We all know people who have suffered inexplicably from diseases. It could have been Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease or diabetes. Maybe a friend was severely injured in a car accident and lost the use of his spinal cord. Most of us would move heaven and earth to help our loved ones and find a cure for these diseases or injuries. Now it will be possible to pursue these cures as President Obama has reversed Bush’s limits on embryonic stem-cell research.

Previously in the realm of science, we operated in an idealistic state, not a rational state. In his speech on stem-cell research, Obama called for “making scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.” The past eight years have been purely that — a pursuit of an ideology that will not come.

Stem-cell research was previously outlawed, because it consisted of experimenting with human embryos. In stem-cell research, scientists watch how embryonic stem cells grow and reproduce. With the type of knowledge scientists gain, our knowledge of the human body will be greater and breakthroughs in the field of cell-based therapy will occur.

The way we sought an answer to these diseases was illogical. Those who supported the banning of stem-cell research claimed they were doing human life a favor, because human embryos were no longer used in the laboratory.

However, we must look at it from another angle. We are doing human life a disservice by banning stem-cell research, because scientists are not exhausting all their options to find a cure for numerous diseases. Stem Cell Information states on its Web site — stemcells.nih.gov — that “embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro — in an in-vitro fertilization clinic — and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors.”

Those that have explicitly chosen to donate their eggs for research should not be punished, but rather applauded. They have knowingly donated a part of themselves to science to further the field of medicine. It would seem fruitless to stop their wishes by limiting embryonic stem-cell research. Not only is this decision based in ideology, but also it hurts the wishes of those that donated to the research.

In a New York Times article published last week, a Republican lawmaker called Obama’s decision “now demonstrably unnecessary.” His statement represents the view of many opponents of embryonic stem-cell research.

Scientists have made advances in using adult stem cells from non-embryonic sources. When examined, though, the advantages of embryonic stem cells tower over adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are much easier to come by; they can be grown, while adult stem cells are harder to find and there is no certain way to multiply them yet. A fewer number of stem cells means fewer opportunities to study and research. This ultimately means our ability to save lives is severely hampered.

We owe it to the future generations to invest fully in embryonic stem-cell research.

A young Michigan woman named Erica Nader is a stem-cell research success story. She was injured in a car accident and paralyzed from the upper arms down as a result. Stem cells were taken from her nose and used to treat her injury. She is now reportedly able to exercise on a treadmill.

If we want to find a cure for some of society’s most traumatic diseases, we need to use all the tools at our disposal. This includes utilizing embryonic stem-cell research.

With the restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research lifted, we have many more chances to succeed in the area of stem-cell research. Success is the only option in this area. We have the means to find cures, so we must.

Reach Andrew at andrew.hedlund@asu.edu.