Eugene C. Tarne

For decades, proponents of destructive embryo research have given at least lip service recognition to the serious ethical concerns inherent to such research. Thus, for example, although the 1999 report from then-President Clinton’s National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, endorsed destructive human embryonic stem cell research (hESCR) and federal funding for it, it nonetheless recognized that the ethical concerns raised by this research were real and that “many would likely agree: the embryo merits respect as a form of human life.”

But while the Fox Foundation, like CIRM, may have started out emphasizing support for hESCR, that support, also like CIRM’s, has waned over the years. According to its website, the MJFF has awarded 1,350 research grants since its founding in 2000.  Of that total number, just 66 grants went to research using stem cells.

Will induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) finally replace human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) in the field of regenerative medical research? Results of a recent study published in Nature Biotechnology argue that they should.

Early in 2013, Gavin was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Gavin courageously fought back against his diagnosis. Doctors utilized stem cells to treat Gavin and this treatment, combined with Gavin’s bravery, led to victory in his battle against this cancer.

British media are reporting a significant development in the use of ethical, non-embryonic stem cells to treat patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and, perhaps, other auto-immune diseases.

Diabetes has long been one of the main diseases for which human embryonic stem cell (embryo-destroying) research, or hESCR, was claimed to hold the greatest promise of curing. But for well over a decade now, ethically contentious human embryonic stem cell research (hESCR) has notably failed to live up to all its hype, with promises of miracle cures within “five to 10 years” remaining unfulfilled.