Two weeks ago in the Wall Street Journal, a Harvard scientist tut-tutted conservatives for standing in the way of medical progress — i.e., opposing destructive embryonic stem-cell research. “Conservative stem cell opponents have now begun to argue in earnest that embryonic stem cell research is not just morally wrong, but also unnecessary, an argument that relies on suspect science and appears motivated by even more questionable principles,” wrote David Shaywitz. “Conservatives seem to have left their usual concern for junk science at the laboratory door, citing in their defense preliminary studies and questionable data that they would surely — and appropriately — have ridiculed were it not supporting their current point of view. In fact, there is little credible evidence to suggest adult stem cells have the same therapeutic potential as embryonic stem cells.”

Well, it turns out that maybe conservatives aren’t such numbskulls after all. Here’s the key line from an important story in today’s Washington Post: “The gathering consensus among biologists is that embryonic stem cells are made, not born — and that embryos are not an essential ingredient. That means that today’s heated debates over embryo rights could fade in the aftermath of technical advances allowing scientists to convert ordinary cells into embryonic stem cells.”

What an irony that conservatives have to tell scientists to slow down and see if science itself can solve some of our worst moral dilemmas.