The basis of scientific discovery is that a scientist has a hypothesis which he tests and results of those tests he determines whether his hypothesis is true or false. It may be just as important to prove a falsehood as it is to prove a truth.

As far as I can gather that from time immemorial some women have had trouble conceiving. A scientist came up with the idea that if we fertilized eggs outside the womb and then implanted a fertilized egg inside a woman's womb she would be able to give birth to the child she and her husband so eagerly desired. In order to give her the best chance of producing a child it has been decided that fertilizing a number of eggs and implanting the best gave the putative mother the best chance of producing a viable offspring. This left a number of fertilized embryos. The question facing the medical scientist was whether to implanted these ones as well and so encourage the number of multiple births, octomum being a superb example of this, or throw them away.

The decision has been made to throw them away. Another scientist seeking to deal with different medical problems came up with the hypothesis that they might be cured by using undifferentiated (i.e. embryonic) cells which would develop into specific cells replacing those that are damaged and so cure the problem. In looking to test his hypothesis he looked around for the source of undifferentiated cells and found them in the embryos discarded by the doctors treating women who had a problem conceiving.

George W. Bush decided that it was better to throw these embryos away rather than use them to test the hypothesis that they might cure illness. He did not ban this research but he refused federal funding. This research is continued, despite his ban, both in the United States and in the rest of the world. Pres. Obama has determined, contrary to his predecessor, this research is worthwhile and has removed the ban on federal funding. Whether it will receive federal funding is a matter for Congress.

Not only do I not have a problem with this, I think it is a good idea. I accept that some will not be happy with this but unless they oppose the IVF treatment which creates a fertilized embryos in the first place I regard them as hypocrites.

The argument about terrorism and torture has, to me, little or nothing to do with morality. Therefore, to equate the two as an article demonstrates a level of ignorance. The debate about torture has little or nothing to do with morality but everything to do with practicality. There is the argument, to which I subscribe, that if we treat our prisoners inhumanely we give them the right to treat us, should we become prisoners, inhumanely. The fact that they may deal with us inhumanely does not make it equal retaliation viable, it just sends a solid downward spiral.

For those of you who have never conducted an interrogation that are basically two types, that of the witness and that of the suspect. Ideally, when interrogating a suspect you already know the answers to the questions that you ask. You discover these answers, in part, by interrogating witnesses. This interrogation differs in that you do not know all the answers in advance and so if you want to know the truth you have to persuade the witness that he wants to tell you the truth. Torture him and he will only tell you what he thinks that either you want to know all that which he thinks will satisfy you. In both cases all this does is waste your time.

The practicality of torture has absolutely nothing to do with the morality of the disposal or otherwise of unwanted embryos.

George W. Bush decided that it was better to throw these embryos away ...

No, he did not. The decision was about whether TAXPAYER money should go toward this research ... not whether it should occur at all.

A fact conveniently omitted in most discouse on the subject.