Hi Michael,

Have extracted the following as the core of your dissertation (Manual transcription):

Pg 3..Michael’s Paper (Attached below):
“If patients are to welcome medical developments in tomorrow’s clinics, then it is necessry to take utmost care to preserve moral space in today’s discussions. Accordingly clinicians, scientists and ethicists must avoid premature polarization of these issues, and clarify terms as they engage in ethical debates.”

My comments:
As a veteran of aerial combat, in a war that never received an essential full commitment from our national leadership, I served with other pilots who accepted the possibility of our own death in a less than fully supported conflict.
In fact, we left Vietnam after losing 57,000 American lives (and untold Vietnamese lives on both sides) with full knowledge that the Paris Accords were merely a subterfuge that provided the US the “dignified” exit the politicians needed.
Today we see a somewhat more decisive pursuit of a righteous outcome, but the persistence of a belief among some that “war” is just socially unacceptable as a policy tool and that, regardless of the sacrifices of individuals voluntarily engaged in combat, we should, once again “cut and run”.

Compared to those examples of adult, fully cognizant human dedication and sacrifice, the “sacrifice” of an unaware bit of protoplasm for the purpose of alleviating human suffering and extending an adult life seems pretty well justified.
There are many opportunities for quibbling about particular differences in the cited situations … the military is now “all volunteer” … the stem cells are not consulted and can not “volunteer”, etc.

Yes, I am also aware that we must engage in the discussions so epitomized by your thorough, scholarly and ethically incisive paper.
But I was informed by a Geron Principal (when I complained about the time between the discovery of telomerase in ’98 and its continuing creeping progress from clinical curiosity to remedial tool) that the average time for approval of a new medical intervention method is now 14 YEARS !!!

The perspective that engenders of the increasing toll of people who could have been treated by whatever methods were creeping through the NIH obstacle course creates another image of unnecessary human suffering.
Now, lethargic progress of the ethical debate is no excuse for avoiding it..

And I view your paper as a potential accelerator toward a final decision.
My point is that there seems to be little doubt about the potential efficacy of hesc-based interventions in relieving suffering.
While erudite, incisive, in-depth ethical debate continues, what seems to be missing is any sense of urgency about the millions, yes millions who continue to suffer and die while we debate.
In the war on disease, the casualties are never volunteers !!

Bill