I was glad to see President Barack Obama remove the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The ban set a terrible precedent, and those in favor of science and progress probably felt relief. However, I think many have overestimated the importance of lifting this ban.

There is a lot of loud talk about stem cells involving some bad information, so I want to clear some things up first. A stem cell is simply an early cell that has the potential to develop into most kinds of cells. They are found in both embryonic and adult tissues. Stem cells hold significant promise for saving lives because theoretically they can develop into cells that could replace damaged cells in patients with illnesses like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

Current treatments such as radiation and drug therapies treat the damaged cells and are only temporary fixes. The reason stem cells got so much hype is that the research began with stem cells harvested from embryos. (To repeat, stem cells are found in embryonic and adult tissues.) The ban, instituted by the Bush administration, prohibited federal funding only for embryonic stem cell research besides that for 60 pre-existing cell lines. Privately funded embryonic stem cell research continued during the ban in the U.S. and abroad.

Harvesting stem cells from human embryos is just one technique in a vast field of research that became extremely politicized because of its proximity to the pro-life/pro-choice debate. The left held it up as a panacea for debilitating illnesses, while the right would not compromise its moral principles to allow research to go on. Both positions were bad ones, but here I will only take issue with the left's hysteria. It may surprise some that, as a liberal, I believe it is simply wrong and misinformed to think stem cell research is some kind of panacea for debilitating illnesses.

I think we have been duped by politicians - intent on politicizing an issue - into believing stem cells harvested from embryos are the only way to cure illnesses like Alzheimer's and cancer. The initial ban did not signal the apocalypse like so many suggested it did, and its removal does not necessarily mean stem cells will cure these illnesses. Growing stem cells is but one technique - albeit one with huge potential -that has not yet cured one single patient of a debilitating disease.

I do not mean to write off embryonic stem cell research. It was an important precursor that led to investigating how the body regenerates and heals normally. It had never occurred to anyone to look for stem cells, and the idea of the embryo was a necessary step. For this, medical science should be eternally grateful. Moreover, embryonic stem cells still hold a great deal of potential. But when the ban was lifted last week, the science world celebrated quietly: The field had moved on.

Since the 2001 ban, stem cell research and medical science more generally have progressed. Lifesaving research did not die when federal funding for embryonic stem cells did. Numerous studies have successfully grown stem cells from the patient's own tissue. Getting cells from the patient as opposed to harvesting from embryos is actually a superior technique because there is not the same risk of rejection. And that is only the stem cell field. There are many other fields of life-saving medical science in addition to stem cells.
To me, the removal of the ban is more a symbolic victory than anything else. The Obama administration strongly indicated that lifesaving science and medical progress would not be obstructed for political or moral reasons. In Obama's own words, it indicated that he would make "scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."
So, my fellow liberals, while this might be too little too late, I still think I need to say it: Relax.

—James Stoeckle is a senior in the College of Arts and Science. He can be reached at james.h.stoeckle@vanderbilt.edu.