Once upon a time, scientist Galileo Galilei discovered the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. Despite the fact that his work was later adopted and revered by scientists worldwide, the Church at the time — unappreciative of his accomplishments — persecuted him for his heretical comments. Galileo was forced to abjure everything he discovered contrary to the literary text of the Holy Scriptures. Moral codes — then — stopped the progression of science.Although the story is historically accurate, people now perceive it as a fantasy. But now we live in a world filled with scientific discoveries. We would never actually persecute scientists for their beliefs. Would we?Our society is no better than that of Galileo’s time. Society persecutes, hinders and even forces scientists to stop their lifelong work in the name of morality. The U.S. prizes its morally and ethically dominating culture. Everyone has an opinion. Scientists are therefore unable to make significant medical progression. Morality and ethics unnecessarily hinder science.However, scientific discovery necessitates a liberal environment to do the required research. Human embryonic stem cell research — the core of scientific controversy — is a prime example. In the developing embryo, stem cells have the ability to differentiate into all of the specialized embryonic tissues. By culturing these embryos, stem cells can be grown and transformed into various specialized tissues such as muscles or nerves. The medical potential of such a discovery is phenomenal. Theoretically, whole organs can be grown when there are none to find amongst donors. But human embryonic stem cell research is prohibited by the government in the U.S.This research is controversial because it requires the destruction of human embryo. Abortion rights opponents argue the embryo is equivalent to human life. Thus, the embryo is entitled protection. Opponents of stem cell research argue that such discovery could possibly lead to reproductive cloning or genetic engineering.President George W. Bush vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act in both 2005 and 2007. The bills would have allowed federal funding of stem cell research on conditions that the cells were derived from discarded human embryos. Mixing science and morality in the same pot only sets the whole country back.The U.S. must learn from countries like Sweden. The country has strong public support, a favorable bioethical environment — and more importantly, adequate government funding. The framework for legislation and ethical guidelines for this kind of research were worked out reasonably fast. Discarded embryos or donated embryos were deemed ethically defensible.Funding from private international agencies also aids their research. The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research donated a reported $4.4 million for the production of cell lines designed to advance the study and treatment of the disease. Maybe research in the U.S. is hindered because of a misconception about the definition of a “scientist.” Perhaps, contrary to popular belief, scientists are not horded off in dark towers creating “mad science” by robbing graves in the middle of the night to create their own Frankenstein’s monsters. The intention of science is always to facilitate human life. The actions to attain that good ending need to remain objective.The U.S. should not mix morality and science when there is no need for it. People must remember in order to make a discovery, something must be sacrificed. Cats must be dissected in order learn about the body, but many cats benefit in the end because of veterinary medicine.If killing innocents in war is justified, then the destruction of a few cells to defeat diseases is ethical. I am not advocating that science be above the law, but we must consider the good in the intentions of the research first and be optimistic even with the sacrifices.     —-Contact Dini Parayitam at [email protected]