Yesterday Congress sent President Bush a bill that would ease restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research—substantially the same bill he vetoed in July. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, it emerged that three independent teams managed to reprogram skin cells to their embryonic state in mice. These reprogrammed embryonic-like cells (“induced pluripotent stem cells” or “iPS cells”) were observed to have many of the traits of embryonic stem cells, and were created without the unethical destruction of human embryos or the problematic procurement of human eggs. This is just one of many recent and fascinating efforts to try and advance the causes of science and medicine within an ethical framework that respects the dignity of the human person. Such efforts undermine the trope that the stem cell issue is “Bush vs. Science” or “Christians vs. Science” or whatever imagined villain the country’s alarmists would have standing in the way of “progress.”

For years now enterprising scientists have endeavored to derive embryonic stem cells without destroying human embryos—either out of respect for the inherent dignity of embryonic human being, or out an aversion to ethical and political controversy, or out of a simple sense of challenge. A number of novel solutions have been proposed: harvesting stem cells from “recently deceased” embryos, or reprogramming regular human cells with the assistance of human eggs. Each of these proposals has pushed the limits of our scientific and ethical understanding.

Almosta year ago, Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University first offered the results that were independently confirmed this week. Dr. Yamanaka announced that by altering four genes in a skin cell, he and his team were able to create an embryonic-like cell with the apparent immortality and plasticity that are so therapeutically promising. Rightly, following the Korean cloning fraud, this announcement was met with suspicion. Now it seems Yamanaka has replicated his results along with a number of other independent research teams elsewhere in the world, making it clear that his breakthrough in reprogramming was not a fluke, but rather holds real promise.

What exactly is that promise? Embryonic stem cells can form colonies that replicate indefinitely, and as a “master cell” a stem cell can become specialized cells in the human body. Of course, in terms of therapeutic potential this is all theoretical, since in spite of embryonic stem cells’ immortality and plasticity they are nowhere near being used in clinical trials. The iPS cells will likely be the same. As their name indicates they retain pluripotency. They also have three other properties of embryonic stem cells: the formation of cellular colonies, immortality, and the propensity to create teratomas. This third factor is what makes clinical applications from embryonic stem cells—or iPS cells—so unlikely: they tend to grow into tumors.

The simple fact is that, in spite of what John Edwards might claim, stem cells probably won’t be used for regenerative medicine. Even if the tumor problem were solved and clinical applications became possible, embryonic stem cells are already lagging far behind adult stem cells in their therapeutic application.

The scientific value of embryonic stem cells and iPS cells probably lies, instead, in advancing our understanding of human development. Manipulation of these master cells can augment our understanding of how we developed in the embryonic stage. It also might help us understand how degenerative diseases progress. Unlike adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells and iPS cells may not make the blind see; nevertheless, they certainly might aid us in research that could prove medically useful.

What is remarkable about Dr. Yamanaka’s iPS cells is that they can realize this research potential within pristine ethical confines. The primary ethical barrier for many (myself included) in embryonic stem cell research lies in the necessary destruction of an embryonic human person in order to obtain the cells. Still others who might not recognize the inherent dignity of the human embryo might feel some unease at the prospect of creating embryos for the purposes of research, which is not an unlikely future outcome as we have seen from research in England. In Dr. Yamanaka’s breakthrough we can see evidence of a proposition that has been lost in the often demagogic debate on the issue: science and ethics do not have to work at cross-purposes. Somatic cell reprogramming is revolutionary in its technique, vast in its potential, and without ethical objection from right or left. Hopefully while Congress bickers interminably about Bush’s stem cell policy, more enterprising scientists will continue to make their subject of debate obsolete.

Michael Fragoso is a research assistant at the Family Research Council.