In the article, Watkins states that I refused to respond to comments by Earle Brauer of Revlon. In fact, I gave Watkins a rather extended telephone interview. He called me back several weeks later with a series of questions, saying "Person A said this and person B said that, what do you think about that?" Wonderful tactics for journalism, to which The Scientist pretends.
The article states that "Revlon plans to make reduced contributions to the Johns Hopkins center, according to Earle Brauer." Revlon has not yet provided support to the work of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CATT), but to the Rockefeller group. It is most difficult to reduce a contribution when there was none to begin with.
Is it reasonable for a newspaper for the scientific community to state conclusions from unpublished results of studies? "There has been progress. Results from an unpublished validation. . . indicate that some of the in vitro tests are able..." I truly hope that the quality of the reporting in this article is not typical of the rest of the publication.
For the record, CATT was established in 1981 by a grant from the Cosmetic, Toiletries and Fragrance Association. Since that time, CATT has received long-term support for its research program from Bristol Meyers Co., Amoco Corp., Exxon Corp., and Abbott Laboratories. In addition to the major support by these companies, CATT has been funded for specific major projects by Bausch & Lomb and the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, and has received support for symposium programs or partial support of research programs from more than 45 different companies.
The Center funds research, after extensive peer review, for the development of in vitro methodology that can be used for the assessment of toxicity. By providing small grants to ongoing research projects, CATT has been able to highly leverage its limited funds. In addition, many grantees have been able to obtain preliminary data on CATT grants and, thus, obtain federally funded research support.