Lets show the entire paragraph to get it in context. 'In a tacit acknowledgment that the promise of human embryonic stem cells is still far in the future, Californias stem cell research program on Wednesday awarded grants intended to develop therapies using mainly other, less controversial cells.'
I does not state why its far in the future. However, in the context of the ENTIRE paragraph, one could conclude that it is far in the future because of the controversy around using embryonic stem cells and not because they will not bear any fruitful discoveries. The controversy itself could be limiting the discoveries, not the cells. On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > In a tacit acknowledgment that the promise of human embryonic stem > cells is still far in the future... > > Interesting how we can both read the same article and come to > different conclusions > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The fight would be with people opposed to using embryonic stem cells. >> >> They are basically saying, we would rather use the adult cells than >> fight the religious zealots to use the embryonic cells. (At least, >> that is how I read the article) >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:306752 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
