Yedlin: Science never stops for oilsands

You don't have to identify with either FOR or AGAINST on the oilsands debate to recognize that this story is basically an editorial trying to disguise itself as R&D reporting.  The author leads with a physical description of the researchers (pocket protectors, Big Bang Theory TV show characters), and closes the story by concluding that "judging by the amount of work that is going on... everything is in hand".  Somehow, descriptions of oustanding problems in the field, open research questions, lines of inquiry being pursued, or recent results are all omitted.  I'm not for a moment trying to say that these things don't exist, but rather that they should form the meat of any story research and development, including this one.  Imagine a story on financial reform that made no mention of the need for reform, proposed solutions, or desired outcomes, but still concludes that "everything is in hand".  We don't accept this in the financial press, so why should we accept it in the scientific press?