The case that I referred to in my previous post gives a good example of why I do not belong to Greenpeace or support it as an organisation. I did belong to Greenpeace for a time, but I left it because I do not support its approach.
According to the report, the case against awarding a patent to convert embryonic stem cells into nerve cells was brought by Greenpeace. I have to ask, What does this issue have to do with Greenpeace? Converting embryonic stem cells to nerve cells is not analogous to pumping dangerous chemicals into the environment or hunting endangered species to extinction or destroying forests.
This sort of litigation is not what I would want from an environmental group. Of course, the members of the group, or their Board, or other appropriate people in the organisation, are entitled to decide what it stands for. I can't control that. But if it stands for opposition to embryonic stem cell research, based on whatever philosophy it's pursuing, I want no part of it.