Does critique of Nature/Science on stem cells extend to patent reform?

Michael Fumento argued that Nature and Science may have bias in their discussion of stem cell research:

But as I've written elsewhere, Nature has long boosted embryonic stem cell (ESC) technology generally and the lifting of federal funding restrictions specifically, as has its American counterpart Science. Their eagerness to run anything promoting this view recently led to Science being forced to withdraw not one but two "ESC miracle breakthrough" articles. [IPBiz: that is, the two papers by Hwang Woo Suk and co-workers.]

I suggest that Science, in running the paper by Eli Kintisch on continuations as "news of the week," may have portrayed an op-ed position as "news." There was no "news" in the article, but there was a false representation of continuation applications. See my upcoming article