The Great Lie of Stem Cell Coverage

The IntersectionBy Chris MooneyJul 17, 2006 10:36 PM


Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

This CNN story is quite representative of an obnoxious genre: Stories about Bush's failed stem cell policy which pretend that the President's "more than 60" lines claim was only undermined by the passage of considerable time, rather than almost immediately. In fact, as I detail in The Republican War on Science and as others like journalist Stephen Hall have also detailed, the claim was never defensible. The only factor that delayed and defused outrage over Bush's dramatic misleading of the public on this subject was 9/11, which wiped the issue of stem cells completely off the map (and rightly so). But now that we're debating stem cells again, can we please stop pretending that Bush merely made an innocent mistake back in 2001, rather than basing his whole policy on poorly vetted (or poorly understood) information? For more info see the opening chapter of The Republican War on Science.

1 free article left
Want More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/month

Already a subscriber?

Register or Log In

1 free articleSubscribe
Discover Magazine Logo
Want more?

Keep reading for as low as $1.99!


Already a subscriber?

Register or Log In

More From Discover
Recommendations From Our Store
Shop Now
Stay Curious
Our List

Sign up for our weekly science updates.

To The Magazine

Save up to 70% off the cover price when you subscribe to Discover magazine.

Copyright © 2022 Kalmbach Media Co.