The turning point project, archive 2364
- To: Herve LE MEUR <Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr>
- Subject: The turning point project, archive 2364
- From: Rick Roush <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:13:34 +0930
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1266972034==_ma============"
- In-Reply-To: <199912131646.RAA14766@lan43.LANORS.MATUPS>
- Resent-From: email@example.com
Let's clarify some facts here.
Doesn't the ad in fact state "This is an actual photo of a genetically engineered mouse with a human ear on its back."?
If the ad had really honestly intended to recognise your distinction, wouldn't a more correct wording have been, "an actual photo of an ear grown from human cells on a mouse was genetically engineered" ?
In fact, hasn't the photo caption been cleverly worded to remain arguably technically correct when challenged, but to persuade most readers to believe something else?
Isn't it true that in fact the ear isn't a human ear?
Isn't it true that contrary to the implication of the ad, the mouse was not created by a biotechnology company but by university researchers who do not intend to genetically engineer anything, but were looking for a new medical treatment?
Isn't it true that the mouse photo was used to create an emotional response among the readers even though it had nothing really to do with the text of the ad?
Never mind the rest of the misleading statements in the ad.
Herve, I can't believe that you are defending such sophistry.