cell research guidance included the relative merits of hES cells vs. induced pluripotent stem cells and clinical trials and translational research.

Some of these topics may have little to do with the Guidelines themselves, but might make excellent topics for future workshops or studies. In light of these discussions, the Advisory Committee decided that:

• The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee should prepare this brief final report communicating to the stem cell research community those elements of the National Academies’ Guidelines that should remain in effect and under what conditions.

• Following the completion of this task, the Advisory Committee should disband.

The Advisory Committee also discussed the feedback from stakeholders on future mechanisms for discussion of stem cell issues. Although government agencies such as the NIH, professional societies such as the ISSCR, consortia such as the Interstate Alliance on Stem Cell Research,⁶ and meetings organized by many different organizations and institutions provide opportunities for discussion, there does not seem to be an ongoing neutral forum for productive discussion of stem cell issues. Participants at the committee’s August 2009 meeting mentioned that the National Academies and the Advisory Committee had served this important convening function over the last several years, and there was a need for a similar continuing activity. Perhaps most needed is a forum that could bring together key stakeholders—including federal, state, academic, patient, and industry organizations and institutions— for periodic meetings that would address topics of shared interest and concern to the broader stem cell research, regenerative medicine, and policy communities.

Finally, the Advisory Committee presents here an amended version of the National Academies’ Guidelines (Appendix C) delineating those sections of the Guidelines that are superseded by the NIH rules for federally funded research.