Even the scientists who didn't bother to correct the public's misperceptions about the promises of cures are actually applauding the new decision mainly because studying the embryonic cells will help them better understand cell differentiation, not because they actually think the embryonic cells will be directly useful for medical treatments.

And as far as keeping politics out of science? Fine, but that means we stop funding all scientific research with public money. If government funds are going to be used at all, then politics is there- so what you're really saying is that you think that people on one side of the debate should be able to politicize science for their purposes, but the opponents should be barred from the conversation.

My personal position is as long as you are not 'breeding' embryos in humans for harvest, that is acceptable. I have no issue with 'petri-dish' embryos, as the 'potential life' argument in that case is exceedingly week. But that is my opinion, and I can respect without demonizing those who oppose it. I do, however, hope they fail in their opposition.

As usual, you've advanced the conversation – thanks. My son is a computer science major, and this summer will be doing an internship on artificial intelligence at a nearby university. Parallel with the development of the robot technology are interns addressing the question of the legal rights of AI's, as they're called. And yes, it sounds like “I, Robot” stuff, or maybe for Trekkies, ethical questions raised around the character of Mr Data. But what I don't get when it comes to stem cell research is why some insist on the embryonic variety, with all its “Brave New World” baggage, when the same positive outcomes can be achieved with adult stem cell research, which doesn't set off the same ethical alarm bells. That's the question we should be asking, but isn't being raised here at TMV or elsewhere. Follow the money.

Well, I have no problem with leaving God out, as long as moral questions can be raised in all scientific endeavors. For many, they base their moral positions in some manner on some form of God, though, so it is a little disingenuous to say 'leave God out'.

For the 'leave politics out', well, I bet you don't mean that at all. You probably mean 'leave politics I disagree with out', as anytime government monies are involved, politics is involved.

And 'turn the decision over to scientists'? I was trained to be a scientist (particle physics), even though I work as an engineer now, and hold science in the highest regard. But science and scientists' jobs are to provide information and technology. How to use those is truly a social and political decision, as it should be. As a general rule, scientists have to narrow a world-view, and are too vested in their specific field, to make broader decisions on the use and implementation of what they develop.

As the uncle of a precious little boy who suffers from type 2 diabetes, I know how horrible this disease is and my thoughts are with you.

Bush's obstinate and wrongheaded positions on stem cell research have consistently enraged me.

I was especially offended when in June of 2007, this man vetoed a bill removing stem cell limits, saying “All human life is sacred”

In a letter I wrote, published by the New York Times on June 22, 2007, I pointed out the inconsistency of this man's actions, when compared to his actions as governor of Texas when he approved the death sentences of dozens of human beings, and of his words that ''destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical,'' which flies in the face of his invasion and occupation of Iraq, where thousands have been killed, ostensibly to save human lives threatened by Saddam Hussein.

Many will support and defend Bush's philosophy with regards to the death sentence and the invasion of Iraq.

Fine. But, I stand firmly with the last paragraph of my letter:

“Not to mention that his ''love'' for embryonic stem cells may be sentencing many of us, and our descendants, to death because he has effectively vetoed the potential to find cures for so many life-threatening illnesses.”

I warmly anticipate President Obama's announcement Monday and I applaud it now.

Indeed, is a human any less human becomes they cannot fend or care for themselves? Does a US citizen give up their Constitutional Rights because they are not able to defend themselves?