> "Human forebrain and hindbrain arise from distinct embryonic progenitor lineages"

I'd have never clicked that headline nor understood why this finding is important.

If you think the original headline is not "truthful" enough, at least do something like "Researchers found the reason why hindbrain cells cannot be grown in a lab and found a way to overcome it"

> not that we have "two organs" in the brain.

Depends what the definition of "organ" actually is. What speaks for different organs here is that the cells both have a different pathway from stem cells and have different evolutionary histories. That is different from other brain regions that may have separate functions but still evolved together.

I don't have a problem with the 'two organs making one' framing. The fact that they are 'symbiotic' now doesn't change that. In fact it helps me understand two key facts. One can't grow out of the other, and they work differently. Great

Though I agree with the detailed differentiation, still for the headline purpose a generic one that resonates with people easily isn't a bad choice

Given the parallel example cited in the article of jellyfish having two spatially separate organs, & the subsequent speculation that our own ancestors could also have had spacially separate anterior & posterior masses, the title doesn't really seem unreasonable in its hyperbole.

While it might not be perfectly accurate it's hardly misleading.

Main issue I have with the title is it immediately reminded me about McGilchrist's "The Divided Brain" and I thought they meant the two halves - but that is not the case.

So the question still remains...

https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain

I'm pretty sure the third thesis has been taught in my university physiology classes 20 years ago, too.

It’s the PR arm of a university, they always do this.

If the two parts arise independently, then the headline may be a bit clunky but it is technically correct.

Oh, I think we could crank that headline even harder while still keeping one toe on the truth. For example:

"Elon Musk's Brain is Two Separate Organs"

I mean, I learned a bunch of neat new stuff, so I’m excited!

Additionally the only images in the linked article are also face pics of the researchers instead of anything on the information about said research.

I want to trust science and dislike anti vaxxers but it’s difficult to argue against them when researchers act like the caricature they are mocked as.

Self aggrandizing articles with misleading headlines is giving me 2 triggers for not trusting the content.