Stem cell research in the last decade has given rise to novel technologies like skin culture grafts and bone marrow transplants, but the number of ethical issues-not to mention stem cell myths-arise still faster. Weeks before Bush’s recent veto of the stem cell bill in the U.S., these long-standing issues inspired a public symposium hosted by the International Society for Stem Cell Research on June 28 at the MaRS centre for scientists and the general public alike.

The key stem cell issue for many dissenters lies in the moral status of the embryo. Janet Rossant, Chief of Research at the Hospital for Sick Children began the symposium clarifying the facts behind this ethical problem.

“The source of embryos to make embryonic stem cells are not embryos that are created specifically for this purpose,” said Rossant. “They are embryos that come from in vitro fertilization programs…that would otherwise be discarded because they’re no longer needed for reproductive purposes.”

Tim Caulfield, Research Director at the University of Alberta’s Health Law Institute, spoke of Canada’s many laws against procedures like therapeutic cloning, regulations that he finds are the most restrictive of all pluralistic and democratic societies. These laws, for example, prohibit the use of certain kinds of stem cells in creating chimeras-living creatures that have cells from two animals, say human and mouse.

“I think one of the myths out there is that there are a ton of people doing embryonic stem cell research all over the world,” said Caulfield. “[There are only] 3 or 4 teams in the world seriously engaged in therapy.”

“We are honestly a long way from applying research from embryonic stem cells,” added panellist Peter Andrews, a professor at The University of Sheffield’s biomedical science department in the U.K.

The committee agreed on the need for multidisciplinary teams, from biologists to tissue engineers and clinicians, to bring stem cell research into medical practice. The only way these teams can come together is through the financial and political support of governments and the public.

“Now what we need to do is engage the public in a meaningful way-and I mean everyone” said Caulfield. “We should look at this as an opportunity in our society to deal with a science controversy because as science becomes a bigger part of society, we’re going to have more of these controversies.”