Owen-Smith et al. (this issue) answer the question about expanding funding for human pluripotent stem cell (hPSC) research decisively and emphatically. They conclude that the U.S. federal government should expand funding in volume and scope, and stabilize it through regularity. According to Hurlbut and Robert, If the clear goal of policy should be to increase present and future activity within the hPSC research domain over the long term, the solutions are simple--and their recommendations are on target. This, however, is the right solution to the wrong problem. These authors highlight two premises of Owen-Smith et al.'s essay that they find particularly problematic: (1) One should not mistake the categorizations of research--or research objects--that are employed in public debate and policymaking as matters for science alone. They do precisely this in lumping all forms and sources of cells under the heading of "PSC research."; and (2) Owen-Smith et al.'s assertion that "widely accepted ethical standards and effectively implemented institutional rules make the expansion of federal support for hPSC research unproblematic." It is correct that more elaborate and standardized approaches to governance have emerged in the last several years, in particular with the National Academies guidelines and the creation of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Oversight (ESCRO) committees, but these institutional developments in no way reflect a resolution of the broader controversy.