I found this interesting article while sifting through the Associated Press headlines this morning.
In promising new research, stem cells worked remarkably well at easing symptoms of muscular dystrophy in dogs, an experiment that experts call a significant step toward treating people.
"It's a great breakthrough for all of us working on stem cells for muscular dystrophy," said researcher Johnny Huard of the University of Pittsburgh, who wasn't involved in the work.
Sounds pretty cool, huh? After all the fracas before the election about embryonic stem cell research, Michael J. Fox's supposedly nonpartisan (but highly partisan) ads, and the made up flap surrounding whether Rush Limbaugh made fun of Fox, it's nice to see progress from embryonic stem cell research.
Only this isn't it.
It isn't until you get to the sixth paragraph that you find out the stem cells used were from the affected dogs or other dogs and not from embryos.
Considering all the interest and controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research, why did it take the reporter six paragraphs to tell readers that this was just a normal, everyday stem cell research story in which embryonic stem cells weren't used? Did the reporter not realize that the term "stem cell research" has come to mean "embryonic stem cell research" out in the hinterlands? SCR was certainly used as shorthand for ESCR for at least the last month in every story concerning Michael J. Fox's ads, Rush Limbaugh, or the Missouri fake anti-cloning law.
I conclude that the reason a more precise term for this research wasn't used is because, once again, it shows that the progress made on stem cell research isn't coming from embryos. But if you paid attention to the flap from last month, you probably knew that already.
|