Embryonic stem cell research has been highly controversial. Proponents urge the support of research, citing possible future breakthroughs in medicine. Stem cells have the ability to generate almost all cell types in the human body, and thus could replace diseased, damaged, or dying cells. The findings from stem cell research could save countless lives and help us learn more about the nature of diseases. Opponents lament that in order to save lives in the future, embryos must be sacrificed now. Embryonic stem cells are derived from blastocysts, which under normal circumstances would develop into fetuses but are destroyed when harvested for stem cells. But this moral quandary appears to have been rendered irrelevant.

A new procedure has changed the field of stem cell research. Labeled “nuclear reprogramming,” genes are inserted into fibroblast skin cells, causing them to lose their specialization. They imitate stem cells in the sense that they are in a “pluripotent state,” and can transform into any of 220 cell types found in the human body. This procedure should pacify those who oppose embryonic stem cell research on the basis of harvesting from embryos. Once nuclear reprogramming is fully understood, major roadblocks to progress would disappear. Using the new technique, researchers in the U.S. could utilize federal funds and facilities, easing dependency on state and private fundraising.

While the resolution of ethical issues surrounding stem cell research is significant and relieving, it is not the most consequential contribution from the two labs that conducted nuclear reprogramming testing in the U.S. and Japan. Using skin cells to develop stem cell lines increases the scientific capability of researchers to experiment and eventually remedy human suffering. Fibroblast skin cells are easy to obtain and grow in culture. Adult cells can be obtained from a skin biopsy using a method no more painful than a blood draw. The new technique is simpler and more precisely controlled than the prevailing method using stem cells from embryos. The Japanese team used just four gene-controlling proteins to induce the skin cells to behave pluripotently.

In addition, pluripotent cells produced using nuclear reprogramming are patient-specific. They have the exact same genetic material as their prospective hosts and thus would not be rejected by the immune system. This aspect is crucial for one possible use of stem cell technology — regenerative tissue transplanting. The new technique is a huge advance in stem cell science; efforts to produce such a cell for humans have been thwarted thus far, although the search is assiduously conducted. Readers may remember that in 2006 it was discovered that the South Korean biomedical scientist Hwang Woo-Suk falsified claims of creating cloned human embryonic stem cells. If nuclear reprogramming can eventually be mastered and deemed safe, the search will cease.

Nuclear reprogramming has already achieved spectacular feats. Researchers used the transformed skin cells to produce human brain and heart tissue. Cells induced to form heart tissue started beating in the laboratory after 12 days.

Stem cell research has arrived at a new crossroads. While relevant in the U.S. to research institutions such as Stanford, the end of the ethical debate is secondary to the new scientific potential of stem cell research. Nuclear reprogramming will allow scientists to easily furbish stem cells, which could result in organ replacements without the fear of rejection and the cure to such diseases as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Scientists, now able to focus on their specialty, may find another debate on their hands: who should receive federal funding to advance this highly promising new generation of stem cell research? Stanford, with its resources and human capital, appears well poised and as likely a recipient as any.