mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Today in the Annals of Settled Science

According to a new study reported in Scientific American and published in Nature Medicine, it turns out that your biology textbook was wrong about the basic facts of the human body:

A study led by Jonathan Tilly of the Massachusetts General Hospital overturns the decades-long idea that women are born with all the eggs they will ever have. It reports that women of reproductive age carry ovarian stem cells, meaning that they can produce new eggs.

So, to recap: after centuries of intensive scientific research we are still learning amazing and surprising things about our bodies. But climate science is settled once and for all and no further questions need to be asked.

Got it?

Features Icon
show comments
  • Brett

    That’s quite the strawman you’re burning there. Climate science is settled enough to know that further man-made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere are bad, and that we should take action to slow that down. Not “once and for all”, but enough to take action.

    Or to put it another way, we didn’t have completely conclusive proof that lung cancer was being caused by smoking, or at least it was a cumulative process. By your large, we should never have started campaigns on the possible risks of smoking, because there’s a small chance that it might have turned out to be all garbage.

  • Brett

    EDIT: “By your logic, . . . “

  • Aaron

    The fact is that we can only make the most solid decisions based on what we know. However, there are many things we do not know or might be wrong about. Should we as human beings just not do anything about everything because we can never be sure of anything? No. It means that we should move forward, cautiously and with eye toward improving human life and the human condition, making decisions based on what we know while trying to include what we don’t.

    Is climate science “settled.” Yes and no. The world is warming, only an unrealistic fringe believes otherwise. This warming is driven in large part by the results of anthropocentric activity. Is there cause for concern because of the warming? Not necessarily, but there are steps that humans can take to decrease their output effect and make the conditions of human life healthier.

  • Kris


    Counterexample: the science-based (and fervent) campaign to reduce dietary fat, which some are now blaming for causing an obesity epidemic.

  • vanderleun

    It’s sad when we see someone who was previously so committed to logic and science like Brett unable to give up his superstitious religious beliefs.

  • Hale Adams


    The problem is not that the science is “settled” (it isn’t). The problem is not that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of the warming (it isn’t– ever hear of something called “sunspots” and the variable output of the Sun?).

    The problem is that so many people believe that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of whatever warming is going on. Their belief is fervent enough to goad them to call for shutting down high-energy Western Civilization, thereby impoverishing us all. I think it would be better to continue on as we have, complete a shift to nuclear energy, and use our high-energy ways and methods to ameliorate whatever bad effects do come from whatever warming does occur.

    Big benefit: We don’t all wind up living like Bangladeshis. Heck, even the Bangladeshis by that time won’t be living like Bangladeshis anymore. Win-win.

    But, oh NO!! We can’t have that! We must all suffer for having sinned against Mother Gaia!


    Bah, humbug.

  • Kohl Haas

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phoney — climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment.

    The Environmental Movement considers itself the arbiter of all justice? Is it possible to be more arrogant? – or immoral? And they expect people to believe them? give them credibility?

  • Medical editor

    Your citing of the Nature Medicine article is somewhat disingenuous, probably by accident because the reporting on this article has been confusing.

    Researchers found that women have ovarian stem cells, but in order to make eggs from these stem cells the scientists extracted them from the women, developed them into eggs in a lab dish, and injected them back into ovarian tissue, and eventually into immunodeficient female mice.

    So, it is not that women harbor a previously unknown ability to naturally produce new eggs in their bodies, but rather that we can engineer them with some complicated science using stem cells.

    I sympathize with your overall point, but your quick take implies that we have been wrong about a basic fact of the human body — based on a closer reading of the research, this is not the case.


    Focus you guys, CO2 is a fundamental part of the food chain . Things can’t grow without it

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service