Reuters confused about difference between adult and embryonic stems cells

For another scientific advance for adult stem cells - see
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18296064. Yet the first paragraph of this Reuters article talks misleadingly about cells from "tiny embryos". The key word is "can"; embryonic stem cells have not worked yet and it seems to be an article of faith that they will. There is no evidence for their success, which good science is supposed to be all about. A closer read of the article shows that it the stem cells are from bone marrow, not embryos.

Under the authorship of Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor for Reuters, a supposedly factual article is suborned to the PR agenda of the embryo experimenters, who appeal to the pseudo-pro-science lobby entrenched within supposedly enlightened liberal opinion. Promotion of embryonic stem cell research is all about ideology, not science. Instead of looking at scientific evidence, they are influenced by the positivism that informs progressive movements through the 19th and 20th centuries. This conceives a false opposition between "science", "objectivity", "progress" on the one hand and "religion", "morality", "tradition" on the other.

Embryonic science is bad science, morally but also in terms of its scientific viability. Those who promote the myth that embryonic stem cells have medical uses display poor knowledge of science and a lack of ability (or willingness) to objectively weigh the evidence, whether they are trained scientists or ill-informed journalists replicating misinformation for respected news agencies, a respect which isn't deserved in the case of this Reuters misarticle.