A big high-five goes out to James A. Thomson. The man is credited for single-handedly ending the war on embryonic stem-cell research. (Although, it shouldn’t be overlooked that he was the one who started the moral debate in 1998 when he first experimented on human embryos. But hey, even spider-man killed someone in his early days.) Now, only human skin cells are needed for stem cells, and we’ve got a whole layer of that.

“A decade from now, this will be just a funny historical footnote.”

Think about it: No more embryonic stem-cell research and no more moral ambiguity. Christian fundamentalists can stop lamenting over could-have-been babies. Stem-cell research can reach unrestricted heights. U.S. Presidential candidates can stop sweating about scientific knowledge. Everyone wins, right? Wrong, at least for now.

    The debate on embryonic stem-cell research is arguably one of only two science-related issues for U.S. Presidential candidates. (It plays second fiddle to global warming.) Truth be told, it’s not even a debate—most candidates supported embryonic stem-cell research as long as it is within reasonable limits. But with Thomson’s new findings, we just might see stem cells disappear from political agendas for good.

    Let’s hope not. Science seems to be increasingly marginalized, and this is bound to lead to unknown dangers. Remember, it was only recently that we realized global warmingis real (and many people still don’t believe it). Worst yet, nanotechnology is slowlyclimbing the things-that-could-kill-you ladder. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a Presidential candidate to know his/her science, and sadly, we just might lose one of the two qualifiers. Sorry, James A. Thomson, but I’ll take that high-five back.