|  |  |  | | | | | TE-RegenMed-StemCell feed | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The California stem cell agency's ban on the public during the most sweeping review ever of its operations promises little upside for the $3 billion enterprise and plenty of downside.
That's not to mention the fact that the ban is poor policy and is not likely to achieve its stated purpose – candor from those testifying before the blue-ribbon, international panel that has scheduled three days of | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Last week we sent an email to directors of the California stem cell agency and posed the following question.
"Do you think that the October review of CIRM's progress should be open to the public?"We also told them that we would carry the text of any comments verbatim.
Four directors responded. Here are their comments.
Jeff Sheehy, a communications manager at UC San Francisco and a patient | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | How is it going to go in the federal case involving hESC stem cell research?
A UC Davis scientist opines – that's one of those media words you see in print but rarely hear anyone utter – that the matter could go 2-1 for funding of research but possibly 2-1 against, given that two of the judges are appointees of young Bush.
You can read more from Paul Knoepfler here on his analysis of today's | | | | | | | | | |  | |  | |  |
No comments:
Post a Comment