Inbox

Stem-Cell Study Moves Ahead

I was thrilled to read about Douglas Melton in the article "The Quest Resumes" [Feb. 9]. The work he and his colleagues are doing will result in numerous lives being saved and an end to the untold suffering of many who deal with chronic illnesses. Ali Curry, HOLBROOK, N.Y.

Perhaps if Alice Park had interviewed even one opponent of embryonic research, her article would not have lacked so many important facts. Adult (nonembryonic) stem cells, dismissed by Park as "less versatile," have already treated thousands of actual human patients in the fight against conditions like juvenile diabetes--a disease mentioned anecdotally by Park. Different types of adult stem cells (there are several) can be used for different situations; we do not need a one-size-fits-all cell that can become anything. Brian Gillin, BROOMALL, PA.

No one, including former President George W. Bush, is against stem-cell research. It's embryonic-stem-cell research that's debatable. The so-called dark days of the Bush Administration's stem-cell restrictions were a result of our former President's courage to enact policies that reflected his belief (shared by many) that life begins at conception. It's because of these restrictions that scientists discovered the exciting potential of other types of stem cells. Diann Claassen, TEMPERANCE, MICH.

Passing Along Social Security

Michael Kinsley hypothesizes that the typical American family will be handing down Social Security entitlements to their children as an inheritance [Feb. 9]. Using the same Federal Reserve data Kinsley cites, the median net worth of couples ages 65 to 74 in 2004 was $190,000, including housing assets. By definition of the term median, this value is far more representative of the typical American family than the average net worth of $691,000 he quotes--which is skewed higher by the wealthiest 10% of families. That recalculation, combined with the large decline in net worth for most Americans in 2008, considerably weakens his premise. James Strycharz, HOLYOKE, MASS.

Bravo to Michael Kinsley for daring to point out that many recipients of Social Security do not really need it. Indeed, my wife and I inherited some Social Security from our parents, and it is likely that our children will inherit some from us. However, I disagree with Kinsley that fixing it would be a nightmare. Just pay me back what I put into the system over the years. Any more than that is simply welfare, and I should receive it only when I desperately need it. Of course, to make such a radical change, Congress would have to show some backbone to withstand the weight of a million AARP members descending on them. Are we really ready for President Obama's "new age" of "hard choices"? Chuck Irwin, WILLIAMSBURG, VA.

Returning Social Security benefits to the government is ludicrous. People who have paid their taxes for decades should not be penalized because, unlike the government, they managed to invest and save some money. John and Anne Molnar, SYLVANIA, OHIO

The Outest Mayor