Your readers should be advised that the editor of Scientific American spoke inaccurately when he said, "In cases where the authors were making statements of unsubstantiated facts, we obliged the authors to change them" (T.W. Durso, "Animal Research Articles Draw Fire," The Scientist, March 31, 1997, page 1). The correct phraseology would have been "Barnard and Kaufman" instead of "the authors," for we were obliged only to agree to a shortening and stylistic editing of our article, as well as to

Editor's Note: Following is Adrian Morrison's response to Marc Bekoff's letter. Marc Bekoff would have liked me to focus on something other than the very real distortions in Animal Liberation, which are amply (but not exhaustively) treated by Sharon M. Russell and Charles S. Nicoll's paper (Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 211-2:109-38, 1996, with a rebuttal by Singer on pp. 139-46 and their reply to his rebuttal on pp. 147-54). Singer's attack is really on all

In his 1975 landmark book Animal Liberation (New York, New York Review/Random House), reissued in 1990, Australian ethicist Peter Singer presented allegations about mistreatment of animals in "trivial" experiments. His charges impact legislation and science to this day. The book, which condemns the use of animals by humans, inspired the formation of several anti-research organizations, which harassed individual scientists and misrepresented biomedical research to Congress and the public. The mo

On page 1 of your May 25, 1992, issue, you state that "the emotional battle over animal welfare is heating up--with many researchers finding themselves caught in the middle." To make matters worse, the article on Americans for Medical Progress (AMP) on page 8 concludes with a statement by Martin Stephens of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) implying that AMP ads contribute to a dilemma, with readers having to decide if they are "either for sick children or for the welfare of rats."