More Media Bias by Omission in Describing Human Cloning
Here's the latest blatant example of bias by omission in the mainstream media when describing somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning. Once again, the reporter is Nicolas Wade, who writes in today's story about the Hwang Woo-Suk scandal: "In an article published in Science in March 2004, he claimed to have performed the first nuclear transfer with human cells, the cloning procedure in which a nucleus from a person's adult cell is inserted into a human egg, from which embryonic stem cells are obtained." (My italics.)
False. Embryonic stem cells are not derived from eggs. The egg ceases to exist once the SCNT is completed, just as it does upon the completion of conception. At that point, a new, integrated individual human organism comes into existence that is called an embryo. The embryo is developed for a week and then destroyed for its stem cells.
It would only take an additional 7 words to be accurate, to wit: "...in which a nucleus from a person's adult cell is inserted into a human egg, transforming it into an embryo, which is later destroyed to obtain embryonic stem cells."
Why the incomplete description? Perhaps because polls show that if people believe mere cells are created, they support therapeutic cloning. However when told that embryos are created and destroyed in the process, they oppose therapeutic cloning.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 7:53 AM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
Somehow, these mistakes or omissions, always fall on the one side. If this were one article, I would say you might be right. But it is a repeated approach to descriving SCNT and therapeutic cloning, as I made clear in an article in the Daily Standard.
If they wanted brevity, the media could write that therapeutic cloning creates a human embryo for use and destruction in embryonic stem cell research.
Remember, just because you are paranoid, that doesn't mean they are not really after you.
I never intentionally quote mine, to use your term, nor do I ever intentionally misquote or take out of context.
And I have always maintained that these were moral and ethical arguments, as opposed to science arguments. I do maintain that the emerging peer reviewed science seems to demonstrate that most or all of the clinical benefits (so far emptily) promised by ESCR/Cloning supporters will be obtained from non embryonic sources of regenerative medicine, and far sooner. However, this is not to say that all of the basic research benefits would be the same.
But the pro cloners have fashioned this argument based on hyped promises of CURES! CURES! CURES! and it is on that basis that they will hopefully be defeated.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
One more point. In my years arguing these issues, I have only had one complaint about my use of quotes from those quoted: It was a few months ago in an article I wrote about "amputee wannabes," and a pair of Australian bioethicists who supported amputation in some cases as an appropriate treatment for the condition. I didn't agree with their objections but I posted their letter to me in full on this blog and included the cite to their article so readers could decide for themselves whether my take on their position was correct.
The 100 million is a rough figure that comes from the National Academy of Sciences and would not be materially reduced by taking out Alzheimer's cases. The point of the egg dearth isn't materially altered by removing this condition from the computation.
Mombaerts out of context? Oh come on! I was completely accurate about what he wrote. And, while I didn't discuss his entire article in that piece, I did in Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World, pages 79-80, where I report that he expected, based on mouse experiments, for it to take one hundred eggs to derive on patient specific cloned embryonic stem cell line. He claimed that for the eggs alone, the cost would be between $100,000 and $200,000, which he believed would "impede the widespread application of of this technology in its present form." The only outs to the egg dearth that he foresaw would be morphing eggs from embryonic stem cells, which is very iffy at best, or using animal eggs, which would create a chimera, (page 80). My article was not about his article but cited his article. One only has so much space, you know.
Lanza was opining in his article that therapeutic cloning, as opposed to embryonic stem cell research with discarded embryos, is the best source of regenerative medicine. He believes that the need to make so many different ESC lines to allow tissue typing and avoid tissue rejection, makes cloning the better approach, which is what I wrote.
I did not mislead in either of those two examples at all, nor did I quote mine. I did not change the meaning of what these writers were stating by quoting out of context. I did engage in accurate reporting.
As to some blog criticizing me, I can't be expected to go chasing after my critics all across the ether. If people I quote have a problem, they can contact me directly. So far, only the one pair of authors ever has, and I believe they are wrong.
One last point. The publications in which I publish FACT CHECK! And THEY have not received any complaints, either. So frankly, you are way off base in your criticism. But, I appreciate the time you took to engage me on this issue.
But, I urge people to read the original articles and see for yourselves.
No apologies are necessary. You did not abuse my blog. And I wish you the best of the holiday season and the new year.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home