presented with the disclaimer that i didn't quite make it through all the posts, so my apologies if they are duplicative.

My first thought pertains to the focus on finding a cure.

I think that Paula’s concern that research runs the risk of becoming overly stem cell heavy at the expense of the exploring other avenues is valid – the priorities of the research community may come closer to the priorities of sick people than those of pharma do, but there are still key differences. I see evidence of those differences in the new excitement over the much-touted significance of non-motor symptoms as well as the growing emphasis on the search for disease modifying therapies – if the thought behind them pre-supposes that current symptomatic therapies are even remotely adequate as long-term solutions, and that therefore it is not necessary to fund research along those lines, then we have a problem.

Because, unlike tuberculosis and polio, researchers do not have a clue what causes PD. I don’t know whether it is even possible to cure something without knowing what causes it. We can also look around and see that – to my knowledge – no non-pathogen-related neurological disease has yet been cured.

So while it is possible that a cure will be discovered tomorrow, and I am all for engaging in its pursuit, it is entirely possible, dare I even say likely, that a cure will not be discovered tomorrow, or next year, in the next couple of decades - or even longer.

How much longer do you think you can last on current PD therapies?

Such a singular focus on a cure leapfrogs right over the woeful inadequacies of the therapies we have to carry us on, indefinitely.

Therefore, in my opinion, it is shortsighted of us to direct all of our hope, energy and money to the pursuit of a cure (or even a disease-modifying therapy) with such single-mindedness that the development of symptomatic therapies falls by the wayside.

We need to focus on both.

My second though was touched on by jeanb, I believe.

Those who argue against permitting the use of excess in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos in research would have zero effect on the quantity of IVF embryos destroyed in this country even if they were to outlaw ESCR completely – unless they also abolish IVF as it is currently undertaken.

In the course of the IVF process, usually more embryos are created than are used in the pursuit of implantation - and the right to determine the destinies of those embryos currently rests with couples who produced them. Ultimately, there are three destinies from which to choose: donate the embryos to another couple, donate them to research, or have them discarded by clinic personnel.

If one believes that it is wrong to destroy an embryo in the course of research, then one must believe that it is wrong to destroy an embryo, period - whether it is in the course of research, or in the course of a day at the IVF clinic. From that it follows that if IVF were to be allowed to continue in an acceptable form, of the current three destiny options available to couples - donate to another couple, donate to research, or simply destroy - the latter two would have to be eliminated, leaving only one option: donating to another couple.

However, that model, even if it were legally defensible, which it is not (forced parenthood has not been upheld in any court, according to what I have read) would only be acceptable if no other embryos were harmed in the IVF process - but other embryos are harmed. There is a baseline attrition rate of anywhere from 10-25% when embryos are frozen and thawed.

So putting a stop to ESCR in and of itself will have zero impact of the number of IVF embryos destroyed– as long as IVF continues, couples will continue to choose not to donate to other couples (read: choose to have their embryos destroyed) and embryos will continue to die in the course of IVF itself.