Sunday, August 27, 2006

THE ECONOMIST Gets the ACT Story Right

Wonder of wonder, miracle of miracles: Proving that it is possible to report accurately about the stem cell debate, The Economist actually got it right when describing ACT's stem cell experiment, to wit:

"The firm's success is not, however, quite as clear-cut as it seems. The researchers only had 16 embryos..., so to maximise the number cells they had to play with, they used most of the cells in each. That, of course, destroyed the embryos, so their technique is only a stepping stone to the desired outcome of working from a single cell each embryo. Even then, they were able to establish only two stable cell lines from some 91 initial cells.

"Nor was it clear whether the cells cultured together in this series of experiments came from the same or different embryos. That matters because single-cell biopsies would only work with this method if cells from unrelated embryos can nurture each other..." (Page 64, August 26, 2006 edition.)

Perhaps if the reporters for the American MSM would read The Economist before writing their own stories, we might be treated more often to accurate information.

6 Comments:

At August 28, 2006 , Blogger Royale said...

What do you think of Plan B OTC?

 
At August 28, 2006 , Blogger Royale said...

did you get my second question? there was an error in the page.

 
At August 28, 2006 , Blogger Royale said...

Guess not - what about fertility clinics? It's one thing to object to ESC research, but I think that logic demands shutting down the fertility clinics.

Are you in favor of that?

To me, it would seem that if all post-conception entities should be given full human rights, then we should shut down the clinics as they inevitably result in excess and/ or destroyed embryos.

 
At August 28, 2006 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Off the point of the post. In this thread, we are discussing the apparent writing inability of the media to report the ACT stem cell "breakthrough" correctly.

For the reasons that I see a distinct difference between IVF and ESCR, I refer you to my book Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World.

 
At August 28, 2006 , Blogger Jen said...

Check out the story Newsweek has in the current issue:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14535678/site/newsweek/

They have an interesting way of saying media failed to grasp the true story:
"But within days of publication, that wasn't so clear. A more careful examination of Lanza's work showed he'd only proposed a new method, but hadn't in fact proved it worked from start to finish."

 
At August 28, 2006 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

In other words, Newsweek admits it wasn't really a big story, but it played it up any way. Thanks, Ms. Saunders!

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home