A little over a year ago, this magazine published an article called, "God in the Laboratory." It was a brief explanation of stem cell research in general, and a criticism of research that resulted in the destruction of human embryos.

Since the original publication of that article, I have seen a few developments that warrant review of what I wrote in October 2006. First, let's go over some older territory. I wrote then, that though "stem cell research itself is a bundle of complex technologies with ramifications in the worlds of science, politics, and religion, some basic knowledge is not beyond the grasp of an ordinary person." Of course, if you have the interest and the background, you can delve as deeply as you want. However, if you do that, do what you can to be sure your source has at least been near the original sources such as the standard journals and references, and then try to determine if your source has been honest with the facts. In other words, what the headlines say may not reflect what the media article says; and what the media article says may not reflect what the researcher says.

So here are some basics, again from the 2006 article: "Stem cells are essentially 'master cells' that can develop into other types of cells. Theoretically, a stem cell extracted from one part of a human body could become a different type of cell or tissue."

You can see at once why this would be an important benefit. Brain cells and nerve cells, ordinarily unrecoverable once destroyed, could conceivably be replaced. Stroke victims, paralytics — virtually any ailment related to the nervous system — could be cured. Imagine replacing a kidney with no danger of rejection because it would be a DNAidentical copy of your own diseased one. A good eye could replace your diseased eye.

And the thing is, stem cell therapy is already at work. Stem cells from a person's fat, bone marrow, or placenta have been used to treat spinal cord injuries, arthritis, heart damage, and some forms of cancer, and according to the organization Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, about 73 different ailments have been treated with stem cells.

But note well. These remedies have all been accomplished with transferred adult stem cells. In fact, as far as I can tell, Christians have raised no moral or ethical objections to the use of post-natal (after birth) tissues (i.e. placenta, cord blood, etc.) or adult tissues for stem cell research and cures.

The ethical concern arises because what I wrote in 2006 is still true: "Researchers believe that embryonic stem cells would be superior to their adult counterparts because they theoretically could develop into all types of cells. Think of it — in the first few hours and days of life after conception, every future human organ and tissue is actually present in that tiny embryo, therefore researchers view these cells as having far more potential." But now, as then, to extract those cells, the embryo must be destroyed.

Now that in itself causes the thinking Christian to sit up and notice. But the debate is stirred when you consider that to date, no remedies or treatments have resulted from embryonic stem cell research (lots of tumors, but no remedies). Not only that, researchers and their political supporters who wish to disguise the nature of their work have adopted innocent-sounding terms to keep us off balance. For instance, to do the research properly, you have to have sets of identical embryos to work on, and the way you get them is through cloning.

Say the word cloning in any context, and you will note a negative vibe in the room. People will get uncomfortable. Add the word human, as in human cloning, and the authorities may be alerted. Human cloning, as in "making a new human being," is almost universally condemned. But what else can you call it when you clone an embryo? TIME magazine answers by telling us "scientists have taken to [using] 'somatic cell nuclear transfer' — a term researchers use to avoid the more incendiary word cloning, even though it is the same technology that created Dolly the sheep." (TIME, August 7, 2006, p. 49) Note that even TIME says the word is incendiary.

But here the researchers say there is a distinction between therapeutic cloning — cloning an embryo for the purpose of extracting cells (and in the process destroying the embryo, and what they are arguing for) — and reproductive cloning in which the embryo would be allowed to develop and mature (which they say they aren't going to do, no way, no how, ever). However, any honest analysis of the issue has to admit that cloning is part of the process. The difference is, when you engage in therapeutic cloning, life must be destroyed in the process, while in reproductive cloning the embryo is allowed to live.

Ah, well, we mentioned Dolly the sheep a couple of paragraphs ago, and that brings us to one of the recent developments that caused me to reopen these old files. I read in November that Ian Wilmut, of Edinburgh University, had embraced a technique developed by Professor Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University, Japan, that involves genetically modifying adult cells to make them almost as flexible as stem cells. Cloning human embryos, or whatever more acceptable term they choose to use, is not necessary. Yamanaka's research indicates that all you need is a bit of adult skin to accomplish nearly the same thing. In other words, Dr. Wilmut of Edinburgh has abandoned cloning of human embryos in his stem cell research. But who is Dr. Wilmut, and why is that significant? In 1996, Dr. Wilmut was hailed as the researcher who gave us Dolly the cloned sheep. But this past year, after noting some new technology from Japan, and the concurrent similar research in Wisconsin from one James Thomson, the first himself to isolate human embryonic stem cells about a decade ago, Wilmut says he believes that within five years the work of Thomson and Yamanaka will provide a better and ethically more acceptable alternative to cloning human embryos.

According to Baptist Press, C. Ben Mitchell, director of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and a consultant for the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, "We don't want to jump the gun scientifically, but this may well be the end of the debate over embryonic stem cells. The interesting feature of this announcement will be to observe how it reframes the political debate." And again he says, "Embryonic stem cell research may have just become extinct." (Tom Strode, BPNews, Nov 20, 2007)

And at the risk of sounding like a late night TV ad for stainless steel knives, there is more. Just this month, another possible technological breakthrough has been announced. Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer at Advanced Cell Technology, and his team published a paper in a stem cell research journal describing a technique for taking stem cells from human embryos without destroying them. While people on both sides of the debate contend there are still ethical issues that need to be addressed when using this and other proposed techniques to accomplish the same thing, some things are abundantly clear.

First, even though conservative Christians have been consistently bashed in the media as Luddite (The noun Luddite refers to one of a group of early 19th century English workmen who protested automation of the power weaving loom. Today the word is used to refer to anyone who is opposed to technological change or new working methods), anti-scientific know-nothings in the debate, would these new techniques be sought out without a display of moral insistence? We may never know what ethical questions drove these researchers, and even though researcher Wilmut insists he did not abandon cloning primarily on ethical grounds, this new research shows that scientists need not leave their moral sense at the laboratory door. Scientists with truly open minds on such issues will accomplish a greater end.

Second, President Bush was right to take a moral stand on the stem cell research issue when he prohibited federal funding for the creation and destruction of human embryos. He withstood pressure, even from some traditionally pro-life legislators, but he held firm for life. While there is still much work to do, and embryonic stem cells may never yield the results researchers hope, respect for sanctity of life has been upheld.

Third, the pro-abortion people are not happy about these developments. They have long hoped to put off a legal decision on the rights of the unborn that all you need is a bit of adult skin to accomplish nearly the same thing. based upon the definition of an embryo as a human being. Stem cell research was, for many pro-abortion supporters, a firewall. Not only condoning, but also commending the destruction of human embryos as a positive good has, for the pro-abortion lobby at least, been important. If these embryos are not human in any meaningful sense, perhaps the same could be said of any life, whether in the test tube or still yet in the womb. On the other hand, take away the necessity for destruction, and you clear the way for science and law to declare an embryo a person for the purpose of human rights, and this society can take an important step back toward a proper and godly respect for unborn life. I expect the pro-abortion people will oppose funding for these new research techniques, and some have already begun arguing against them and playing them down in the media.

I wonder who the Luddites are now?