It wasn’t that long ago that things like creating a new human liver from scratch were entirely theoretical. I didn’t expect to see actual hands-on results as quickly as this, but it seems to be happening (which is good news for Hepatitis C sufferers.) While they can’t yet grow full-sized livers, this is quite a breakthrough, and growing usable sections of livers or whole, transpantable ones seems inevitable.
Interestingly, the scientists didn’t use embryonic stem cells, but umbilical cord blood:

While other researchers have created liver cells from stem cells from embryos, the Newcastle team are the first to create sizeable sections of tissue from stem cells from the umbilical cord.
They believe their technique is better suited to growing larger sections of tissue.
Use of cord stem cells is also more ethically acceptable than the use of embryonic stem cells – a process that leads to the death of the embryo.
The Newcastle researchers foresee a time when cord blood from millions of babies born each year is banked, creating a worldwide donor register for liver dialysis and transplant.
Computerised registers could then be created to match the cord blood with tissue type or immune system of patients with liver problems.

I’m wondering what is meant by “more ethically acceptable than the use of embryonic stem cells,” though.
Does “more ethically acceptable” mean that there are any ethical objections to utilizing umbilical cord blood? Or is it just surplusage of language, like saying that good is more ethically acceptable than evil?
I’m not going to spend all day on this, but I was unable to find a single objection to umbilical cord blood research. This statement is typical :

There are no legal, ethical, moral or religious objections to using these cells.
Dr Peter Hollands, UK

Perhaps the objections will come later, but I don’t see them now.
(Maybe they’ll be along the lines of “why create new technology to extend life when people are starving/shouldn’t they simply die with dignity?”)