Scientists (and the desperate trashy science writers) giving you the finger
Scientists (and the desperate trashy science writers) giving you the finger
Hey, there might actually be some science behind ground pig bladders and the stimulation of distal limb development. These articles do capture the imagination and stimulate interest in science. Unfortunately, as so often is the case they adhere to the same formula: one part mysticism, a dollop of miracle, and a dash of urban legend. Scientists are tasked with communicating science to the general public, it is this type of awful science reporting that makes this job very hard. Am I being too hard? What do you think?
The broad outline is pretty straightforward. The powder is mostly collagen and a variety of substances, without any pig cells, said Badylak, who's a scientific adviser to ACell. It forms microscopic scaffolding for incoming human cells to occupy, and it emits chemical signals to encourage those cells to regenerate tissue, he said. Those signals don't specifically say "make a finger," but cells pick up that message from their surroundings, he said.
Great start, now how about putting this in the 2nd paragraph rather than the 2nd-to-last paragraph and developing it. Where is curiosity? Where is the search for mechanism and hypothesis generating? The scientific method can be exciting, but you never get that point from tragic articles like these.
Hype?
This article really walks the line between hype and journalism. I think are fair with their story, but don't go deep enough with the story. To their credit, the authors say that studies on this pig powder are very preliminary and "this isn't ready for prime time", but they also present a very provocative story about the ability of pig powder to regrow fingers. I think articles like this are necessary to keep public interest in research, but could still give a more complete story.