The FDA recently permitted Geron Corp., a biotech company in California, to test embryonic stem cells in human patients for the first time. Apparently deciding to forego the numerous ethical and safety concerns associated with this practice, the FDA gave Geron the green light the same week President Barack Obama was inaugurated. This is undoubtedly a sample of the “change” we have been promised.   Geron should abandon the limelight in favor of patient safety. Possible tumor formations and the need to place their patients on anti-rejection drugs are both dangerous risks that are not worth the modest results the tests will yield. But it seems the only risk Geron is concerned with is the possibility that embryonic stem cells may be merely equal, or perhaps lesser, than their counterparts — adult stem cells.Adult stem cells are often overlooked as an alternative to embryonic stem cells. The two are similar in function, but adult stem cells are taken from areas including the wisdom teeth, brain, bone marrow and liver and can only re-grow tissue in the area they were taken from.This means adult stem cells can be harvested as needed, assuming they are accessible. Contrary to embryonic cells, adult cells do not require anti-rejection drugs because they are usually taken from the patient’s own body.Given that Geron Corp. has abandoned the moral alternative adult stem cells offer in favor of the ethically obscure and largely untested, one can’t help but wonder if they were simply motivated by patent money rather than     scientific progress. Most of the leverage proponents of embryonic stem cell research have gained is based on the argument that many embryos left over from in vitro fertilization — a form of artificial insemination — are slated by their parents to be destroyed anyway. To sidestep this argument, something must be done to reduce the amount of leftover embryos. The obvious answer is to impose IVF regulations. Not only would this lower health risks for the patients, it would help them avoid grappling with morally ambiguous questions and nasty custody battles that sometimes occur when couples separate, leaving frozen embryos in limbo.New technology has streamlined the IVF process, making regulation possible.      Researchers at Stanford University of Medicine conducted a study last July and discovered by looking at  several different factors in their patients such as age, hormone levels, egg quality and embryonic characteristics, they could predict a pregnancy with a 70 percent accuracy rate. After an initial test cycle, doctors used this information as a reference point to adjust the amount of embryos created in the process according to the patient’s fertility, thereby reducing extra embryos every cycle.A study conducted five years ago at Sahlgrenska, a Swedish academy, discovered another reduction method. The findings reveal the success rate of multiple implants doesn’t significantly exceed that of a single implant, thus eliminating any need for extra embryos — or excuses to create them.These methods can reduce the chances of having high-risk pregnancies, save patients money by predicting pregnancy rates, improve health and eliminate the stress of answering the question above Obama’s pay grade. Quite frankly, no one has the authority to answer that question to satisfaction — the FDA included. Perhaps they should have remembered that, before considering themselves the authority on what constitutes the exact moment of commencement of life. Though this moment may never be determined beyond doubt, human life is not something to gamble with. It should always be given the benefit of the doubt, not exploited for scientific advances that are uncertain at best.—-Contact Linnie Leavins at [email protected]