Slashdot Mirror


Stem Cell Research Paper Recalled

MattSparkes writes "One of the best-known stem cell papers describes adult cells that seemed to hold the same promise as embryonic stem cells. Now some of the data contained within the paper is being questioned, after staff at a consumer science magazine noticed errors. It shows how even peer-reviewed papers can sometimes 'slip through the net' and get to publication with inaccurate data."

4 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting by edwardpickman · · Score: 0, Troll

    I find it interesting that these are the very reports the anti fetal stem cell people always quote. Seems like a consistent theme of anti global warming and anti fetal stem cell factions, psuedoscience.

  2. Somebody should tell the king... by DogDude · · Score: -1, Troll

    Somebody should tell King Bush. Sure, Jeebus won't be happy, but the US is starting to look like a backwater country when it comes to science with him at the helm. The whole "stem cell debate" thing makes me embarrassed to tell people that I'm American.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Somebody should tell the king... by abigor · · Score: 0, Troll

      Saved from what? Is that some religious thing? If so, why include a reference to that in your comment? All you do is totally discredit yourself.

    2. Re:Somebody should tell the king... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      We also tied the hands of Nazi scientists, due to our religious beliefs that you shouldn't do medical experiments on Jews...

      Anyway, the results for adult stem cells do seem to be better than for embryonic stem cells. However, this causes a political problem: pro-choice people would prefer to get find some use for embryonic stem cells, in order to weaken people's opposition to abortion. If saving one's life could be found to depend on killing an embryo, some people might be tempted to give up their principles...

      Research with adult stem cells is going well, but that doesn't really have any political benefit for the pro-choicers, so they have to insist on following the less-promising line of research.