This article can be found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/01/MN2M1FMBHG.DTL&type=science
For what seems like quite an important breakthrough in stem cell technology, the story is poorly written. The news is that scientists have found a “safe alternative” to create stem cells that are “virtually identical to embryonic stem cells,” a development that is sure to soothe the great stem cell controversy. This is an important step in modern biology. But the story makes it seem trivial.
The story is short, but not concise. It is simple, but not clear. And it is focused, but not engaging. The sentences are long and hard to follow. And more details of the research would probably strengthen the story, but the real thing missing is quotations. There are none of them. Words from the scientists themselves and from stem cell research opponents would have provided a key dynamic. It would have made it a story. Instead of just words.
The last paragraph seems really out of place as well. The writer, Rob Stein, seems to be telling the reader what stem cell research is and why there is controversy, a discussion that would work much better towards the beginning of the article or somehow threaded through the arc of the story at various places.
No comments:
Post a Comment