IN THE LAST six months, two important planning documents for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine have been released. One is the strategic plan prepared by the Multi-Agency Tissue Engineering Science (MATES) Interagency Working Group (IWG) and published in June 2007. Entitled ‘‘Advancing Tissue Science and Engineering,’’ the MATES IWG plan identifies strategic priorities and implementation steps for a coordinated federal effort to advance the field. It represents the collective thinking of the MATES IWG members, and the Executive Summary for this plan is published in this issue. It has the support and buy-in not only of the MATES IWG members, but also of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Science and Technology Council. The other document is an article in this issue of the journal authored by Johnson et al. and entitled ‘‘Strategic Directions in Tissue Engineering.’’ This planning effort, led by four individuals active in the field and involving a number of others, used what is described as a modified Hoshin process to assess the immediate priority of fourteen different categories of critical activities, with the goal being for tissue engineering to achieve clinical success by 2021. These two efforts are highly complementary to each other and together provide considerable direction as to what is needed in the future to advance the field. The MATES IWG plan identifies four what are called ‘‘overarching goals’’ for the field. These range from understanding the basic biology; to scaffolds and matrix; to the enabling tools that will be necessary; and finally to issues of scale-up, translation, and commercialization. It then identifies eight strategic priorities. The Hoshin process, on the other hand, provides an analysis of an interdependent set of activities, and the need for an understanding of angiogenesis, of stem cell science, and of the use of molecular biology and systems biology tools dominate the results. Also, high on the list from the Hoshin analysis are cell sourcing and characterization, clinical understanding and interaction, and immunologic understanding and control. Although angiogenesis is identified as being critical to the growing of larger, thicker engineered constructs, nothing is said about innervation, which many considered to be equally important. Furthermore, whereas the Hoshin process identifies stem cell science as important, the technologies necessary to move stem cell–based therapies to the patient bedside are not directly addressed in either planning document. Finally, although understanding basic biology is a priority in both plans, within this there is no discussion of developmental biology, a field of critical importance as one moves from the replacement to the repair and regeneration of tissues and organs. Both plans address issues related to translation and commercialization. Knowledge generated from research in basic science and the development of enabling technologies contribute to and inform the systems and processes for translation to products and commercialization. It will be difficult, however, to prioritize the list of ‘‘strategic priorities’’ in the MATES IWG plan, because all are important and interdependent. For example, in vitro and in vivo model systems serve to elucidate a product’s mechanism of action and inform the development of appropriate assessment measures to address shortand long-term patient monitoring, as well as product performance. Because the establishment of a viable industry is a goal of both plans, criteria for prioritizing ‘‘strategic priorities’’ should be developed with the at-large tissue-engineering community and with active participation of industry leaders.