That said, assuming his description of the technique is reasonably accurate (which, given the above-mentioned nonsense, is by no means certain), this sounds like an interesting and useful technique.
Some opponents have argued that stem-cell research is useless as well as, in the case of embryonic stem-cell research, ethically questionable. I take it the author's point is that now we can prove the general case: stem-cell research can lead to cures, and so disprove one of the (tactical) arguments of opponents. Rush Limbaugh at one point said embryonic stem-cell research in particular is useless, so he won't be bothered by this news.
Also, most of the arguments I've heard against embryonic stem-cell research acknowledge that it might in fact produce life-saving or life-changing treatments, but that it is nonetheless morally and/or ethically wrong. A literary parallel is Le Guin's "Those Who Walk Away from Omelas:" enormous good comes at the price of involuntary sacrifice on the part of a single innocent. Some conclude that the trade is morally and/or ethically acceptable because of all of the good that is obtained, which cannot be obtained by any other means; others conclude that the good obtained from the sacrifice does not justify the evil of the sacrifice.
And given that adult stem cell research 1) is morally unobjectionable; 2) is yielding effective treatments; and 3) contains no rejection risk ... I cannot understand why so many have pressed so hard for embryonic stem cell research. Factor #3 alone ought to be enough to give ASCR the edge.
Yet in the U.S., federal dollars have effectively been taken away from ASCR and given to ESCR.
It may be ignorance. It may also be intentional, glossing over the difference in order to try to weaken opposition to ESC research.
Either way, it's an unfortunate blot on an otherwise solid article covering a tremendously interesting piece of news.