The following editorial appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer on Wednesday, Aug. 24:

There’s nothing politicians like better than an excuse to do nothing. And now, thanks to a recent announcement in the journal Science, they’re mopping their brows and preparing to do just that.

The subject is stem-cell research. In 2001, the Bush administration set guidelines for federally funding such research. It banned government funding unless scientists used a few specified stem-cell lines (most of which turned out to be useless). The policy didn’t make much sense. The White House set itself up as a big ethical gatekeeper – but only for academic researchers. Private-sector scientists could do whatever they wanted. Academic labs were forced to look elsewhere for support, and British and South Korean labs shot ahead of America in stem-cell work.

In May, the House passed a bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Mike Castle, R- Del., and Diana DeGette, D-Colo., which would have relaxed some of the Bush restrictions. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., flipped and flopped on the bill, finally saying he would support it. Even had it passed Congress, it probably would not have withstood a Bush veto.

But now Frist may not have to worry about that. In this week’s Science, Harvard scientists reported that they had fused skin cells with embryonic stem cells. In effect, the skin cells were “reprogrammed” to assume something like embryonic characteristics. The new hybrids were then prompted to become nerve, hair follicle, muscle, and other kinds of cells. This technique offers promise that stem-cell research could eventually be done without destruction of embryos. There’d be no need for the current debate. Yippee! Yahoo! said the Washington tightrope-walkers.

Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who opposes embryonic stem-cell research, is already telling the Washington Post things such as “all this is confirmation we will see breakthroughs without compromising ethical standards. … We’re not going to have to (do research on human embryonic cells) if we can just be patient and fund the basic science.”

Right, Senator. Reallllly patient. Like 10 to 15 years. The poor Harvard scientists tried to get across a warning that few people heard: “This technology is not ready for prime time. … This is not a replacement for the techniques we already have.”

Scientists are working on many alternatives to embryonic stem cells. In some limited experimental settings, a few have shown promise in treating disease. But not to any large extent. If a viable, large-scale alternative ever is found – one that doesn’t entail waiting a generation for major progress – then by all means, leap at it. Who wants to sacrifice a single embryo needlessly? But science isn’t there yet. With current tools, society is still forced to make an uneasy choice between tissue with the potential for human life and awful human suffering.

Trying to avoid the choice equals making a choice – the wrong one.