When embryonic stem cell research was being hyped during the last decade, MSM would often omit the word “embryonic” when reporting on the issue. When talking of the hope for cures, they would make it seem as if conservatives opposed all forms of stem cell research by leaving out that one vital word.

Or, when reporting on successes of adult stem cell research, the media would omit the word “adult” to further confuse the issue.

There has been a sudden and welcome about-face. Get a load of this headline:

The editorial is even more incredible. Again, this comes from Investor’s Business Daily, certainly no social conservative stronghold. An excerpt:

 British and Japanese researchers have been awarded this year’s Nobel Prize for showing how to create embryonic stem cells without using human embryos in a genuinely promising line of research.

For decades now, embryonic stem cell research has been trumpeted as the most promising avenue of research, and those who had moral qualms about using human embryos were dismissed as Bible-thumping troglodytes who stood in the way of making the lame walk.

ESCR supporters said their way led to finding “imminent” miracle cures to tragic and sometimes deadly conditions and diseases. They dismissed suggestions of a more promising way with less ethical and moral baggage….

[O]n Monday two researchers… were awarded the Nobel Prize… in physiology or medicine for discovering that mature, specialized cells of the body can be reprogrammed into becoming primitive cells that are the equivalent of embryonic stem cells.

In 2006 researchers led by Dr. Yamanaka of Japan’s Kyoto University were first able to “reprogram” human skin cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. The National Institutes of Health has said this type of stem cell offers the prospect of having an endless and renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s as well as spinal cord injuries, strokes, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, to name a few.

Choosing Yamanaka as a Nobel winner just six years after his discovery was unusual. The Nobel committees typically reward research done more than a decade before, to make sure it has stood the test of time. Perhaps the committee felt the significance this discovery and the amount of actual progress made warranted the award ahead of the usual time.

Other MSM headlines also touted the word “adult”…

Others didn’t, of course, but I consider not only the discovery but much of the reporting a breakthrough.