As for clinical trials (the first ones on sci); I believe one are aiming at the lesser of the evils first, i.e. mid thoracic injuries where few peripheral nerves and nerve roots are located and also to avoid direct interference in lower thoracic injuries where CPGs etc. are located and also to avoid additional problems with cervical injuries as for interfering with breathing control and also complicated areas as UMN and LMN areas. Remember the first steps in trial settings are to build proof of principles and effectiveness of these, hence one are aiming at areas in the spinal cord where these principles best can be obtained, and also to avoid further damage, thus on mid thoracic injuries one also are focusing on neurological complete injuries. Then when these proof of principles and effectiveness of these are convincing one also for sure will include other parts of the spinal cord. As for research; remember that not all basic sci research has clinical trials as their main argument, much of this research in fact are done to better have a understanding of the spinal cord and the CNS as a whole, this research then of course looks at all the physiological and anatomical structures of the spinal cord, for gaining more knowledge, like for example quite a bit of research is also carried out on the brainstem, -motoneurons and interneurons are also for example studied quite a bit as a area of research itself. Also, as for areas mentioned by some above, professor Raisman in the U.K. for example is studying brachial plexus injuries, damages to cervical nerve roots, which also can have some to say as for LMN injuries. I think there is some good research ongoing different places in the world, which in time hopefully can materialize in many clinical trials on different types of spinal cord injuries. Anyhow, that’s what I think.