2006 (UTC) 

 Okay, I accept that the stem cell article, itself, has improved recently - especially in terms of presentation, clarity and succinctness - however I can’ help but feeling that we’ve done the wrong thing by creating sub-articles and divorcing much of the content away from the main article.  
 * Firstly, I suppose you could say that I object for philosophical reasons. As things stand, with the main article focusing on “the science” and the sub-article focusing on “the ethics”,  the Wikipedia community appears to be embracing the commonly held (positivistic) assumption that ‘science’ is driven by its own internal logic and can be distinguished from other pursuits such as ethics, theology and sociology. For obvious reasons, this illusory distinction is bound to appeal to the pro-research lobby who have sought to clearly and definitely draw a line in the sand between “the authoritative word of science”, on the one hand, and “ethical”/“moralistic”/luddite concerns, on the other.    
 * Secondly, I also object to recent changes on practical grounds. Maintaining multiple articles is inevitably more difficult than maintaining a single article. If a stable version of Wikipedia is ever to be published, and I’m not sure that this will (or even should) happen, it is going to be much more difficult to merge all the existing stem cell material into a useful and coherent whole. 
 * Thirdly, readers must now trawl through several different articles in order to get ‘the big picture’. 
 So, I accept that recent changes have improved the stem cell article, itself, but this minor improvement has come at the expense the communities coverage of the topic as a whole, which is now fragmented all over the place and inconsistent between articles - not to mention largely one-sided. 17:05, 2 February