Good gosh Rose ... don't they have the
www.cnn.com out their in the heart of the red states? ;-)
Y asks:
"If science is so good at self policing itself, How come the truth (maybe) wasn't found out before being published in a peer reviewed publication?"
It should have been. But peer review is a lot more than checking spelling ... but it is not performing the research again from scratch. What it is supposed to be is a careful read through by industry/technology experts to make sure that what is written is consistent with current science or that there exists reasonable proof that current science is in error.
It is impossible to know from what has been written in the lay press as to whether the reviewers were partially at fault for letting it through. But given that the dog cloning was apparently real they had little reason to disbelieve something undoubtedly well written and seemingly complete.