Irish Stem Cell Foundation and The Irish Times

The Press Ombudsman has decided that an offer by The Irish Times to publish an article as a right of reply by the Irish Stem Cell Foundation was sufficient remedial action on its part in response to a complaint by the Foundation about an article in the paper entitled “Killing of embryos in human stem-cell research is wrong.”

The article about which the Foundation complained was an opinion piece published on 21 January 2010 by a university-based biologist who advanced the view that adult stem cell research offered the prospect of the development of more ethical and practical treatments, for a range of conditions, than embryonic stem cell research, to which he said he was opposed on both ethical and practical grounds.

The Foundation argued that the author’s estimate of 200 possible treatments based on adult stem cell research, and a subsequent estimate of 73 quoted by him in a published clarification of the original figure, were inaccurate, because its own consultation with the International Consortium of Stem Cell Networks had indicated that medical evidence existed for only nine such treatments. This, it said, was a breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals. It also said that the article could prompt people suffering from a range of serious conditions to seek expensive and ineffective treatment, particularly on the basis of internet-advertised services.

The Foundation rejected an initial offer by the newspaper to publish a letter to the editor, suggesting instead the publication of an article on the newspaper’s Science page that would point out the alleged inaccuracies in the article under complaint and give a list of the diseases that they argued could currently be treated with adult stem cells. The newspaper then invited the Foundation to submit an article on this topic for publication, written by a person with a relevant background, and not exceeding 700 words in length.
This offer, however, was turned down by the Irish Stem Cell Foundation, as it wanted the article to be commissioned directly by the newspaper.

The offer by the newspaper to publish an article written or provided by the complainants about the complex and ongoing scientific and ethical issues raised by stem cell research represented an offer of sufficient remedial action on its part to resolve the complaint. In the circumstances, no further action is required.

1 April 2010

The Irish Stem Cell Foundation appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.