And I think they're working in that direction. These two stories seem to be a case of a 21st century version of manufacturing consent.

They're publishing these stories, apparently at the behest of the HHMI, but why?

I think what's happening is that they're taking a proactive approach to public consent. They know that if they explained this in the starkest of terms, the public would likely protest. This way, the public will likely not even read the stories! They'll see the headlines, maybe read the first paragraph or two, and that's it. Notice that the first couple of paragraphs in both stories are vague and largely avoid the whole context of the experiment.

Then if, in the future, there are voices raised, they can say, "Well, these experiments have been reported by the most respected news sources for years, and nobody said anything." It's a way to allow the acceptability of these experiments to seep into society.

'Narrative' fabrication has become a buzz-word - in fact it's simply culture control - which has always been in fashion - but due to the potentially manufactured crisis of Covid, it has skewed alarmingly towards centralized power. Covid, or keeping us safe, has become an excuse for everything. The collaboration of science and media with their fucking science story-telling is a frightening reality in this creation of an unreal reality - which, in turn, becomes real - if that makes sense ...