Parliament’s decision to approve research using “admixed embryos” that contain human and animal material is not going to lead to immediate medical breakthroughs.

Cells taken from “cytoplasmic hybrids” or “cybrids” - the main type of admixed embryos - are never likely to be transplanted into sick patients. Any insights that they might offer into diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, too, are probably years away.

The outcome of last night’s vote, however, is still a watershed for British science. First, it clears the way for experiments that could advance understanding of several devastating conditions, and the prospects of using all types of stem cell, embryonic and adult, in therapies.

Just as importantly, it confirms the value placed on free scientific inquiry in Britain, where regulation rather than prohibition is deemed the proper approach to ethically contentious research.

As cybrids are supported by all the country’s leading scientific institutions, a ban would have suggested that this considered consensus matters less to Parliament than the vocal concerns of a religious minority. That would have led researchers in this field, and perhaps in others, too, to question whether the UK remains a good place to pursue a scientific career.

By placing the nuclei of human cells into empty cow eggs, scientists hope to create cell models of diabetes or motor neuron disease, using DNA from patients with these disorders. These could be used to investigate how these conditions progress, and to develop and test new drugs.

Human eggs could be used for these experiments, but as these cannot be donated without risk to women, they are always going to be in short supply. Animal eggs, which are plentiful, can now be used.

Scientists do not know yet if the cybrid approach will work, though early indications are positive. That, though, is why they want permission to do these experiments – without them, we will never find out.

Much was said in the debate about the benefits of adult stem cells, which are already used to treat dozens of conditions. MPs who oppose embryonic research also talked up the promise of induced pluripotent stem (IPS) cells, made by reprogramming adult skin cells into a versatile embryo-like state, and stem cells from umbilical cord blood.

All these approaches are exciting, but they are no reason not to proceed with embryonic stem-cell and cybrid research. This is a young field, and it is too early to pick winners. That is why the Medical Research Council splits its budget roughly equally between embryonic and adult stem-cell research.

Cybrid and embryonic research is actually likely to assist adult stem-cell research: parallel studies can reveal important details about how all these types of cell give rise to more specialised tissue.

IPS cells may well be the future of regenerative medicine, as they do not require the destruction of embryos, but they would not exist without the past decade of embryonic work. They are also not close to being ready for therapeutic use. As cybrids also involve reprogramming of the nucleus, they could inform new approaches to turning back the clock on adult tissue.

The defeat of the move to ban true hybrids is also welcome. Though no experiments with these embryos are yet planned, they will help research into male infertility, in which scientists can study how sperm works without needing scarce human eggs.

The vote is significant for another reason: it will encourage scientists to speak out more about their research. The Government intended to ban cybrids, but changed its mind when stem cell experts such as Stephen Minger and Lyle Armstrong took time to say what they planned to do, and why.

Times Recommends

• Catalogue of failings ‘leaves others at risk’
• Tourists told to stay away amid Venice floods
• Google generation has no need for rote learning