Corrections and Clarifications

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  16 Dec 2005:
Vol. 310, Issue 5755, pp. 1769
DOI: 10.1126/science.310.5755.1769

Letters: “Response to 'Problems of studying extinction risks'” by M. Cardillo et al. (25 Nov., p. 1277). In the third sentence of the last paragraph, “Despite the case for using PICs in extinction risk studies having recently been clearly and elegantly made (6)…,” the reference citation is incorrect. It should be reference (7): D. O. Fisher, I. P. F. Owens, Trends Ecol. Evol.19, 391 (2004).

Reports: “Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts” by W. S. Hwang et al. (17 June, p. 1777). There were errors in Table 2. The corrected table appears below.

Table 2.

Summary of patient-specific human NT-ESC lines. ZF-blast, zona-free blasotcyst; ImmS, immunosurgery; Plurip, Pluripotent; TBD, to be determined; EB, embryoid body; ✓, pluripotency demonstrated by both EBs and teratomas. Normal karyotypes have been shown for each line (female, pink; male, blue).

Reports: “Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst” by W. S. Hwang et al. (12 Mar. 2004, p. 1669). Contrary to the statements in the second paragraph of text and first paragraph of the supporting online material, which indicated that there was no financial payment to oocyte and cumulus cell donors, some oocyte donors were financially compensated for their donation with a payment of approximately U.S. $1,400.

Navigate This Article