Thank you all for your bravery in setting out on this journey. Although stem cell research is not my field, in many ways I feel that we scientists have failed to communicate properly with the public about how vital this research is to finding treatments and possibly cures for several dibilitating illnesses. We have failed in many ways to inform the tax payers that the cell lines that are in current use will never be available as treatments because they are contaminated, of the lack of promiss in adult stem cells (which are not to my knowledge entirely pluripotent) and that the embryos we wish to use are not those that will be adopted, but those that will be eventually disgarded as trash....distroyed one way or another.

Best of luck to you with this undertaking, you are all heroes!

Love this idea.

I guess I hope there is room for much thoughtful debate in the expansion of use stem cell science though. The incredible benefits are obvious when it comes to stem cells, but there is definitely has to be room for open debate about use of such a powerful tool. There are huge ramifications to new science and debate fosters our ability as a society to absorb new technologies. We should not be afraid of that. To ignore debate is to be as closed as the ignorant administration positions we are currently dealing with, and in my opinion is just as dangerous.

Hopefully the iconic symbol you all come up with incorporates both the wide open possibilities of stem cell science, as well as the moral and ethical ability to deal with the potential.

This is an great project, good luck with the process.

Mr. Heller,
while I share your passion and anger about the presidents decision to veto the bill passed by congress to allow the funding of new embryonic stem cell lines I am surprised by your seeming lack of a grasp on the strategy needed to restart the funding. Someone with so much knowledge of design and advertising should be able to strategize a more effective campaign.

You have lashed out at the president, the church and even villified the idea of debate. This will not accomplish the very important goal you are striving for. Please do not jeapordize this important task by allowing your partisan hatred for one man to get in the way of reaching, through an effective symbol and an intelligently crafted campaign, the people who can actually bring about the change we need.

Define then conquer
The first thing we must do is define the problem, then we can design a solution. Certainly the president started this "war" but he is no longer the only combatant, and he is the least likely to be swayed by public activism. Congress acted against his misguided decree by passing legislation to open the funding. Bush's response, the veto, gave us the opportunity we need. The veto, although defeated, gives us our market research. We now know the names of 179 Republicans and 4 Democrats. These are the pool of people whose minds we must change. I am not sure of the exact number needed but think it is around 50. So we have our decision makers now it is simple to find our target audience; the constituents of those decision makers, the liberal, moderate, and conservative constituents.

Now we get to the point where your anger gets in the way. While I agree that we need to harness the emotion that is inherent in this issue, anger is not the right one. We need to evoke compassion and empathy. The target audience is full of people that voted for Bush. People that may not be happy with the war, the wiretapping, or his blocking of this important funding, yet still do not share your anger and may even view it as hatred. This is very dangerous. We cannot afford to alienate people by making this into a partisan battle. Our opponents have already used one taboo topic (religion/morality) in this debate, we should not inject the other (politics).

We must pull these two issues out of the discussion, and that is exactly what is needed, an open and honest discussion. Not a campaign of anger like the inneffective ones mounted during the last election by groups like moveon.org. The same people that were alienated by those ads and attacks are the people we have, according to the public opinion polls on stem cell research, a good opportunity to reach and motivate.

Motivating people that you may disagree with, on all but one or two topics, is not easy. It is harder still if you put them on the defensive. We need to pull Bush out of the discussion. We are not trying to change his mind, we know that will not happen. We don't need Bush to do anything. We need to distance him from this, it is about a veto, not a man.

We can overcome a veto, we must. Our future may depend on it.

War vs Mission
You have called this both a "war" and a "mission". While mission can be the type that is a sub-set of a war, I do not believe that was the one you were referencing, but rather the type that is approached with a passion.

These are starkly different animals requiring equally different strategies. When a war is prosecuted, the campaign must define an enemy and that enemy must be shown to be evil. This is an imperative because you do not send people off to destroy someone they can identify with or your troops will not be able to sleep with themselves. Sometimes the evil is there and it is obvious, like Hitler, other times it is not so clear. Either way, a war is divisive by its very nature.

Missions on the other hand are about hearts and minds. They are about opening peoples eyes to the truth. This is not to say that missions have not done great harm, but the basic nature, unlike war, is meant to unite and heal, to educate and influence. They are fueled by passion, which at its worst can be manifested as anger, yet at its best engenders compassion and empathy.

If we are to overcome a veto on this issue we need to champion a mission. While it would be easy to make this into yet another referendum on the bush administration, that would not win the hearts and minds of our target audience or our decision makers. This is not an issue of us against them, right vs left, religious vs secular, pro-life vs pro-choice; this is an issue about hope. That is the way it needs to be framed. You do not promote hope by tapping into anger.

No need for hyperbole
While shading the truth or cloaking it in emotive language can be very effective in partisan politics. We are not in a partisan situation. We need to motivate people that may already have trust issues with us. Our message must be crystal clear and it must be brutally honest. This is a topic that does not require hyperbole or claims that sound to good to be true, as the polls show, most folks get it.

While I support this issue with all my heart, more on that in a moment, I know that it is no silver bullet. Embryonic stem cells, while having the most potential for good also have the most potential for harm. Embryonic stem cells have not cured one thing, we are only talking about possiblities. And while the president has blocked funding on new lines, federal funding continues on the existing lines.

Also, while I believe federal funding is important, I think one of the reasons cited on this site is nonsense, "a federally backed program would encourage many more scientists (including the nation's best) to participate in finding lifesaving therapies.", If our nations best and brightest scientists are not already on board then maybe we need to question how valid our mission is. The reality is, any scientist not already interested is not worth having.

I do not think a subject where there is clearly this much public support needs so much hyperbole or questionable claims. Instead we should be open and forthright about the current state of affairs, the lack of success, the great difficulty in identifying the cells, the problems of host rejection, the lack of knowledge about how to trigger the positive cell growth.

These problems with the existing science are some of the bast arguments for federal funding. Even with all of the hope these cells generate, private funding is wary of the lack of immediate success. Federal funding has always been the way we made progress in the face of defeat. This is one of the arguments we need to communicate. Private funding is motivated by immediate gratification. Federal funds are, supposed to be, motivated by compassion and hope.

The symbol
Let me also express a different viewpoint on the symbol. Because of my viewpoint on the strategy I think a symbol that attempts to focus attention on the issue of stem cells may not be the right way to go. Instead I think you might want to look at focusing attention on the veto.

While rallying people around ESC research has its merits, I question whether it is possible to create a mark that truly expresses all the energy that this issue has at its core. But, while I have very strong feelings about this issue, this is not my project. I hope you are able to create something that is truly universal in its appeal.

I really think this should be more a campaign of images and copy, of people and dialogue, more than one symbol, no matter how powerful. Images and copy that evoke emotion without divisiveness or hyperbole. Imagine an image of an embryo in a test tube on the left with copy that reads "In this vial is potential life." and on the right an image of a ten year old girl who has undergone chemo with copy that reads, "This is potential realized." Followed by, "Please support Embryonic Stem Cell Research. There are no guarantees, but there is hope." this is just one feeble attempt, there are many more designers and art directors out there with far more talent than me, but I think you get the idea.

My motivation
Let me finish by explaining why I was motivated to write this post. I am a republican, actually a libertarian that votes republican. I voted for Bush, twice, and while I disagree with him on several things, I generally think he is a good person. I am also a christian, not evangelical or catholic, but still religous. I found your tone and some of the things you said quite disturbing. You initially stirred the sense of defensiveness that I fear you will stir in those we need to reach. I spent a couple days calming down before writing this. I did not need to calm down because we are at odds on the topic, but because I felt you were hijaaking the issue in order to vent anger you feel toward the president. I cannot allow people who, while they may believe in the cause, wish to use this as just another platform for president bashing; this is too important.

My grandma was the source of my mothers creativity and probably most of mine as well. She was also the source of my moms narcolepsy, parkinsons and most recently her stage four (Metasticized) cancer. Mom has dealt with these three demons at various stages her whole life.

As I have grown the same demons have taken hold of me, perhaps it is payback for all my wild living as a youth but these demons have started much earlier in me. I wish there was someone to blame but no one knows why these things happen, grandma didn't, mom doesn't and neither do I. I am no defeatist, but I have no false hope either. It is likely too late for medical research to help me or mom, but I have a little boy now, 21/2, and he is my world. He is my motivation, I need for this research to pan out, it is bad enough knowing you will not be there for your child as he grows, it is another to leave him without hope.

Everytime my little boy looks up at me and says "Daddy, I wuv oo" I want to run out and find someone to blame, someone to scream at. I want to yell "Why me, why is this happenning? Why????"

But there is no one to blame. Sure I could blame Bush for blocking federal funding, but it isn't his fault. While I disagree with him, I believe he did what he feels is right and I respect that. I could just as easily blame the thousands of incompitent doctors and scientists that have failed to come up with a cure. But that is not fair, they may have failed but they have done their best. I could blame the pharmaceutical companies that are not putting up mad money to fund stem cells so that the federal ban would not matter. But I know they answer to shareholders. Ultimately, there is no one to blame and that is fine. I spend too much energy being angry, energy better spent playing choo choos with my little guy.

After 9/11 America looked to the federal government to return our sense of safety and they did. Now we need them to return our sense of hope. I wish you speedy success in bringing that message to the people with the power to make it happen. There is a little blonde haired blue eyed kid full of piss and vinegar that needs that hope. So does his dad and his grandma.

middlesex community college nj

blackjack freeware download