Over at The Daily Beast, “Neurobiologist Maureen L. Condic investigates 11 common arguments in favor of embryonic stem-cell research, and explains why science may not need the controversial technique, after all.”

Well worth reading.

Several members of the President’s Council on Bioethics have weighed in on the President’s Executive Order on Stem Cell Resarch.

Although members of the President’s Council on Bioethics have been divided on this question and some of our colleagues disagree with us, we think it may be useful and clarifying to set the president’s action in three ways into the context of work the council has done over the past seven years.

I know the decision is a couple of weeks old at this point, but a ton of articles have recently come to my attention.

John Kass in the Chicago Tribune, Stem cell policy shift brings a sinking feeling

Christianity Today, In Over His Pay Grade: When science is made ‘apolitical’ and ‘unencumbered by religion,’ it’s usually to hyper-politicize and hyper-sacralize it.

Rep. Mike Pence in Christianity Today, The Empty Promise of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Ross Douthat, Stem Cells and Moral Seriousness

This one has slipped my notice.  Thanks to MercatorNet for catching it.

Was Clinton’s language deliberate or grossly uninformed?

BTW, MercatorNet.com is definetly something you should be reading.  Thoughtful, well-reasoned, winsome — bookmark it and/or subscribe to their updates immediately.