Science vs Faith? Monist vs Dualist? Why does religion have to be brought into science? Faith is irrational, science isn't. You may have faith that the Old Testament was the literal word of God - but that was a consonant free written work in a long dead language before it was (mis)translated into Hebrew, then (mis)translated into Greek, Latin and English. The Old Testament of today is not the word of god, if it ever was. Religion, along with Nationalism has caused more death and misery than science ever can.

Tony Butler, London,

You WILL get your embryo research. You will probably also get a few attempts at implanting animal/human embryos in human wombs. Well, this would follow wouldn't it.. especially if someone can suggest that slightly better formed embryos could, say, cure AIDS. You see there is no moral boundary in our society at the moment. Our quest for 'eternal life' here on earth, pushes us to compromise on most things. Say, it could be proven that 12 week old fetuses had the potential to cure a myriad of diseases. Public sentiment would suspend any moral qualms, just as they are presently doing. Moral angst is completely subjective in this present age... the only dominant question is: what will it do for me. That's how we justify nasty things like late term abortions: have you heard of the 32 week old fetus here in Melbourne, who was aborted because it had dwarfism. Mother said she'd kill herself if they didn't abort him. Where are the moral boundaries, if they are not: life is sacred.?

Catherine Ransom, Cairns, Australia

So how do you make that out Natasha? I think the horses are about the same height but just lately that anti religious righteousness has been pretty evident. I thought the problem was irreligion inside and outside religion.. There's a world of difference between using parts of various species to assist health and experimentations involving the essences of species. You don't need to be on a moral high horse to figure that out.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

I seem to have heard this discussion before. With many of the same participants. We are told that the soul is immaterial and therefore outside the province of science, so we should take Father Story's word for it and not look any farther.

Every human being has a soul by definition. Presumably this soul enters at the moment of conception. From that point on we must not interfere with the development of the embryo. All well and good, but how then do we explain the fact that science has demonstrated that 30% or more of all human pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion? Are these spontaneous abortions the work of God? Or are they part of the lottery of life? What happens to the soul of an embryo which is terminated (by God?) before birth? Are these souls are available for re-issue?

The concept of soul is beyond examination and cannot be tested. This might make it an ideal component of the ultimate confidence game. We will never know, will we?

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

Religions of one form or another have been responsible for more deaths than ANY other single cause in the history of humanity, so please get off your moral high horses about the use of cells from an embryo that was never going to be a fully developed human being - they use aborted foetuses. And yes, I know your pathetic arguments against abortion.

Morals and ethics have traditionally come from religion because religion had such a stronghold over society. I have been an atheist since I learnt what atheism is - I still raise my children to be moral individuals. Current societal problems are far more closely linked to the rise of desire created by advertising than decreasing religiosity.

If religion were truly the most moral state of existence, can you explain to me why historical records show religious leaders committing some of the most immoral acts? Do they get let off because they spread the word of "God"? Or are there loads of former popes propping up the bar in hell?

Natasha, London, England

If the soul is "immaterial and cannot be analysed", How does anyone know there is such a thing, and why is so much written about it? How can anyone say anything about it if it cannot be analysed?

In the fight against AIDS, it is education, condoms and research into a cure or vaccine that will win. Religion will contribute absolutely nothing to the fight against AIDS. The Catholic doctrine on the "misuse of sex" (i.e. sex outside of marriage, and not for reasons of procreation) is not only outdated, but harmful and contradictory to nature. Abstinence is not normal and not a realistic alternative for most people. They are going to have sex, so why not provide the means to do it safely?

Mark, The Hague, The Netherlands

The soul is immaterial and cannot be analysed. This debate is about responsibility in scientific research.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

In the fight against AIDS, the issue is learning how to avoid the misuse of sex, not effective covering up of the misuse.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

I Feel complete guidance with moral truth as i took a step back and saw clearly.Listen with your ears,Love what you hear & you will See. My Name is Kate & I have been found. x

Kathryn Murphy, Amersham, England

It's only a matter of time, and demonstrable benefits, before the debate over genetic manipulation, and stem cell research, goes the way of IVF. Anyone fancy that particular 'debate' now?
No? Blood transfusion?

I don't believe in a god in the same way I don't believe a good number of things extraneous to reason, but am generally happy with anyone believing anything they want so long as it doesn't interfere with my ability to live my life.

But if the rational world were to sit around and wait for religionists to decide what science could and couldn't do, we'd still be in the Dark Ages. I find that EXTREMELY offensive. Forget a bit of blasphemy.

Just how many of the cohorts of cloud cookoo land below are going to conscientiously object to any form of treatment in the future that's built on the blood of murdered embryos via IPS? Parkinson's? MS? Any number of grim things... I'd hope the dream of heaven was worth it, but somehow I think there'll be a few Damascene moments.

Marcus, Belfast, Northern Ireland

When you are able to asutely analyze something that you know about in an even handed manner, then you will be able to venture into an area that you know nothing about, such as religion. Mr. Henderson, you barely scratch the surface of any sort of meaningful understanding of Christianity and Science, two grand endeavors to be sure. Yet I tell you this, that from the smallest one cell to the makeup of the universe and the placement of the earth in that universe, there is vast evidence of intelligent design. Do your reasearch. Also, Christianity is more than a Catholic viewpoint. It is the story of God's love towards humankind through His Son Jesus. It is a relationship, not a monolithic structure or a way of escape from human reality. It is reality in truth.

Dr. Gary S. Day, Golden Valley, AZ, USA

"Religion feasts on ignorance and would like to keep the whole world ignorant in within/under its power." Your evidence for this sweeping generalisation is what, John of Chatham?

Put "scientists" or "women" or "young people" as the subject of any sentence constructed like this, and its absurdity would be plain. "Religion" is not a monolithic entity, any more than "men" or "black people" are.

If anything is a "parachute holding back humanity's advance", it's the sterile stereotyping that John's comment displays, and the false antitheses (science vs. religion or science vs. Christianity) that Mark Henderson's article goes in for.

Andy Jones, Durham, UK

Religion is just so much hocus pocus mumbo jumbo. Belief in a supernatural mega being. Religion feasts on ignorance and would like to keep the whole world ignorant in within/under its power. Not so long ago people believed the world was the centre of the universe, that fell by the wayside. They believed the world was flat and that fell by the wayside.

Religion does not contribute to man’s advance, it’s a parachute holding it back.

Science, maths, engineering, medicine, astronomy, etc all further mankind but these disciplines need ethical values and morals. I do not believe that religion has the monopoly on ethics or morals as we have seen time and time again.

John, Chatham, UK

In fact, the incidence of AIDS in Africa is highest in those countries where condoms are freely available. The evidence suggests that, by encouraging sexual activity, they contribute to the spread of AIDS.

Clive Copus, London, UK

Y'all know that the Church invested in and supported science long ago, right? And science was done for the glory of God.

God gives doctors the ability to heal - let them heal. God gives smart people the ability to find cures - let them find cures. But since we already know that embryos are unnecessary as well as controversial - why not just leave them alone, and make everyone happy?

Jeez, every time an article like this is written the God-haters and religious have an argument. What really matters? Christianity is about the soul, about a relationship with God. Science has no such lofty ambition. God and science do not necessarily conflict. It's a shame that the church is forced to work within boundaries of controversy, but that science is not forced to, but God is bigger than science - always has been, always will be.

Andrew, Stirling, Scotland

Greg Lorriman "Catholics get a lot of criticism, but mostly unfair."

Tell that to the millions dying in Africa from HIV/Aids, expedited by the fact that Catholicism is against condom use.

David, Bordeaux,

matt, lakewood:"so many people on the planet now that poverty and suffering will be their lot in life from craddle to grave. "

Exceeding poverty has long been a feature of human history long before anyone started talking about population control. The causes of poverty have almost always been other than population (more often war and corruption). The planet does not as yet actually have a population problem.

As for the Catholic position on future population problems: if more would give them selves to monasteries and convents, and fewer to marriage, as in days gone by (and may be to return), then there could in theory be a stable population without the need for methods that contradict our nature.

Cahtolics get a lot of criticism, but mostly unfair.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Opponents of destructive human embryonic stem cell research (hESCR) are not hypocritcal in welcoming the iPSC development. Contrary to Henderson's assertion, hESC's were not crucial to this development. Before his breakthrough in reprogramming human somatic cells to a pluripotent state, Shinya Yamanaka's work in reprogramming utilized mice, not human, embryonic stem cells, and he used the same method for human iPS cell production. In fact, Yamanaka himself has said "Neither eggs nor embryos are necessary. I've never worked with either" (Nature, June 7 2007, p 618).

Prior to Yamanaka's reprogramming breakthrough, proponents of embryo destructive stem cell research suggested that these would be bridge technologies, needed only until the "Holy Grail" of reprogramming ordinary somatic cells was achieved. What is hypocritical is to insist on an open-ended "need" for such embryo destructive research now that the bridge has been crossed and the Holy Grail of reprogramming achieved.

Gene Tarne, Washington, DC, USA

if human life were really sacred than the church should be for population control in accordance with the availability of resources. the fact is is that theirs so many people on the planet now that poverty and suffering will be their lot in life from craddle to grave. it seems to me that the sanctity of life is considered disporportionatly to a few cells that really arent human yet. true they have the potential, but if emotions were kept out of the argument, these human cells wouldnt be considered "fully human"

matt, lakewood, united states new jersey

Is is not the analysis of embryonic tissue that is in moral error, but the interruption of the embryo's growth and maturity. The scientist is simply using the resources given him - and he is to be applauded for that. The whole point of this science is to improve human life.... so the actual destruction of the embryo is in contradiction to that. Analyzing the remains after the deed is done - there can be found no fault.
No one critcizes someone who analyzes a human body in the morgue... because the person is already dead. Why then are we giving the scientist such trouble? He is simply doing his job.
It is the person who pulled the trigger on the embryo who should be criticized. They interrupted someone else's life - before they even had a chance.

Robert, Olathe, KS

Nathan:" surely it would be easier for you to prove the existence of said soul - you already 'know' it's there."

This is a matter of giving the benefit of the doubt in a life or death situation where proof is lacking. Just as one would if there it were reported that there might be someone stuck down a hole before filling it with cement. Indeed one would even check beforehand anyway. Since it is probably impossible to prove that there is no soul then there should never be experiments on conceptos: which was my point.

Nathan :"so it should be a simple matter to show everyone where and what it is."

Does it really need to be spelled out that the spiritual probably can not be examined through matter? Has anyone actually 'seen' love or 'seen' hate or seen 'strength of will'. These things, as with a soul, are quite other than the material world.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

As the great philosopher Horton, said "A person's a person, no matter how small."

kate dewey, Alexandria, VA, USA

Greg, surely it would be easier for you to prove the existence of said soul - you already 'know' it's there, so it should be a simple matter to show everyone where and what it is. Most people already know how difficult it is to prove a negative, so asking for the impossible hardly seems fair.

Nathan, Wales,

This is another place where science and religion appear to clash. The refusal of embryonic cell research is founded in the belief that human life is sacrosanct, special and elevated above other sentient beings. Nothing wrong there, but where science appears to jeopardise this, religious people can feel their views threatened and ascribe malign intentions to science. To assume that science has malign intentions misses the point. Religion is built around divine intention, science around explanation. Richard Feynmann once commmented about the misuse of the adjective "scientific" in referring to the nazi extermination programmes. They were methodical but never "scientific" - that distinction must be kept clear. Science is not "evil" - that term belongs to religion, hence it's involvement in far greater atrocities

John, Knutsford, Uk

"..particularly by religious groups who regard balls of a few human cells as sacrosanct."

Is a potential human being any less important than a full grown person? We would sacrifice the former in the name of scientific research and to make us feel good about it the phrases like "potentially heal disease" are used.

Psalm 139:13-16 (New International Version)

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

David, Indianapolis, Indiana

"IPS cells might not now require the destruction of embryos, but it is beyond dispute that they are a product of embryonic stem cell research."

Which isn't to say that the discovery couldn't have happened by some other route than did not involve experiments on human embryos. It may have taken much longer, but it may still have happened.

In any case the Catholic position doesn't rest on whether or not IPS cells are a viable alternative: but that the the concepto is a full human being with mind and will, so that this issue is about murder. And since this is a life or death issue it is reasonable to insist that the benefit of the doubt be given over the nature of conception unless it can proven that there is no soul.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Can I just point out to all the people who are moaning about science being evil, that they are only able to express this backward opinion globally thanks to science. I would also suggest that anybody who does think science is evil should live their live without anything vaguely scientific, at least I wouldn't have to listen to their drivel anymore.

Andy, Carshalton, London

We can have all the knowledge and power in the Universe, but unless we have some insight into what to do with it, we are just dangerous apes.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

When we look at a brick, a building, or an automobile, we see a design by intelligence: people. When we see amazement after amazement in nature more magnificantly designed, we see Evolution?!? It is a more narrow and shallow view to believe chance made all that we see. The more science learns, the more ignorant it becomes.

Geary, Pensacola, FL

Virginie, you're so totally right. "Science" is dead. "Science" is soulless. It's "science" that is full of self-righteous nonsense, not religions. "Science", a fake construction of consumerist technocrats (i.e. megacorporations and the military-industrial complex) exists only to fool a world of "non-scientists" to buy into its spurious "proven" facts and even more ridiculous theories and hypotheses, and people are now becoming well-informed enough to see through it. "Science" is reaching its end stages and, by the close of this century and hopefully long before that, we'll see a massive backlash against the scientific-technological-military-industrial-corporate establishment and the evil subhuman people who design and control it. Scientists are on the verge of creating abominations against everything it means to be a human being. We'll see horrors you could never imagine. Scientific advancement = spiritual degradation. People, please don't allow yourselves to be fooled by fake science

Human Rights Lawyer, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Picking a fight, are you? Let the Church alone, it has centuries and beyond to rationalize. Look at Copernicus. Stick to science, and let God and Church press-on.

Paul, Lemoore, California,

"This sad passing fancy called "modern science" is going to be trounced by religion very soon. "

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That was a good one!

Brad, San Jose, CA/USA

This sad passing fancy called "modern science" is going to be trounced by religion very soon.

The Blessed Virgin Mary gave to St. Bernadette several prophecies, one of which reads to the effect that science will find a way to blend the essences of men and animals and that the resulting monsters will finally turn mankind against science. She further predicted that the scientists would be "hunted down like ravening wolves".

I can't wait. They are nothing but narrow, small minded human beings with stunted souls who wish to be God.

Virginie, Topeka, Kansas

We constantly hear in the US media that George Bush banned fetal stem cell research or severely limited fetal stem cell research. Neither is true. Congress passed a bill, signed into law by Bush, that bans federal funding of fetal stem cell research from all but a few embryonic lines.

It's perfectly legal for a university or a company to pursue fetal stem cell research on their own. There are a number of companies who are studying fetal stem cell research but it's difficult to find investors or grants because the results thus far have mostly been disappointing.

However, companies that perform adult stem cell research are doing very well because they have had a number of successes.

Money follows success. If fetal stem cell research were producing results then there would be no lack of money for the venture.

Michael, Dallas, Texas, USA

Science advancing? True science supports the Bible. God created everything perfect. The fall of man brought physical and moral depravity. Decay and death. Exactly what you see in the physical realm. The only way you go from perfection is down. Yes we have advanced technologically, but we are rotting from within. Check our media, movies, perverse website links, horrible decadent living promoted, crime, pandemic sexually transmitted deseases and you will see the human condition. Read Romans 1
Thank God for the remnant of true believers that hold society together. It is Christian principles that foster a healthy family and society.
Our only hope is in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

DBauman, Baraboo, WI

We get it, dude, there is no God, religion is bad, you are smart.

Bryan Rivera, Rayne, Louisiana

Every time that science thinks that it has discovered the "missing link" or "proof that God doesn't exist", they get this incredible smugness about them. EVERY single time they are proven to have been mistaken. What's incredible is that, after failure upon failure, they act smug the next time. They don't realize how silly they look.
What always gives me a laugh is, when a scientist finally devotes him/herself completely to proving that God doesn't exist, they end up getting saved and becoming a Christian.

Jack Waldrop, Charlotte, USA, NC

Faith is completely different from science, it goes beyond science and objective rationality. Faith is a gift from God, few have it - people who believe in God say they are called, they don't say they studied it, learnt all the theories, did lots of experiments and passed the exams.

It is a big mistake to confuse faith with science and science with faith, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what each is about and why they are different. Making judgements about something that you do not understand is also not scientific, it shows the same biases you are complaining about.

Christopher H, Canberra, Australia

Hey Ted, this is precisely why Heaven is for those who chose to believe and not for individuals, such as yourself, who chose not to believe. So stop the religion rage and leave those alone who understand the meaning of "free-will" .. I am certain that if you change your mind, there might just be a nice place for you too! God

Ken, Tempe, AZ, USA

Notice how the scentists say there is no God and in the very next step they prove he exists by doing the work of God

Jim Foster, Elida, Ohio USA

Keith Birch believes in the sanctity of life, but I think he means human life and pays no attention to the meat we consume from the slaughter house: quite close to hell for animals, but who cares? 'Thou shalt not kill' , but war is a favorite pastime of mankind and priests on both sides bless the combatants. Some politicians now once again accept torture and taking of hostages. I am not sure I understand what God's rules are. They seem to change from century to century, I am not sure they should. A Pope recently apologised for rejecting Galileo. Megan, a dog, was abandoned by its owners recently and I fed it until it died of old age. I was sorry for one of God's creatures. Yes, life is sacred, but we are much too primitive to really grasp the underlying moral hazards we are all exposed to.

Brian Lewis, Manila, p

sad that most every comment posted here had more understanding and depth than the original article.

Pashey, Boulder, CO

"As Yamanaka points out, embryonic cells were indispensable to his discovery. It was by studying how their genes are expressed that he established which genes he needed to manipulate in adult tissue. IPS cells might not now require the destruction of embryos, but it is beyond dispute that they are a product of embryonic stem cell research.'

Actually, this is a deceptive use of terminology utilized to promote the titled agenda. If honestly considered, it would have been fair to say "embryonic stem cells were indispensible in accelerating the research surrounding IPS analysis." It is a sly use of words utilized to promote the idea that without emryonic research there would have been no chance of discovery or advancement. In fact, the possibility would and does still exist, however, the time needed to research IPS expression without embryonic research would have been extended dramatically as research would have been more reverse engineering than process observation.

Joel, Sarnia, Ontario, Canada

Mr. Henderson levels two charges against Catholics and both are logically invalid:
1) There is nothing "hypocritical" about a Catholic celebrating the development of a technique that will render obsolete a procedure that s/he abhors. It would only be hypocritical if the Catholic thought that it was right to sacrifice embryos in order to discover ISP cells.
2) Henderson neglects to mention that the new "Seven Deadly Sins" are not a matter of doctrine for Catholics, but merely the perspective of one cleric. Thus, it is not de facto morally binding on Catholics. Given that, he cannot logically rest argument on a literal reading of one of those sins.

Joe, IN, USA,

The truth is, as long as the left hates religion, there's going to be this kind of Barbara Streisand.

Greg Barton, Mountain View, CA

Who cares! Science can advance as far as possible while the belief in God is not a retreat by default. God does not have to advance in definition or structure. All the science we have and look at the condition of mankind. Too bad we spend so much time and energy trying to dispute God at the expense of our humanity.

troy , Hammond, United States

The smugness drips from every sentence in this piece. Religion is not "retreating" - they are forwarding their arguments in the legitimate dialog on medical ethics. The harvesting of human beings, be they prisoners, infirm, slaves, or preborn, is wrong. The contribution of Christian thinking in the area of medical ethics has been huge, and widely praised. Often in retrospect, when science looks back in horror at what it did with its self-annointed blessing of "progress."

William Eberwein, Menlo Park, USA

This is certainly interesting news and holds a promise for finding cures to many of our ills.
However, it looks like Mark is trying to fabricate controversy here. I don't see how this is hypocrisy on anyone's part. Yes, I can see why Christians and all those who see those "balls of a few human cells" as a developing person, rather than tissue, would be glad to have an alternative.
An adult can easily tolerate the loss of a small skin sample. An unborn person cannot.
I cannot speak to the Vatican's newest proclaimations.

Joe, Houston, TX

In the US, it's interesting to see that it is against the law to destroy the egg of a bald eagle but perfectly legal in most states to abort a baby up until seconds before it was born. The argument is that an unborn baby is a potential human and thus have no rights to protection. Try arguing that an bald eagle egg is only a potential eagle and you're looked on as a lunatic.

Once you begin defining certain classes of people -- blacks, Jews, the mentally impaired, unborn babies -- as not fully
human you begin to open up the doors to all sorts of horrors.

Mark, rent the movie "Amazing Grace," which is about the life of William Wilberforce. Unlike most of his fellow Britains, he thought that the life of blacks was sacrosanct and that using them as slaves because they generally weren't considered fully human was an abomination to God and nature. His critics accused him of moral contortions.

Fortunately, Wilberforce prevailed and ended slavery throughout the British empire.

Michael, Dallas, Texas, USA

Some important distinctions,please:

1. Genetic manipulation means sci-tech interventions to
modify genetics--to suit a human's preferences:good or ill.
The Roman Catholic magisterium(most popes & bishops--
not scholars & theologians) since the 1950's has viewed such
manipulative interventions as immoral isfa they cause
an autonomous natural process(left alone) to contradict
it's own teleology:"act contra nature", viewed as the way
"God" created and wants things to be.

Magisterial Catholicism is not the voice of all Catholic
scholars. This view is only 50 years old--easily revised
or reversed by a better understanding of "natural" etc.

2. Scientia, and its playmate technologia, suffer from
hubris(know it all as "really is" and can control all
within realm of empirical data). Hence the fear of
religion--all religions, not only Christianity, as a
potential alternative stream of truth/value. Sci-tech
operates on a consumerist ethos!

Dr Eugene Frick, Los Angeles, CA,USA

I am so impressed with the cogent humanistic-rational comments I see posted here that my faith in human progress feels renewed and advanced.

Marty Kay Zee, Pasadena, CA, USA

I don't know whether you wrote your own subheading, Mark, or whether someone added it for you, but let's get a few things straight.

1 Science is discovering how and why things work

2 Engineering follows on from science to give us ways and means of achieving things

3 Together science and engineering tell us what can be done

4 Ethics are the principles and morals the rules that tell us what should or should not be done.

5 Ethics and morals are not derived from science or engineering. They come from philosophy and/or religion, depending on viewpoint.

6 Most people who "object" to embryonic stem cell research actually object to the deliberate destruction (and sometimes creation for that purpose) of human embryos that have the potential to develop into human beings. They are, as far as I can tell, reasonably comfortable with research on cells taken from naturally miscarried embryos or cells that can be removed without harm to the embryo.

Lux Aeterna, MANCHESTER,

For secular people trying to find out what the fuss is about from a secular perspective, Ramesh Ponnuru's "The Party of Death", while focusing in its legal section on the USA, is a good primer on relevant issues.

Anyway surely science should have some ethical limits.

A logical place to start is to say that creating and destroying human beings for purposes of expirementation or harvesting for parts is wrong, regardless of the purported benefits.

Scientists acknowledge that every other organism that reproduces sexually has its lifespan begin at conception and end at natural death.

Only with human beings is there any controversy about who is human and when, and only then because it is artificially and deceptively whipped up by vested interests: the abortion industry, amoral bio-tech researchers, and people who have either been seduced by the supposed convenience of creating and/or killing others, or who have been taught to hate fashionable targets, such as Christians.

Carney, MD, USA

Every act of procreation is essentially a "genetic manipulation which alters DNA". I know Catholic priests are basically against it, but I didn't know they were thinking of banning it altogether.

Rosemary , Germany,

Should there be any ethical constraints on science? Obviously there should, and killing (or disagregating - as the scientists say) unique human beings should be at the top of the list. primum no nocere.

But they're only "balls of a few human cells"...
I'm a "ball of a few human cells", so are you. Any and every human being is worthy of respect.

Oh, but it's different for embryo's, they're small balls of cells...
So we're discriminating against small humans now? in the past it was different for women, different for slaves, different for black people, different for Jews - we've grown up since then and should grow up now. Human embryologists agree that embryos are human (species), unique (genetically), innocent (they don't pose a threat) and have a mother and father. This should guarantee them our respect and protection.

Any other position will rely on the scary and sinister reasoning that the end justifies the means, and if that's the case, anything goes!

S. Kalypso, London, UK

We Muslims and Catholics /Christians,fully support Ethical medical reasearch and we have been calling for longtimes to use Adult Stem cells for research as it is very hopful and has got many advantages and are handy and easy to manipulate instead of abusing and destroying human embryos?
Is good to hear again this new medical discovery to use adult stem cells without the use and the destruction of of Embryos?

Dr Majid Katme/Islamic Medical Association, London, UK

So for every disease and condition there will be a cure--but for a shot or stab to the body and even then going is not a sure thing--and we all will live on and on. But in what kind of 'state' would we live--or exist. Overpopulation is, in myview, already the problem and if we all hang around longer than intended, where will find the space to live and food and water to drink; or will we all inhabit our own allotted 2 sq. feet and be given a food pill in the morning with our allotted bit of water to get it down. Overexagerting probably-unless there is a yearly cull and who would decide. The prospects are not cheerful.

M. G., Oshkosh, WI, USA

7 The shortage of donated eggs and embryos when apparently there is a surplus of these from IVF work is presumably because the biological pregenitors have scruples on the lines of 6 about their embryonic progeny being the subject of research.

Science and engineering cannot give us ethics. Philosophy and religion can. To suggest that we can derive our ethics from science is itself a philosophical position; utilitarianism. But that also cannot be proved from science, and to imply that it can is wrong.

Lux Aeterna, MANCHESTER,

"As Yamanaka points out, embryonic cells were indispensable to his discovery. It was by studying how their genes are expressed that he established which genes he needed to manipulate in adult tissue."

Human ones or animal? Only the most fervent anti-vivisectionists (who seem to get more respect these days than people with religious beliefs, particularly catholics) would object to experiments on animal embryos. While I'm a physicist not a life scientist, I would have thought that embryo development mechanisms must be fairly similar regardless of species.

AQ42, Chester,

Science and religion are two very different fields. This author is not up to date regarding what religious people are saying about the work of Shinya Yamanaka.
Yamanaka can be accorded credit for concluding that killing humans shouldn't be done cavalierly and, for working on a method which won't require such continued killing. It's nice that some scientists gain respect for life as they study it.
Those most respectful of human life may not be able to use the products of Yamanaka's work at all, because we understand the loss involved in its underpinnings. We also feel the need to avoid use of certain vaccine products for related reasons.
Those with less respect for human life may decide to change the path of their research due to its limited utility, or they may feel the need to force the rest of us to go along with their programs.
A main reason for demanding tax funding for embryonic stem cell research is that it isn't showing profitability.

K. Brauer, Lawrenceburg, IN

There is a tendency for the near denial of faith. When an archbishop can refer in detail to the mechanisms of say climate change he puts himself in a position where the attributions can be denied scientifically. Of course this is a dangerous thing for faith and for religion for it suggests that science may be able to prevail where worship is seen to be obviously failing. By trying to conduct a scientific religion and in the face of research, the daily cause and effect, one would expect religion to come off worse because it is stepping outside its competency. Rather than embroil itself in such semantic disputation, religions should be doing that which does not affect their faith, which cannot touch their core and that is bringing individuals to a realisation of the self; a faith that puts some of the Godhead into each of its adherent’s increases responsibility, increases self-worth and responsibility. A religion that accepts the futility of the individual’s actions denies God.

Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England

As science moves forward, the superstitions recede. Man's advancements are due to man, not to some make believe "god".

The free thinking intellectual mind must reject religion and all that it stands for.

F.S.Summers, NY,

Mark

You have confused the seven deadly sins with mortal sins and also appear to believe the nonsensical media reports that the seven deadly sins have been changed by the Vatican.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Henry Potts, cork, ireland

The real advances that are creating exciting, medical advances are with adult stem cells. As I follow this subject, it seems that theorists and anti-religion apologists are the most vocal in pushing the cause of embryonic stem cells. Those in the trenches and producing the results are getting more out of the adult cells.

This information, however, does not promote the anti-religion stance of so many journalists.

Harold Sawyer, Unionville, Connecticut, USA

Most likely, the IPS cells would have been discovered without the aid of embryonic cells if they had not been available. You limit the power of science by saying otherwise.

P Dueck, Phoenix,

The problem with basing ethics on some principle, is that not all people agree on the principle. If the principle happens to be that human cells ought to be treated as fully formed persons, then it's no surprise that many do not share the same view. I think the best hope is that as science progresses and the health advantages of stem cells become evident even to the untrained, objections based on principles given by some "spiritual" authority will become first passe, and then subsequently ignored. It will take a while, but science, when practiced in open societies, eventually corrodes and then defeats theological viewpoints which constrain quality of life rather than enhance it. The advantages of science are cumulative, and will eventually outweigh the static advantages of theological principles.

Brint Montgomery, Oklahoma City, OK, USA

I am a practicing Catholic. The fundamental position starts from the belief in the sanctity of life. Start messing with that and you are on a downward slope to a society that tosses individuals aside because somebody, who thought they knew better, regarded that individual as unnecessary, an impediment, or whatever reason they think appropriate. In a future society, that could happen to your "alter ego". Today, that could have happened to me because of non- visible disabilities I have.

Keith Birch, Hamilton Ontario, Canada

It would seem that religions, at least religions that believe in sin, eternal punishment, the heavenly reward system and so on have a great deal to fear about the future. Just a week before announcing the new deadly sins, the pope made a statement that scientists should not pursue an "immortality pill". It is painfully obvious that if people live much longer lives, the fear of death and "meeting our maker" becomes less of a threat, and less important in our daily lives. The more we learn about the world around us, the more facts we are given, the more wondrous is creation, and less likely that it has anything to do with an anthropomorphic God that "loves us completely" but does nothing to stop our misery. Yes, stem cells are here to stay, and I predict that it won't be long but that the church will find new reasons as to why adult stem cells should not be used in treatments. Perhaps making them pluripotential makes them an embryo or some nonsense like that.

Ted, Kurtistown, HI, USA