Whole point all along - IF ACTC process neither damages nor destroys embryos, then neither Clinton's Dickey-Weber amendment prohibitions nor Bush's EO which allowed limited ESC tests but restricted Fed funding nor BO's obfuscating and irrelevant EO make many difference. But, main problems are ACTC (mis)management and PR, coupled with the declining confidence in the scientist. Why didn't NIH provide ACTC more than $198k in 2008 (could have been hundreds of thousands or more if they really felt ACTC was valid)? Something is and has been very strange with ACTC and NIH, and no one has addressed how the new funding controlled by NIH will provide anything at all to ACTC (especially with 14,000 applicants for funding). Again, IMHO ACTC has bad management, worse PR, questionable patent support, and any scientific advantages rapidly vanishing. Again, if nothing major within next week, then last one out turn off the lights. This is extremely dishearetening considering the confidence we had (misplaced) in the comnpany and the great advantages ACTC appeared to hold but did not capitalize on. As with any patent, businesses do not wait on a patent approval to act - first to market is THE key. Agree - if nothing huge by May (also about same time as NIH funding plan should be disclosed) then I'd imagine most longs will be shortly gone. Please encourage ACTC to get off their collective duffs and ACT (words are just words) before it's too late.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
