As President Obama signed his executive order on Monday (March 9) that allows federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research, he promised that "science," not "ideology," would rule the ethical debate.

"In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama said. "In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent."

(Translation: the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is not a player in this White House.)

Some Catholic politicians, like Sen. Ted Kennedy and Vice President Joe Biden, skipped the signing ceremony. But not House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- she was there, front and center, decked out in Lenten purple.

But there was nothing penitential in Pelosi's smile as she watched eight years of ethical wrangling over stem cells and tax dollars go out the White House window.

Former President George W. Bush limited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to the stem cell lines that existed prior to 2001. By only using what was already available, he avoided the question of embryo farming.

Now Obama's executive order says, basically, that anything goes -- or anything should. It will be up to the National Institutes of Health to set the limits, and they've got 120 days to do the job. For now, at least, federal funds cannot be used to create embryos solely for research.

Yet science has a voracious appetite for more and more experimental material. Privately funded stem cell lines are out there, sure, but scientists will want more. Obama and the House Speaker are ready to pour millions of dollars into the Petri dish to help make that happen.

Obama said scientists would not be allowed to use cloning for reproduction. But what about for experimentation? Will they be allowed to clone embryos to feed science's appetite?

Let's assume cloning is ruled out. In order to create new stem cell lines, you need new embryos. And in order to get new embryos, you need human eggs. (Cloning cow, rabbit and mice eggs doesn't work.) That means more poor women will be paid to have eggs surgically removed.

Or there are the frozen "excess" embryos sitting in fertility clinics, which proponents say should be eligible for research if they will otherwise be discarded. But this scenario carries its own problems: Can frozen embryos be brought back to life? What about the parents? What about the moral status of the embryo?

Not to mention the biggest elephant in this room: none of the promised therapies derived from embryos even exist. Only one has limited FDA approval -- and that's to see if it's safe, not if it works. There are also problems with embryonic stem cells that people don't like talking about, like their propensity to form tumors.

And who will benefit from these possible therapies? They are not scraping willow bark and making aspirin here. They are promising fantastical cures for cancer, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injury, and heart disease that, if possible at all, are generations away. Presidential flourishes of the pen have again raised false hopes.

Obama says he wants to "develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making." He adds that his administration will "make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology." Without saying so, he seems to equate "ideology" with religious teaching.

Does he want to decide these questions without religious input? If scientific "integrity" means the absence of faith-based ethical reasoning, we are most certainly on the brink of a brave new stem cell world indeed. It will be interesting to see whom the president listens to.

Phyllis Zagano is a Fulbright Fellow in Religious Studies at Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, Ireland. She also holds a research appointment at Hofstra University.