The ear mouse, a scientific abstract.

Through his abstract art, Picasso could distort the human face in some kind of a beautiful irony. Now it seems scientists can shock the public in equally appalling ways.  Scores of earthlings have scrutinized the alien image of a hairless mouse with a human ear growing from its back.

Perhaps even more curious is the fact that the ear is not human at all; rather, the cells are of bovine origin. Nonetheless, the photograph of the mouse lends the supposition that the mouse was cultivated in a petri dish and that the human ear growing from its back is a result of genetic engineering, that somehow, scientists have spawned a new evolution that will save humankind from all its ailments.

One such ailment is the failing liver.  Many patients requiring liver transplants often die before they placed on a growing list of transplant patients, states an article in the BBC news suggests that scientists are on the path to growing functioning human livers with the aid of the hairless mouse.  While  the article hooks the reader with marvelous possibilities in its opening, it falsely claims that the mouse has human genes growing inside of it.  It turns out the cells are not human at all and the mouse is just a host for a sort cellular mold using bio-degradable polymers as the form.  More alarming, given the photograph's implications, the reader is led to believe that a cure for liver disease is eminent. If the reader continues, the article becomes more technical and spells out the details of the scientific quest to recreate human organs.  In reality, the idea of recreating a human liver is very far away.  No genetic engineering is really taking place: rather, cell cultivation, growth and scaffolding the structure of the organ represent the  path to human organ replacement.  Further, the mouse is no longer mentioned; the focus is the scientist, Jay Vacanti, and the seemingly formidable task he has undertaken to grow and cultivate a functioning liver to contain hundreds of millions of human cells.
    Others take a less sensational approach to the matter of the ear mouse.  In Australia, ABC presents no photo of the ear mouse at all.  Instead, the focus is on the history of cell cultivation and growth, providing a buffering zone against the sensational photographs and rate bolstering science features.  The focus is not on genetic engineering, nor a 3D liver.  Instead, the ABC article focuses on a more mundane topic, cell cultivation.  The ear mouse is mentioned but only as an historical account of what has  happened until now in the scientific realm of cell growth and cultivation.  While the title is somewhat intriguing, the author, a scientist named Dr. Karl, quickly refutes any claims that the mouse born ear contains human tissue and that the mouse and ear were genetically engineered to benefit humans, that the cells were implanted in the mouse over the muscle layer so that the mouse's blood supply could nurture the cells implanted.  In fact, the cells that made up the ear were from a cow's cartilage, which would quickly be rejected by human immunity systems.
     Wikipedia provides a brief description of the ear mouse, choosing not to invoke sensationalism at all, not even in the title.  The Wikipedia entry is entitled "The Vacanti Mouse."  Like the ABC article , the truth about the mouse and ear are told, but the scientific facts are highlighted.  It seems ironic that the very figure that spawned a controversy over genetic engineering is now used to defend it.
   With the truth being told the matter  makes more sense and practical applications of cultivating cells can be exposed.  Of the three articles provided, I found Dr. Karl's take on the ear mouse to be most credible.  He high lights the truth and does not extend hype and fraud.  Instead he highlights the real good that can come from science, such as ear reconstruction and the case of the star baseball player born with chest plate covering his heart and lungs, whose cartilaginous chest plate was grown in the same manner as the cow cartilage grown in the mouse.  In either case, the truth is that no genetic engineering took place: rather, human ingenuity.
     As to the question, What would I do next to ensure accuracy?  I would continue my research of the ear mouse and get as much information about the experiment as possible.   Developing good sources for research requires answering essential questions about the material.  While the BBC information is useful, its intent seems cloaked in hype and sensationalism rather than the truth.  As for me, seeing how Dr. Karl refutes implications that the mouse rose out of a petri dish in a clinical lab bearing, not only a human ear, but a new evolution for the benefit of mankind is highly valuable.  However, I feel the best information comes from the source of ty he experimenters, Dr. Vacanti and his team.  I would take the time to read the work of his team and utilize the implications directly from the source.
     I think the most valuable lesson taken from having taken a closer look at topic of the ear mouse is that even refutable sources can be questionable.  Even then, the information, though somewhat dubious, may provide inside into some research topics.  I have learned to go directly to the source when sources are cited and to glean information first hand.  When it comes to teaching students how to evaluate sources, my primary advice is to avoid websites flooded with advertisements and to be sure to continue beyond that dubious source to find core of the matter, perhaps from the original author, researcher or scientist.  In my own practice, I gravitate toward source from online libraries or journals that are available to me as a student.  While researching topics, students should be given lessons which help them to evaluate the credibility of the source and to avoid plagiarism. Some of these sources can be found through John Hopkins University or Scholastic.   I will embed these guidelines in my personal learning network, share them on my blogs and with colleagues at school. In addition, students can evaluate each other's sources through peer evaluation. It is important  to also teach students about the ramifications of plagiarism.  Further, I will model the process of researching the ear mouse to my students whenever possible.  In this way, students may still enjoy the shock and awe of a Picasso or an ear mouse, but they will be able to better filter the truth and the intent of such shocking images.

Check out the ear mouse articles here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1949073.stm
-www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/06/02/1644154.htm
-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacanti_mouse