Stem cell debate rages - who wins?

I've spent a lot of time reading about stem cells since Obama's Executive Order on March 9, lifting President Bush's ban on using federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells (ESC).

As an educated person, I should be elated by the developments. I work for an organization that supports stem cell research, so I should be professionally satisfied. Instead, I find myself irritated.

What I know of stem cells is that they have good potential. From what I've read, that's about all anyone knows about them. So, why is the scientific community standing on its head?

Many people say that those who argue on the grounds of religious beliefs are blinded by their faith. As such, they are labeled "fanatics" or "zealots". And, certainly many of the more vocal opponents do sound zealous.

But, when you look at those who support the research, there is an equal potential for blindness. Scientists follow a belief in science - that learning and understanding is paramount. And, some of the most vocal lay supporters are people and families stricken by diseases they hope will be cured. They too, place their faith in science that it will cure them. Is one faith or belief more blind than another? Opponents of ESC research would suggest that the research community has turned a blind eye to the benefits already achieved through the use of adult stem cells.

Scariest to me is that the controversy over stem cell research has become a weapon of sorts. People use it to place labels on others. It casts a dividing line in the sand, and all those that are not on the right side are on the wrong.

This is a debate that has the potential to linger for decades. Any successes in the research are assured to be years off. That assumes that success in the areas of ESC research ever takes place. I have maintained the personal philosophy to remain cautious unless I know I'm right. So, do people know they are right?