Last week’s supposedly non-destructive embryonic stem-cell research breakthrough has, in the course of a few days, been exposed as not such a breakthrough and rather destructive after all. For a summary, go to Wesley Smith’s blog – Smith commends the Economist today for getting the 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.

Smith’s article in the Weekly Standard

In short – the Nature article described the experiment accurately. It was the press release from the research company whose research was presented in the article that misstated the facts, but it was the same research company whose stocks rose late last week as a result of the press’ unquestioning reporting of their press release as "news."

So now, it’s déjà vu all over again, with ACT lionized by a media stampede over a purported research breakthrough that the company did not actually achieve. This is not to say, of course, that deriving embryonic stem cell lines from a procedure that allows the embryo to survive is impossible–only that it hasn’t been done. Lanza’s experiment does demonstrate that stem cell lines can be obtained earlier than previously thought. But that wasn’t good enough for ACT’s pub licity office or the lazy reporters who regurgitated the press release. The failure to report this story accurately amounts to massive journalistic malpractice–and once again ACT is laughing all the way to the bank.