I thought that the following might be of interest to your readers, especially the younger scientists. I recently had a conversation with a graduate student who was very unhappy because his first paper had just been rejected by a journal. This was not the first time that I had heard this lament. I tried to reassure him that reviewers can err and that he should resubmit it to another journal. I told him about one of my papers, which was turned down by the Journal of Biological Chemistry because

I was appalled by the article by psychiatrist Walter A. Brown in defense of alternative medicine, in particular by his statement that "unproved alternative therapies do have a place in science-based health care." He further states that "that place has been defined not by experts on either side but by the consumers." Would it follow, then, that creationism be taught equally with evolution, and astrology with the sciences? Certainly creationism and astrology have as many followers (consumers) as

I have hesitated to get involved in the debate on science and religion. If there is any subject that cannot be debated rationally and productively it is religion. But Dr. N. Muller's assertion that religious faith and a belief in God are prerequisites for doing "fruitful" science (The Scientist, December 26, 1988, page 9) contains so many outrageous statements that I am drawn into the fray. First, let us deal with his statement: "It is no accident that the culture in which modern science deve