Accurate Reporting?? About Science??

In today's class I brought up the story that broke today about a woman in Spain receiving a transplant for part of her throat... the crazy part is that her transplant came from her own stem cells, and doctors have "grown" a new trachia for her out of a dead person's throat and the living woman's cells.

Doc was so kind as to challenge the article and pose a skeptic's attitude towards scientific articles in general. Though I see his/your point, every article I have found on this story seems pretty legit. Granted, and as Doc pointed out, this article worked very hard to establish its credibility.

There was also an article several months back about a thumb that doctors/scientists grew back on a man. In this story cells from a pig's bladder were used. The thumb, which had been accidentally cut off, was grown back, finger prints and all.

This story was also very interesting and, clearly, had a lot to do with science and the medical field, however, it too was also reported on in a very clear, factual, credibly-backed up sort of way.

So in my opinion, stories we read about in the main stream media relating to scientific and medical breakthroughs are pretty factual. The reporter may not be the expert on such a subject, but he is an expert at reporting, and therefore can probably report what the Doc's and Science wizzes tell him.

So I may, in a way disagree with you, Doc, but you have a great point in saying that when it comes to Science and the medical fields, always make sure the reporter is building proper credibility before letting him lead you over the edge of the cliff.