On March 9, 2009, President Obama overturned former President Bush’s executive order banning federal money from funding embryonic stem cell research. He cited his desire to make decisions “based on facts, not ideology.” While the pundits on both sides of the issue have criticized or lauded the move using the same tired old lines from the 90s cultural wars, few have considered the implications of divorcing science from ideology.

Today, through science, we have an undisputed power of destruction, unprecedented mobility, near omnipresence with information from around the world available at the speed of light, and, finally, the ability to change the very makeup of life itself. We stand on the brink of obtaining the ability to change ourselves at will, the power to manipulate our physical forms into whatever we desire. The question is, do we look back at the past and reject this power to preserve that which is essentially human, or do we continue without looking at the ramifications of what we are about to do?

Science, for as many questions as it can answer for us, fails us in answering this one. Whether from resentment of the past or desire for purity, many scientists shun the “arbitrary” morality of the past in favor of consistent systems derived from natural laws and scientific principle. Unfortunately, such emphasis on natural law leaves out an element that our ancestors seemed to believe was an essential part of humanity.

Science without the moral and ethical guidance of history’s collective human experience ceases to serve humanity and, instead, only serves to continue its own existence. This is not to say by any means that science should be abandoned, rather this suggest that science and humanities must be equals. It has a tremendous potential, but without the guidance of human experience, it pursues avenues of research that are perhaps the very antithesis of what we see as human traits.

Cloning illustrates this point very well. There’s nothing scientifically wrong with reproductive cloning. What scientific fact precludes citizens’ ability to choose to recreate a deceased child if they so choose? Furthermore, there is no scientific reason to avoid cloning for organ harvesting. Consider the possibilities. You commission a clone of yourself and, before it is brought to term, you harvest the organs and mature them individually for future organ replacements. Many individuals find the idea of cloning for organs repugnant, but the important question, however, is why do find such a technique so repulsive? Scientifically, the idea is sound. It is an expedient method of crafting perfect, replacement organs. It might violate scientific codes of ethics, but aren’t those ideologically based as well?

The simple and obvious answer is that ideology stays our hand. Fundamentally, science is neither ethical nor unethical. It makes no judgments beyond whether data was obtained in a manner that ensures repeatability and a sound application of the scientific method. Any further judgments are inherently ideological restrictions and wholly subjective. The President, contrary to his rhetoric, has kept ideological restrictions in place, as many people would have been horrified by their removal.  The claim that ideology can be removed from science is ridiculous at best and deeply disturbing at worst. We must realize that science, as a study, does not share our horror; everything is fair game unless we, as humans, declare otherwise. If we wish to be served by science, ideology must regulate scientific study.

We as humans, should not only be able to restrict science, but we should feel obligated to ensure that it does not disrespect the sanctity of human life under the guise of serving us. When so many people feel so strong about this issue, it is indeed wrong to force them to fund it through mandatory taxes, especially when there are promising alternatives. Whereas President Bush’s executive order was intended to allow people to choose for themselves whether to fund such controversial research, President Obama’s decision is nothing more than an attempt to force his own ideology upon the entire nation under the guise of doing the very opposite.