The title would be somewhat inaccurate, as he doesn't disown cloning, he bows to a rival's superior method of using human embroynic cells over nuclear transferral. And if this means that I completely misunderstand the article, please correct me.;)
The technique involves reprogramming adult fibroblasts - skin precursors - to a primitive, embryonic stem cell state. The stem cells are not quite ‘totipotent” from what we can tell — they aren’t capable of forming new embryos. But they are capable of forming “all the cells of the body,” at least with manipulation in the proper environment.
We’re going to hear more and more dispute about the “proper” name for the cells — disputes over whether they are actually stem cells. And a huge amount of discussion about the dangers from the viral transfection that is used to add the genes that turn on stemness.
We will be expected to forget that
1. no one has been able to clone a human embryo,
2. the fact that true embryonic stem cells are short lived in the body and difficult to control,
3. That transfection with plamids and specialized virus particles is an established technique of gene therapy,
4. and that the production of stem cell lines toward the end-stage adult cells has used viral transfection as well.
I think "abandoning cloning" sounds like an accurate description of what Wilmut is saying.
The new process that Wilmut says is most promising involves no killing of any embryos, either cloned or naturally conceived.
Instead, these "versatile stem cells" are derived from adult skin cells.