Don't trust this post. The author implies that scientific journals have political agendas, and utterly fails to prove his point.. Science editors are said to release stories to coincide with other events so as to affect deliberations in Congress, and so on. This is conspiracist speculation. It ignores the fact that it is the major media who actually decide which new scientific developments are widely reported. In fact, there is no conspriracy involved here, even though the major media do have a monochromatic look; editors know what science news is "hot" and what is "cold." The big media have their biases and they do "spike" stories, but in this case, it is much more a matter of knowing what the public considers interesting in science, than of how the voters can be propagandized or kept in ignorance. When the major media abuse their positions to try to sway elections, they do not conspire: they act similarly because their leaders share a set of political values, a mindset, that guides their actions. That is a very different matter from the science reporting discussed here. -- Genuine coincidences do occur, and are sure to in a field as active and crowded as stem cell research. Manufacturing fake coincidences is difficult...that requires a true conspiracy. Simply stating that the editors of scientific journals would benefit from conspiring with each other and with major news media outlets proves nothing. I would benefit from getting away with a bank robbery, but that does not prove me a robber.