The commentary on “Defining Pluripotency in Human Cells” is up at the Niche.

Featuring commentary on their previous article by Peter Andrews, Shinya Yamanaka, Paul Tesar, and William Gunn(aka yours truly).

I really like Paul Tesar’s idea of a “pluripotency score”, because it’s just this kind of multi-factorial definition we’ll need to really nail down just exactly what pluripotency is.

A couple reasons why columnists should be very careful when they opine about science.

Even active scientists often make mistakes when they comment on fields outside their expertise. In a recent example not involving a crackpot theory of quantum consciousness or intelligent design, Charles Krauthammer, an columnist for the Washington Post with a background in psychiatry, writes: Continue reading