Actually though unless she copied things word-for-word it is not a copyright infringement.

Actually, sport, "mostly copied" could still be copyright infringement. The test is complicated -- the lawyers who specialize in this stuff like it that way -- but even partially copying something can be categorized as copyright infringement, ESPECIALLY if the infringement was used for monetary gain. And if it gets to the jury, there is no specific rule. If the jury thinks it's a rip-off of something else, they're likely to side with the plaintiff.

But since the list was just a small portion of her book and his web site, there's probably no legal issue here, and since the web site owner probably doesn't care, the issue won't get pressed, anyway.

But that wasn't my point. Just my segue.

The important question was: is there some credible evidence of adult stem cell research showing enough promise to justify the complete abandonment of ebryonic stem cell research? (I'm not arguing the morality of the action, just whether or not stem cell research is perfectly capable of going forward with adult stem cells.)