Why would a reasonable, unbiased person use the phrase "supposedly available for research" when the reputable fertility clinics stated they would be? As for the results of the questionnaire being challenged by some researcher, I am sure that is true. One can cherry-pick anything and eventually come up with a response that suits the picker.
I understand that anything and everything can be found by surfing the Internet - from the sublime to the ridiculous. All research is tentative until proven conclusively. As for a "better study," does it then follow that a "best study" would be a facsimile of one's beliefs? The public should be suspicious of any study funded by an interest group of whatever stripe; as an example a study on the efficacy of a drug funded by the pharmaceutical company that make the drug should be suspect. I see that evaluation as a no-brainer.
Ninety-eight percent of scientists around the globe are convinced that global warming is occurring and at an alarming rate. So one can search on the 2 percent who believe otherwise. But occasionally an epiphany happens, as GWB announcing that, yes indeed, there is global warming after all (how proud Yale must be).
If I interpret the John Hopkins and Duke fertility clinics studies correctly, the focus of the clinics was the treatment of infertility issues and only after the fact did the question of what to do with the remaining embryos arise. The patients were given options. I see the options of donating them to other infertile couples and/or donating them for research in the same vein as donor symbol on a driver's license, i.e. as an act of altruism.
