Why does it have to be embryonic?

I am in complete agreement with Rick's concerns about President Obama's explanation for his new policy on stem-cell research.

I continue to be frustrated and bewildered by these sorts of proclamations about how vital it is to press forward on all fronts with embryonic stem cell research, when there seem to be so many more significant and therapeutically promising medical possibilities emerging from adult stem cell research.  This story, for example (which was buried somewhere in the middle of my own local paper sometime over the weekend), announces some incredible advances in turning a person's own skin cells into stem cells.

Although  I don't know enough about the amount of federal funding at stake, I also appreciate this fiscal argument being made by Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life:     

“Embryonic stem cell research is the research of the past.  Millions of dollars have been spent on embryonic stem cell research and it has failed.  To pour more money into it is simply a waste.”

Dr. Yoest continued, “Even more, this research destroys lives at the very earliest stage of development.  Adult stem cell research is helping people now.  If we’re going to put tax dollars into research -- particularly at a time of unprecedented federal deficits -- it needs to be research that protects life and helps patients now.”