent between articles not to mention largely one sided 17 05 2 February