Surely these were events described by Nostradamus or Bosch, or in prophecies of the Apocalypse. Would stem cell scientists, eyes aglimmer, remember or forget what we all have learned time and again: that new science and new technology always, eventually, take on a life of their own, in ways we do not predict? Yet here we are—no minotaurs in evidence; no stem cell civil war. To the contrary, we have an extraordinary degree of pluralistic consensus, and an intertwined scientific and ethical path forward that was unthinkable in 2001. Has it really been

just 10 years? What did it take? And what will it take, for the challenges that remain? We have all heard the arguments for scientists to engage responsibly with the public over the aims, norms, and social selleck consequences of their work. I have made such arguments AP24534 in vitro myself; as I wrote in 2007, “Abandoning real public engagement is not ending it. It is abandoning it to the forces scientists fear.” (Taylor, 2007). And we have all heard the arguments why scientists can ignore social implications: “knowledge” is science’s business, and science is unconstructed and value free: leave consequences to others. We will not replay those tapes here. Instead, this is an opportune time to make a different argument, an argument from looking back, concerning the bridge that scientists and society must construct together, when biological novelty challenges

the public and personal senses of self and society. On what did this social and scientific transformation rest? Is it complete? What remains to be done? It rested on this: devotion to actively engaging with public discussion and personal responsibility, over hard issues, leading to the ISSCR’s unusual step to donate its expertise to patients seeking help, by turning the light of its own inquiry on commercial purveyors PAK6 of unproven therapies (Taylor et al., 2010). This sort of engagement is not abstract. It proceeded from real awareness that one false step could end a career and a field. It went beyond downloading “facts” and theories to a public often portrayed as scientifically Luddite; this was no simple

picture of the Light of Reason dispelling the Darkness of Ignorance. There was more serious listening, within a shared public-scientific sphere, and joint tinkering with how concerns were framed and solutions proposed. More caring about those whose lives could be affected—from embryonic ones to adult ones—sufficient to cut across partisan politics. More insight that the autonomy of science depends on the moral authority of its actors, and that that moral authority is earned through interaction, not through disengagement or pronouncements that reduce normative positions to empirical ones. More mutual recognition of pluralistic values inevitably in tension, a tension to be lived with and acted through, not ended through some ideological or pragmatic victory.