As contemporary students of science and science policy, these authors find it hard to gainsay the easy abstractions of Hurlbut and Robert's commentary. "Good science is an achievement of a good society." They also share much common ground on the details. For instance, they endorse the majority of Hurlbut and Robert's thoughts with regard to the implications new induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) technologies have for both science and policy. These authors are struck by the fact while both they and Hurlbut and Robert acknowledge similar scientific and clinical developments, the recent history of the field leads Hurlbut and Robert to conclude that "The pipeline is a pipe dream" while they view the same developments as evidence of real movement toward admittedly and perhaps damagingly overoptimistic goals. In this commentary, however, the authors choose not to dicker over the relative success or failure of the field because they concur with the idea that a flat cost-benefit analysis of the therapeutic and scientific return on public investments is an injustice to both science and democracy. The authors' call to liberalize and regularize funding for stem cell research is predicated on what they perceive to be scientific and clinical momentum, as well as on the development of what they take to be a robust institutional infrastructure for ensuring that such research takes place within ethical boundaries acceptable to the majority of citizens.