One of the most surprising aspects of last week's decision by the British government to recommend that research be allowed on embryonic stem cells (see page 815) is not the decision itself, but the length of time it took to emerge. After all, the principle that human embryos up to 14 days old can be used in research was approved by parliament ten years ago, after lengthy public debate, when it passed the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act. A new parliamentary decision is only needed now because, in explicitly listing the types of research covered by the act, work on stem cells was not included — for the simple reason that such research was unknown at the time.

The delay is being widely interpreted as reflecting the government's nervousness about the likely public reaction to its proposal. Ever since the political fiasco over the safety of genetically modified crops, there has been an air of uncertainty hanging over how to handle sensitive decisions involving a potential clash between scientific advances — particularly those related to health and reproduction — and public sentiment. The case of BSE showed the world how this should not be done.

In contrast, the British debate on research using embryos, which has involved a lengthy dialogue between scientific, legal, religious and ethical experts, open participation by members of the public, and will culminate in a free vote in parliament, is a case study in how to do things correctly. So, although the government's caution is commendable, the appearance of hesitation is less so. Researchers have confidence in the value of the science — even if only as a necessary step towards what is being described as the ‘Holy Grail’ of reprogramming adult stem cells. Politicians should have equal confidence in the robustness of the democratic process.