H E C FORUM 2005; 17(1): 49-63.  2005 Springer. Printed in The Netherlands. 49 BIOETHICS, RELIGION, AND DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION: POLICY FORMATION AND EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH MIRIAM BROUILLET, M.A. and LEIGH TURNER, Ph.D. The issue of embryonic stem cell research is generating considerable public controversy in many countries around the world. This discussion is particularly adversarial because of its connection to the long-standing dispute regarding the ethical status of embryos. Many contributors to debates on stem cell research would like to move beyond seemingly interminable debates on abortion as well as the moral status of embryos and fetuses. However, given the source of embryonic stem cells, discussions about the ethics of using stem cells derived from embryos persist. Some interlocutors regard embryos as “sacred” and deserving of respect, dignified treatment, and “moral standing.” Other participants in debates insist that embryos are not persons and have no significant moral standing. Participants in contemporary public debates concerning the ethics of embryonic stem cell research have disparate views regarding the moral status of the embryo. Societies for the advancement of scientific research, scientists and their professional organizations, patient lobby groups, and religious bodies reveal different assumptions, arguments, and policy objectives. Within the policy-making arena, legislators and other makers of social policy are confronted with competing moral claims when trying to craft broadly acceptable legislation. According to proponents of models of deliberative democracy, the arguments and claims of all interested parties or stakeholders should have access to the realm of public deliberation. Most accounts of democratic political theory emphasize inclusiveness, shared deliberations, and broad participation in political dialogue rather than practices of exclusion from the arena of ethical and political deliberation. However, this ethic of inclusiveness, respectful conversation, and reasoned dialogue is challenged when some interlocutors are not open to processes of deliberation and argumentation. In such a case, democratic deliberation faces an impasse; conversation comes to a halt or interlocutors argue at cross-