Irony on top of ironies. I was perusing the daily batch of clips our faithful communications department produces and what should come one after the other?

First, a press release from pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter with the all-in-capitals headline, "THIS WILL BE THE YEAR FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH." He means, of course, embryonic stem cell research.

Immediately afterward, a story about a sensational breakthrough in Canada, the first paragraph of which is "Scientists have developed what appears to be a safer way to create a promising alternative to embryonic stem cells, boosting hopes that such cells could sidestep the moral and political quagmire that has hindered the development of a new generation of cures."
Indeed, this could well be the year--of ethically acceptable, far more promising venues than hollowing out human embryos.

Those of you who have followed the intense debate over embryonic stem cell research know that one of the most promising alternatives is to reprogram adult stem cells (typically skin cells)--to send them back in time, so to speak. The Washington Post's Rob Stein put it this way: to "coax skin cells into a state that appears biologically identical to embryonic stem cells."

This gets a little technical but bear with me. The alternative cells are known as iPS cells (induced pluripotent stem cells). The technique for producing them was first reported in November 2007.

So how have scientists induced adult stem cells into becoming embryonic cell-like? They've used a virus as carriers to bring extra copies of four growth factors into a cell. Genetically reprogrammed, the cell is returned to an embryonic-like state.

But as the Toronto Star explained in its excellent story, "the virus disrupts the cell's DNA and may trigger cancer." So the search was on for another way to reprogram cells.

Last year Andras Nagy and a team of scientists at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto started to investigate a new reprogramming method. Soon afterwards they began collaborating with a British group led by Keisuke Kaji at the University of Edinburgh, according to the Star. (Their findings were reported Sunday in a pair of complementary papers in the journal Nature.)

"In the new work, Nagy and his colleagues in Toronto and at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland instead used a sequence of DNA known as a transposon, which can insert itself into the genetic machinery of a cell," Stein reported. "In this case, the researchers used a transposon called 'piggyBac' to carry four genes that can transform mouse and human embryonic skin cells into iPS cells. After the conversion took place, the researchers removed the added DNA from the transformed cells using a specific enzyme."

"This double sequence of non-virus delivery and complete removal of growth factors is what makes the finding so important for future research on patients," the Star reported. "Nagy likens the process to a space shuttle ditching its rocket once the fuel has burned up and the shuttle has reached space."

Stein provided quotes from two well-known researchers.

"It's very significant," said George Q. Daley, a stem cell researcher at Children's Hospital in Boston. "I think it's a major step forward in realizing the value of these cells for medical research."

"It's very exciting work," agreed Robert Lanza, a stem cell researcher at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass. "With the new work, we're only a hair's breadth away from the biggest prize in regenerative medicine -- a way to create patient-specific cells that are safe enough to use clinically."

Naturally, some, while praising the research, insisted that work on embryonic stem cells research should continue. But what is clear is that the field of ethically acceptable alternatives is progressing by leaps and bounds. The following quote says it all.

"Stem cell research that requires destroying embryos is going the way of the Model T," Richard M. Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told Stein. "No administration that values science and medical progress over politics will want to divert funds now toward that increasingly obsolete and needlessly divisive approach."