Another Example of Poor Journalism in Describing Therapeutic Cloning
I know I wrote an article on this type of media bias just a few days ago. But, they just keep on coming. Perhaps, I should start collecting the erroneous/inaccurate descriptions of somatic cell nuclear transfer and therapeutic cloning published in newspapers and use them for wrapping paper.
Here's one sent me from yesterday's New York Times (natch), written by Nicolas Wade:
"The two scientists' article, published June 17, attracted considerable attention because it reported the first step toward the proposed goal of therapeutic cloning, the idea of treating patients with new tissues generated from their own cells. Dr. Hwang said he had converted the adult cells of 11 patients suffering from various diseases into embryonic form, in each case by transferring the nucleus of an adult cell into an unfertilized human egg. Scientists hope that tissues developed from such embryonic cells could be used to treat a wide range of serious diseases."
Adult cells were not "converted" to embryonic form. What Hwang did was create human embryos through cloning. He developed the embryos for about a week and then destroyed them for their stem cells. The cells were no more the DNA donor's than the cells of a natural embryo are those of its parents. That's the biological fact, but the NYT doesn't think its fit to print.


3 Comments:
You think that is bad journalism? What should we think about the thousands of journalists that are afraid to ask questions to the administration? What about the silence of these so-called journalists on subjects that concern the very heart of democracy? Where are these journalists when the government explains itself about WMD, torture of prisonners, illegal jails, preemptive strikes against sovereign countries?
Is that good journalism?
I have not noticed the media being particularly nice or easy on President Bush, but those issues are beyond the scope of this Web Log. Thanks for writing.
Indeed, the real issues seems beyond the scope of your web log. I have just one question: how would you explain that you seem more concerned about an embryonic cell life than those lifes of foreign civilians threaten by a madman who tortures and kill - and goes to war - all that in the name of freedom?
Post a Comment
<< Home