I've written before about the difference between data and facts.  Data is information.  It is objective.  Facts, on the other hand, are often extrapolations of applications or interpretations of data.  Data can be very reliable when understood properly.  Facts are reliable less frequently, depending on the level and type of interpretation applied to the data the facts claim to be based on.

For example - this very brief news article reporting on the "breakthrough" of a technique that removes different biological components from two different human beings at the embryo stage (destroying both of those human beings) and implants them into a third human being at the embryo stage.  Here is an example of facts being extrapolated from a set of data that is not discussed in any detail or length.  The reader is left with the impression that this is now a viable option that should be pursued to eliminate genetic flaws that lead to dangerous or fatal health conditions.  It is worded in such a way as to highlight and extoll the accomplishment before pointing a finger at those that would dare to object and raise "controversy".

Here's a much better commentary  (though one inclined to different conclusions from the first article) on what has actually been done and not been done.  Note references to the actual report rather than the vaguely worded first story.  This article also posesses a bias, but that should be expected since it's self-labeled as a blog, as opposed to the first article which comes from a "Health Editor" for a news publication. 

The issues raised in the second article are very real and very important - human life is being destroyed in the hopes of being able to save other human lives by continuing to destroy human lives.  The outcomes of the study thus far are not nearly as glowing as The Sun would have you believe.