Talk:Stem cell controversy

message: Included a line in the points of controversy about the requirement for the destruction of an embryo to obtain a new ESC line to clarify where the controversy stems from. 
Re-worked the alternatives and potential solutions sections combining them as much of their information overlapped. 
Updated information on iPSCs, specifically focusing on the epigenetic memory of iPSCs discussing how the tissue of origin has recently been shown to impact the differentiation success of the iPSCs. Also added a sentence about the specific Yamanaka factors (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc) to bring clarity to how the iPSCs are derived from somatic cells. Furthermore, edited the somatic cell nuclear transfer section to again mention the epigenetic memory of such cells. 
Created 'Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)' subsection. Included links to the pages pluripotency, Oct-4, SOX2, Myc, KLF4, embryonic stem cells, somatic cells, epigenetic, Nobel Prize, and embryos in the iPSC subsection. Included links in the same subsection to several papers on iPSCs to keep the information up to date. 
Created 'Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)' subsection. Added links to the SCNT page, oocyte, and nucleus page in the SCNT subsection. Added a discussion about the different ethical challenges that SCNT stem cells face. More can be found on the SCNT page. 
Created 'Single-Cell blastomere biopsy' subsection. Added link to the ISSCR page.  
Created 'Amniotic fluid cells (AFSCs)' subsection. Added links to the Amniotic stem cell, fetus, and organoid pages. Added a sentence about the potential of AFSCs in vitro as well as a link to Anthony Atala's original paper on the subject. 
Created 'Umbilical cord blood (UCB)' subsection. Added links to the cord blood and homogeneity vs heterogeneity pages. Edited the existing discussion to make it more grammatically correct and added information about possible advantages to stem cells from this source. 
Added paragraph about informed consent of donors for all of these methods. Added links to the informed consent, viable, tetraploid complementation assay, FDA, EMA, and ISSCR pages. Included links to papers discussing the ethical collection of genetic information and how to do so with the informed consent of the donor. 
Overall, edits were done to update and clarify the information on the page. Attempted to not take any opinionated stances and included links to primary papers on any information that could be deemed controversial.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkennedy12 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring and Updating

message: I don't want to edit this article without some say so from others, but this particular sentence jumped out at me.
"President Bush authorized research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines, not on human embryos under a specific, unrealistic timeline in which the stem cell lines must have been developed."
This seems like a clear case of bias. If there is something unrealistic about the timeline, more information can be given, and readers can decide for themselves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snookumz (talk • contribs) 08:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased Language

message: The first sentence under the heading "Governmental Policy Debate in the United States" is a literally false statement.  The sentence recites:  "Federal funding for stem cell research is legal today in the United States by decision of President Barack Obama on the 9th of March, 2009."  This sentence is not true based upon other facts stated in this article.  I propose replacing the sentence with the following sentence:
"By executive order on March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama made federal funding available for research on new lines of human embryonic .  Prior to President Obama's executive order, federal funding was limited to non-embryonic stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research based upon embryonic stem cell lines in existence prior to August 9, 2001.  Federal funding remains prohibited for (1) the creation of a human embryo for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero (see the Dickey Amendment)."
The proposed replacement is factually correct and preferable to the current sentence for the following three reasons:
First, this article states that Congress passed the Dickey Amendment in 1995, "which prohibited any federal funding for the Department of Health and Human Services be used for research that resulted in the destruction of an embryo regardless of the source of that embryo".  The Dickey Amendment is an appropriation bill rider and has been included in each Health and Human Services appropriation act since FY1996.  The language of the Dickey Amendment is included in the FY2009 omnibus bill enacted on March 11, 2009 (P.L. 111-8, Sec. 509).  Therefore, the language of the Dickey Amendment is still the controlling law as passed by Congress, until it is removed from the DHHS appropriations act.  The law is not superseded by an executive order.  The statement that "Federal funding for stem cell research is legal today" is literally false because federal funding for any research (including stem cell research) that results in the destruction of the embryo remains illegal.  
Since the Dickey Amendment specifies the "Department of Health and Human Services" is it possible that funding could come from another source within the federal government thus avoiding the prohibition of the destruction of the human embryo? If this is so then The Dickey Amendment and the above objection to the wording here is just smoke and mirrors.--Mauchen (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Action is needed to correct a literally false statement

message: As the page was over 60kb, I've created an archive & archive box.
Dr Aaron 02:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: I just noticed that some comment was made about an article apparently going to be published in nature saying that cancer is caused by ES cells? I'd like a reference (and to read it first) before putting something as inflammatory. Also, epigenetics does not refer to "drinking and smoking". That statement is plain wrong. Dr Aaron 06:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I marked it citation needed, it seems too charged and weighted to one side to belong without references. 24.227.5.66 17:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it got deleted by mistake a while back. I found the full reference in an earlier version of the page and put it back in. Dr Aaron 07:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Larid study

message: I've stepped away for a few days and had another iimpartial look over the page. While I still think there are a few things that could be expanded on in terms of the social/political controversy (perhaps link to some of the key figures in the current debate), I acknowledge that the majority of the current page in some way refers to the ethics of generating and using embryonic stem cells (and the associated embryonic destruction). On reflection I'm willing to support a name change to Embryonic stem cell controversy, which suits the current page better than stem cell ethical controversy. I don't think it is 100% necessary, but I don't think it would be too objectionable either.
That is, unless someone can find reference to ethical problems with adult stem cells beyond that of reprogramming them for therapeutic cloning (which basically makes them ES cells anyway), or aside from the confusion of them being indistinguishable from ES cells in many media reports.
But I'm a big fan of not making such a major decision on a controversial page without a good consensus. I might leave a message on the MCB Wikiproject board to get a few people to leave their comments.
If a change is made, then the intro section on What is a stem cell should probably modified to focus on ES cells a bit more (and actively compare with adult stem cells). And the current page should be changed as a redirect to the new page.
Dr Aaron 13:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename page to [[Embryonic stem cell controversy]]?

message: ===Stemcellresearch.org===
I think this web site should be included among those listed at the bottom of the main article page: http://www.stemcellresearch.org/ Isaiah58 20:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment. Just as a comment, I'm personally very disappointed that one of the founders of this organization was the dean of my university's medical school...I'm just glad he's now a former dean and working as a pastor at a theology school. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 16:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I think this web site should be included among those listed at the bottom of the main article page: http://www.stemcellresearch.org/ Isaiah58 20:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment. Just as a comment, I'm personally very disappointed that one of the founders of this organization was the dean of my university's medical school...I'm just glad he's now a former dean and working as a pastor at a theology school. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 16:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stemcellresearch.org

message: Newly registered user Pharmregulations has added two forms of this link (one for dems and one for reps).  A cursory look seems to indicate that it is indeed nonpartisan (though its editing seems only OK for instance it says obama called iraq war a 'DUMB WAR', capitilization theirs).  These links have been re-formatted and included on the United States presidential election, 2008 page, so far with no objection.  I'm going to remove it for now to see what everybody thinks. . .but I am leaning towards inclusion (but consolidating to 1 link to main page. R. Baley 03:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: http://www.2008uspresident.com

message: This is the blog of Don Reed, the sponsor of California's Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act of 1999.  It only covers one side of the controversy - and it's the side that I oppose - but it's a link that I'd want to see on the page.  -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: http://www.stemcellbattles.com/

message: This institute was established by California Proposition 71 (2004).  It only covers one side of the controversy - and it's the side that I oppose - but it's a link that I'd want to see on the page.  -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[California Institute for Regenerative Medicine]]

message: A compilation of poll results pertaining to stem cell research can be found here. May be useful as a reference. GregorB 22:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll results 

message: This article is very USA centric (really annoying to read anywhere that isnt America being lumped in as 'international'). I know that the debate is probobly fiercer in the USA because of the stronger religious right there, but i think that the other countries need expanding.213.48.73.89 21:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Centric 

message: I don't really know a lot about this subject, but I think it would be helpful to readers to maybe name some proponents of embryonic stem-cell research and some opponents of it in the article, such as Nancy Reagan (should be mentioned as a Republican supporter and with Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's), Michael J. Fox, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, etc. / George Bush, Dick Cheney, etc. I also think that the positions of the Republican and Democratic candidates for President of the United States should be mentioned somewhere. Happyme22 04:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major US Proponents/Opponents 

message: I just recategorised some of the arguments against stem cell research so they were a bit better organised.
No content or references were removed, although I made a few sections a bit more succinct. Dr Aaron 00:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved stuff 

message: Under the section Controversy of embryonic stem cell research, the sentence "The anticipated medical benefits of stem cell research have added a certain amount of emotion and urgency to the debates, which has been exploited by proponents of embryonic stem cell research" contains the biased phrase "which has been exploited." The word "exploited" carries with it extremely biased connotations. I've revised the sentence in question to "The anticipated medical benefits of stem cell research add urgency to the debates, which has been appealed to by proponents of embryonic stem cell research."
The word "some" was added to first paragraph, third sentence. The omission of this word suggested all medical researchers believe that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai429 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely biased phrases 

message: In my basement embryonic stem cell research laboratory, I've been making breakthrough after breakthrough (although toward what end I know not).  My problem, though, lies in my inability to announce my discoveries. I can't find any evidence of any law(s) prohibiting this type of research in my overgoverned land, but I dare not risk divulging my findings.  There just might be a few of those draconian "invisible" laws that "prohibit" such research as I've been doing.  This looks to me to be the case with the "research prohibitions" in the evil U.S.A. and certain less-"progressive" nations of western Europe.
It's less a matter of me seeking recognition (or seeking to profit) from my work than it is my desire to share my miraculous findings with the world.  If my research is illegal, then so would any treatments that might derive from my work be.  I'd do best, then, to take my findings along with me to my grave. 206.148.108.108 21:39, 3 August 2007
:It seems like this opinion might be more constructive if it were cited rather than hypothetical and contributed to the article Stem cell research policy rather than posted on the talk page of this article which is about stem cell research controversy.--Jr mints 17:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News Flash 

message: Just a few comments on my recent reversion to Wolfkeeper's edits.
* He removed a statement saying that it is the destruction of embryos that causes the majority of the controversy with embryonic stem cell research. I don't see why this statement needs removal, and I think there is ample cited justification for this statement in the preceding sections.
:It was uncited that this is so. Uncited claims may be removed at any time.WolfKeeper 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections were under the controversy section, but contained no significant controversy. Legal manoeuvrings over patents are not controversy in the normal sense of the word.WolfKeeper 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is an argument that most or all of the non controversy section should not in the an article called 'Stem cell controversy' at all, and hence should be shortened or removed into a separate article. If you wish to argue as you are, then it seems to me you are essentially arguing that.WolfKeeper 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So that should be fixed, rather than reverting changes unilaterally.WolfKeeper 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have reverted, the structure made little logical sense as it was.WolfKeeper 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent reversion

message: Hi, I was just trawling through wikipedia and found this article http://www.zangani.com/node/735 as one of the references to the stem cell page.
It says that with in the next two years, stem cells could be produced by reverting adult cells, such as skin cells, into an embryonic state or something. 
I'm not a scientist so I don't fully understand the process. 
Nor do i know how to edit, so i just thought someone who constantly manages this page would like to check it out and perhaps add something about it?
If it is true it would probably be an end to the controversy.
Ta. 121.44.218.18 04:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shinya Yamanaka 

message: I have removed the section "Useless comments too funny to erase". As it is in fact useless. --Logiboy123 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 

message: It has been suggested that this article be included in the categories: Healthcare, Healthcare reform, Healthcare in the United States and Healthcare reform in the United States. I don't see a good reason for including this article in those categories as stem cells (at least the controversial embryonic type) are not involved in any current type of treatment or healthcare scheme/plan. If that were the case, every kind of potential medical treatment or research would suddenly be a healthcare issue. Please discuss here. Cquan (after the beep...) 00:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Go for it. Spotfixer (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schrandit justifies his changes here. 

message: This entire article is outdated.  "Extraction of such cells using current technology requires the destruction of the human embryo." is somewhat incorrect.  Equivlanet stem cells (Pluripotent Stem Cells) have already been created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_Pluripotent_Stem_Cell).  These stem cells are essentially the same as embryonic stem cells.  As such, this article should be rewritten as if it is about something in the past - because it is.  We no longer have the controversy because scientists simply use IPS cells and that's it - no need to destroy an embryo, no need for controversy.  Athenon (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is in fact a difference between the pluripotent embryonic stem cells and the intial totipotent stem cells Jebus989 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire Article is Outdated 

message: The controversy is essential a question medical ethics.  So why is there no clear link between
this topic and principles and positions found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics.
One of those  principles is "first, do no harm" which suggests an apparently agreed ethical concern
that animal models must come first.
1. To be NPOV, there must be some exposition on the state of research regarding animal embryonic stem cell research.
2. The prior talk post about outdatedness is important because it may be that induced pluripotent stem cells makes 
the controversy perhaps outdated; if and only if scientists actual use IPS and funding for stem cell research requires the use of IPS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.23.216 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any animals cured of any disease with embryonic stem cells 

message: That an alternative to stem cell research exists, has absolutely no bearing on the validity of stem cell research. You may indeed have "arguments" against stem cell research (which is quite hilarious, considering the vast majority of these are in support of medical testing on adult human corpses), but they are not supported in the instance of an alternative research on the subject, no matter how viable that may be.
Two research methods are not "one too many".
: If funding and time is a zero sum game, then funding and spending time on A reduces funding and time spent on B. 70.22.38.177 (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is in how they became corpses in the first place. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The basic "argument" people fail to understand 

message: The wording here is woeful. Research has not shown that adult stem cells show "more promising results" it has shown that adult stem cells have been used successfully in more cases than embryonic stem cells. The former comments on efficacy, while the latter comments on the volume of results. Not to mention that the reference comes from Chrsitianity Today, which for all its grace can't be seen to be a proper research journal. Ninahexan (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not simply of a matter of the fact that adult stem cells have been used successfully in "more" cases than embroyonic stem cells.  It is a matter of the fact while adult stem cells have been used successfully in about 73 diseases, embryonic cells have been used successfully in ZERO (0)cases.  And, it is well documented that embryonic stem cells result in tumors.70.22.38.177 (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Better alternatives" 

message: I don't quite understand the reasoning proposed in the Viewpoints|Efficiency section. The idea that "...an embryo is going to be destroyed anyway, isn't it more efficient to make practical use of it?" is analogous to saying that "...my uncle died of a heart attack, so isn't it more efficient to make practical use of his corpse by eating the meat?" If efficiency is the rationale for an action, cannibalism shouldn't bother anyone, now should it? Just think of the possibilities that such efficiency brings: we could feed all those filthy ragamuffins in Africa just with people-meat! Outside of morality, our decisions can only be based on things like 'efficiency'; and when things like efficiency are our only bases for decision-making, we will undoubtedly come up with truly monstrous policies. This section should have a critique associated with its specious reasoning. --137.186.217.73 (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you use the analogy of cannibalism, rather than the more obvious and fitting analogy of donating organs after death? I find your reasoning not even specious, but rather bordering on the intellectually dishonest, and your argument flawed. I do not support your proposal. Ninahexan (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Organ donation is certainly a fitting analogy too. [Incidentally, I don't think you know what the word 'specious' means.] There is no flaw in this argument; the argument is simple --- efficiency ("We were going to throw it out anyway") does not justify the action. It is specious reasoning to suggest that we rationalise the consumption of human flesh, the harvesting of viable organs or the destroying embryos in the interests of efficiency. For that matter, why don't we make use of all medical waste? There must be a reason that we abhor some things and not others, efficiency notwithstanding. The Nazis were efficient but somehow not admired --- I wonder why.
Specious means having the appearance of reason, while being false- Your argument doesn't even have the appearance of reason. Perhaps next time you will consult a dictionary before accusing others of the very faults that you possess. You say that is it specious reasoning to suggest that we rationalise the use of viable organs for donation in the name of efficiency. Having consulted the dictionary, can you now explain why this reasoning is specious? What is the true reasoning behind it then? By the way, Godwin's Law clearly states that you have lost this argument. Ninahexan (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Efficiency is only one of the arguments, and it is given weight and context by the strength of other arguments. One of those other arguments is that an embryo and your uncle aren't analogous in the first place, because the latter is more of a "person" with individual "human rights" that are difficult to trump with any collective rights of the species. So, where rights-based arguments carry relatively little weight, efficiency-based ones may carry more. Or so the reasoning goes, I think. In any event, the article has both "endorsement" and "objections" sections, and anyone is free to add to either section. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Viewpoints' section 

message: I added this to the article, but someone else took it out.
Two days later, Obama restored Bush's ban when he signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It, CNS News, March 13, 2009
Grundle2600 (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cybercast News Service (CNS) is not a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Scjessey - in your edit summary, you said that I had a "misunderstanding of the law." Please explain why I "misunderstood" the law. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

text: And relying upon the primary source of the law to make that assertion is WP:OR. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The mainstream media is so biased toward Obama and stem cell research that they refuse to report on this information. Citing the actual law is not original research. People here do that all the time. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use primary sources for data and quotes, but you cannot use them to back up claims. You state that Obama "restored Bush's ban", but this is not supported by the source. That is original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for telling me that I can use primary sources for quotes. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The caveat to that is that they must also be (a) reliable sources and (b) used sparingly (for example, when secondary sources are not available). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

text: What would be even funnier is if you were informed that you have a "misunderstanding of the law" and then you still didn't bother to educate yourself. BigK HeX (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Obama restored the ban two days after he repealed it

message: One of the more surprising elements in this debate is that some of the more radical pro-life activists have sought an excommunication for stem cell researchers, since destruction of embryos is compared to abortion, which is anathema under canon 1398.  ADM (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Excommunication

message: One of the "giants in the field," Yury Verlinsky, has recently died.  I started a bio on his life which might have details worth including in this article, should any resident editors care to link them. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leading researcher dies 

message: This source is no longer available on the internet, if anyone could find a replacement it would be greatly appreciated. Tory88 (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 18 

message: opposers of stem cell research should be labeled as terrorists . I am going to start editing--KAWASAKI (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your deletion of a whole section of material.  If you have a compelling reason that all that material should go, you could make your case here.  Agathman (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  labeling 

message: Faggot is used during this article under the section "Better alternatives" I am guessing this is trying to be used in a offensive manner, I am unable to get rid of it because I am at my school which is block, word someone please fix this mistake?
I went to look and it had been deleted already :-) Cls14 (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use if the word 'faggot' 

message: I felt that the value of life section centering on the Catholic church was inappropriate as it implied that those who dispute embryonic stem cell research on this grounds do so primarily for religious reasons. I moved the mention of the catholic church to the catholic view point where i feel it belongs.
Sadly I couldn't find a direct citation about the source and end result of embryos used for embryonic stem cell research; it seems implicit in all peer review articles I read. If someone has a citation to add it'd be great. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.185.115 (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value of life section 

message: The controversy is essential a question medical ethics. So why is there no clear link between this topic and principles and positions found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics.
One of those principles is "first, do no harm" which suggests an apparently agreed ethical concern that animal models must come first.
1. To be NPOV, there must be some exposition on the state of research regarding animal embryonic stem cell research.
2. The prior talk post about outdatedness is important because it may be that induced pluripotent stem cells makes the controversy perhaps outdated; if and only if scientists actual use IPS and funding for stem cell 
71.166.126.99 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no clear link between this topic and Medical Ethics? 

message: Improvements in the second paragraph of 'Background':
- 'Some researchers are of the opinion that the differentiation potential of embryonic stem cells is broader than most adult stem cells.'
the writer appears to be in favor and defending 'adult' stem cells versus the 'embryonic' ones. I thus removed the statement for greater clarity. 
- 'Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent'
since this being pluripotent isn't a reason but rather a definition derived from the fact that 'a cell can differentiate into all cells of the body' I changed 'because' to 'which is called'
212.41.85.36 (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Background Section 

message: I have removed the section entitled private funding concerns. The author of the referenced article conflated a lack of federal funding with a lack of public funding. States and other public entities fund stem cell research - see: http://www.cirm.ca.gov/  Ratagonia (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Private Funding Concerns" 

message: Is there a reason behind them. It seems to be taking the POV that the better alternatives section isn't better. While with out the scare quotes it wouldn't be neutral either. Perhaps there's something else  this can be named.184.21.236.207 (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "better alternatives" scare quotes 

message: Somewhere this article could mention the issue of whether embryonic stem cell research can be done without harming embryos. A few years ago somebody supposedly found a way to do that, but I haven't heard much news about it lately. This, of course, would eliminate the ethical issues of embryonic stem cell research.69.181.41.173 (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Research Without Harming Embryos

message: There are many philosophical claims and various arguments made about human life in the "Endorsement" section. However, there are many similar claims and arguments to be made in the "Objection" section, not just that there are "better alternatives". The wiki page on Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate
outlines these contrary arguments very well, and as of now these arguments are not well represented in this article. I think that either the "Endorsement" and "Objection" sections should be eliminated in favor of a direction to the "Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate" page, or the the various arguments on that page should be better represented in the "Objection" section. As of right now, the anti stem cell argument is very poorly represented.2601:281:8100:A03E:4D44:8AB2:EAA2:E814 (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Objection" section is lacking. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Stem cell controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/08/ustem108.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I would like to remove the line that states  "However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become. In addition, embryonic stem cells are considered more useful for nervous system therapies, because researchers have struggled to identify and isolate neural progenitors from adult tissues" it requires a citation and one has not been provided for it. The statement should be removed from the data as this is a controversial topic and this statement might lead to bias on one side or the other while it is not backed up by any sources. I will attempt to find an academic source but for now I believe it should be removed.
Alfab007 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of a Not Cited Statement in Backgrounds 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Stem cell controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090318065009/http://www.foxnews.com:80/politics/first100days/2009/03/14/obamas-approval-stem-cell-research-needs-congressional-action/ to http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/14/obamas-approval-stem-cell-research-needs-congressional-action/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose deleting the "Jewish view" subsection under the "Religious Views" section.
First, the subsection is poorly sourced and even misattributes the name of the organization Rabbi Halperin is associated with (the actual name of the organization is the Institute for Science and Halacha).
Second, the title and content of this subsection seem to imply that a single Orthodox rabbi's opinion and the alleged lack of regulation around stem-cell research in the State of Israel reflect the entirety of Jewish thought on this topic.
Judaism is not a single religious practice (many denominations exist) nor is it centralized in the same way the Catholic Church, for example, is.  Further, atheist Jews are not constrained by the opinions of any Jewish religious leader.
Additionally, the State of Israel does not speak for or represent all Jewish people on Earth.  The fact that Israel has supposedly not enacted any legal restrictions around stem cell research does not in any way act as direct evidence that all or a majority of Jews (religious or otherwise) hold permissive views on stem cell research.
While a properly sourced subsection citing the stated beliefs of a diverse cross section of Jewish groups, leaders, religious scholars, etc. might paint a clearer picture of majority and minority Jewish opinions on this matter, the subsection as it is currently written is woefully inadequate and misleading. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsection Regarding Jewish View of Stem Cell Use