Scientists have been stuck in a bit of a dark period thanks to the ban on the use of federal dollars to conduct research on human embryonic stem cells. After eight long years, scientists can finally get back to the business of conducting lifesaving research thanks to President Barack Obama’s executive order reversing the ban.

The executive order, which the Obama administration released last Monday, revokes a policy implemented in 2001 by the Bush administration which limited federal funding on stem cell research on the basis that such research resulted in the “destruction of human life.” Harvesting embryonic stem cells (which have the unique capacity to differentiate into several kinds of cells) results in the destruction of human embryos, and the administration could not justify the “deaths” of these embryos — despite the fact that some of these embryos would eventually be disposed of once their period of usefulness expired.
In other words, this policy represented an extreme form of the pro-life argument.

Apparently, the destruction of human embryos solely created for research purposes is too much of a burden on some people’s consciences. I’m not a follower of utilitarianism, but it seems justifiable to destroy one little bundle of cells for research that could potentially improve or even save the lives of thousands of people.

I guess this thought occurred to Obama as well, and lo and behold, scientists dependent on federal funding are now free to pursue potential cures for Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and even cancer. Of course, with the current economic situation, it seems unlikely that giving extensive funding to stem cell research is a top government priority at the moment, but once the financial crisis is over, the scientific community can expect to receive enough money to conduct its vital research.

Obama’s executive order is something about which people with vastly different political beliefs can get excited. For example, Sen. John McCain actually supports stem cell research. While staunchly anti-abortion people may never come around to the idea of stem cell research, the medical breakthroughs that will hopefully occur as a result of the research will benefit large segments of the population, no matter what beliefs they hold.

Looking at the bigger picture, this change in policy represents a triumph over the belief that government has the right to ban something on the grounds that it is inherently “immoral.” Bush’s argument against the research rested solely on a moral foundation. Don’t get me wrong — it is completely necessary to consider moral problems when thinking about scientific research. There are some pretty obvious immoral uses of science, such as creating clones to be our personal slaves or to serve as lab rats. On the other hand, it is much more difficult to make an argument against stem cell research on moral grounds.

While morality and ethics have their place in the realm of scientific research, does the government really have the right to decide what is moral? If you answer “yes” to this question, I wonder what your position is toward repressive, undemocratic governments in other parts of the world. I doubt you believe these governments’ attempts to impose “morality” on their citizens are justified. Moral standards are relative, and government cannot treat them as absolutes truths that must be followed at all costs.

My point is, there are some areas where so-called moral questions need to be pushed aside, and stem cell research is definitely one of these areas. The possible benefits from this research are staggering, and it’s good news for everyone that scientists now have a much easier time of pursuing them.

Aimee Sobhani is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Science. She can be reached at aimee.f.sobhani@vanderbilt.edu.