Busy day for science news today.

The IPCC’s report on global climate change is being reported just about everywhere. Here are a few good stories I would recommend:

The NY Times for the basic story

This piece from Scientific American digs a little bit deeper beyond the general conclusions to talk about some of the data backing up these conclusions.

And if you want to bypass the media, keep an eye on RealClimate, the blog kept by 11 climate scientists, including a NASA climate modeler and one of the lead authors for the IPCC’s 2001 report. This blog has helped to distill the science for people outside the field. They haven’t posted yet today but surely will soon.

A little closer to home, George Daley of Children’s Hospital lead a team of scientists who today published an international set of guidelines for stem cell research in Science today.

The bone of contention: whether women who donate their eggs for cloning experiments (to produce embryonic stem cells) should be paid beyond just reimbursements for expenses. The guidelines leave it up to local authorities to make that call. Other guidelines such as those laid out by the US National Academy of Sciences prohibit this kind of cash payment. Paying donors may be a form of coercion for a procedure that is fairly invasive. The counterargument: not paying them for their eggs, while research subjects are routinely paid for participation in other types of clinical trials, is unfair. (This article from New Scientist gives a good roundup.)

Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University, was a member of Daley’s panel. She’s come out publicly criticizing the part of the guidelines covering the payment issue. Here’s an excerpt of what she said:

Research participants undergoing an MRI for research or those donating blood, urine, sperm, or bone marrow for research are compensated financially in recognition of their personal contribution. In my opinion, to not do so for women undergoing hormonal stimulation and invasive ooctye retrieval for research is just plain unfair. Research ethics dictate that the opportunity to participate in and derive benefits from research should be equitably distributed in society and not limited to those who have the financial means to participate. The ethical principle of respect for persons dictates that we not diminish ooctye donors’ contribution to research by excluding them from established research practices.