An excellent analysis of the timing of the publishing of recent stem cell studies, and how this fits into a broader intersection of science publishing and politics. Uses examples and is well sourced.

Excellent blog post explaining the effect of the political debate on decisions to publish articles at major scientific journals in our free market society. Obviously an important issue for NewsTrust as it relates to journalism and provides context for those who may have wondered about the timing of the most recent article on stem cell research.

First, this is a blog. It is highly persuasive, but it is Dr. Nisbet's opinion, based upon some unfortunate timing, and I do not believe him. The reason I don't believe him is that I have written for some of these publications, both in my own name and as an assistant to researchers. I have never, ever--not even on stem cells--received any pressure to meet a deadline related to an external political event. Scientific publications are not totally innocent and they do make serious errors. The Hwang stem cell papers debacle two years ago is one of them, where false research was hyped. But to accuse the editors of attempting to influence a vote is nonsense. Why would researchers who are going to benefit from allowing human ... More »

Don't trust this post. The author implies that scientific journals have political agendas, and utterly fails to prove his point.. Science editors are said to release stories to coincide with other events so as to affect deliberations in Congress, and so on. This is conspiracist speculation. It ignores the fact that it is the major media who actually decide which new scientific developments are widely reported. In fact, there is no conspriracy involved here, even though the major media do have a monochromatic look; editors know what science news is "hot" and what is "cold." The big media have their biases and they do "spike" stories, but in this case, it is much more a matter of knowing what the public considers interesting in ... More »

The article describes a fairly typical situation in Washington when interest groups are fighting over controversial issues, in the case at hand, stem cell research. Since timing is often critical in terms of influencing "outcomes," each side strives to maximize their advantage by highly selective releases timed in a manner so as to offer their side of the debate the most leverage. This article covers one side of that debate.