With the new guidelines set up by the NIH, the Obama Administration is moving very sensibly on a very delicate terrain, following both ethics and sound science. The original ban by the Bush Administration, which blocked federal funding for any research linked to the use of embryonic stem cells, incidentally led to a focus in the wrong direction.

By targeting the use of embryonic stem cells, the Bush policy veiled the more important question of the source of such stem cells, i.e. in vitro fertilization (IVF), which is essentially the creation of human life in a laboratory. The embryos that end up being used for research come from IVF, and their number pales in comparison with the number of human embryos destroyed otherwise, mostly by being simply thrown in the trash.

So if as a country we are to object to the destruction of human embryos, then the focus must be on IVF.

The new NIH guidelines limit embryonic stem cell research to the use of embryos that would have been otherwise destroyed. So in a sense, in lieu of having the embryo become a full growing human being, it is the honoring of human life by using this embryo to help an existing person, which is unquestionably better than simply throwing this embryo in the trash.

But this approach cannot be a long-term solution to the embryonic stem cell dilemma. Because as we begin looking at the problem for what it is, focusing on IVF, we will do one of two things: 1) abandon IVF altogether and develop better systems of adoption or 2) develop better protocols whereby fewer embryos are created with less leftover embryos available for research.

So the development of embryonic stem cell research is bound to face at some point a scarcity of human embryos, which will bring back the need for the creation of human embryos for the sole purpose of satisfying research interests. It is a little bit like the development of the oil industry.

We knew that supply was limited and that we would eventually face scarcity, but when that happened instead of adapting and developing other sources of energy we become hostage to a whole international infrastructure based on a non-renewable vanishing resource. Here, even if we use human embryos destined to be destroyed, by focusing on embryonic stem cells and developing a medical industry around it, we are forging a real problem for tomorrow.

It would be one thing if there were no alternative, but the media and the NIH itself have so far failed to properly and fully report and discuss the potential of adult stem cells, which has no limit. There is no doubt that any dollar invested in stem cell research would bring far greater dividend, scientifically, ethically, and socially, if it were invested in adult stem cell research.

It is a myth that embryonic stem cells are superior to adult stem cells:
1. Adult stem cells are just as effective as embryonic stem cells if not more, when used according to protocols that are designed for adult stem cells;
2. Adult stem cells do not carry the same risk of tumor formation as seen with embryonic stem cells;
3. There is no limitation to the supply of adult stem cells, as they can be extracted from anyone’s own body;
4. Recently, it was shown that tissue cells can be reverted to embryonic-like stem cells by genetic manipulation, completely eliminating the need for using human embryos.

Today, the new NIH guidelines clearly constitute a step in the right direction, as they promote the most judicious use of human embryos, but this approach cannot satisfy long term needs.

Considering all the scientific research available, the future of stem cell research is clearly with adult stem cells, and this is where funding should be mainly directed.