Paris is not the genius behind this hysterical "beating of the bush," as others--notably the National Association for Biomedical Research--have been making a nice living with the same tactic for years. The simple fact is that most animal-rights activists embrace medical research, though not at the expense of sentient creatures. We are all concerned about our own health and the health of our loved ones; we decry the expenditure of b

Paris is not the genius behind this hysterical "beating of the bush," as others--notably the National Association for Biomedical Research--have been making a nice living with the same tactic for years. The simple fact is that most animal-rights activists embrace medical research, though not at the expense of sentient creatures. We are all concerned about our own health and the health of our loved ones; we decry the expenditure of b

There is no doubt that humans are the most scientifically valid surrogates for other humans. The dilemma is in the scope of one's ethical purview--that is, nonhuman animals are simply not included in the ethical systems of many biomedical researchers. Herein lies the crux of the debate; when one expands one's circle of compassion to include all animals, alternatives must be found for entertainment, clothing, dietary needs, and even

Anthropocentricity? Following months of fruitless search on Loch Ness, our two inveterate cryptozoologists suddenly explode into action. "Look! There's Nessie! Quick! Shoot her!" I found Paul McCarthy's article on cryptozoology and its adherents (The Scientist, Jan. 11, 1993, page 1) fascinating-- until the final sentences: "And then there is always the possibility that some hunter will bring down a Bigfoot. `Bingo, I'm vindicated,' says [cryptozoologist Grover] Krantz." Does Bigfoot (or Ne

Franklin Hoke's article on Thomas Starzl's bold experiment in xenotransplantation (The Scientist, Sept. 28, 1992, page 1) is one of the most thoroughly researched I've found in a scientific journal. And yet it completely omits the fact that the subject of Starzl's experiment, a 35-year-old unidentified male, was HIV positive. Such an omission cannot have been unintentional. How does one specifically delineate the effects of drugs upon the immune system while conveniently ignoring the fact that

AUTHOR: Donald J. Barnes,p.12 Assuming the existence of a research funding crisis, and assuming such crisis cannot be solved by quality-based reallocation of funds, Eugene Garfield's commentary of April 29, 1991 [page 14] suggests meaningful action for scientists at the grass-roots level. Even so, there seems to be a misleading theme running through his editorial--that is, additional funds are required, according to Garfield, to combat animal rights zealots, rather than to fund research directl

As a charter subscriber to The Scientist, I have noted an increasing bias toward the acceptance of traditional "ends-justify-the-means" pro-vivisection arguments in your publication. Albert M. Kligman's Commentary "Animal Rights (And Wrongs) [The Scientist, Oct. 29, 1990, page 16] underscores this perception by damning the animal protection movement with "faint praise," while conveying a surprising bewilderment of non-anthropocentric values. Kligman "demands" that animal advocates be willing t

I am thrilled by your decision to ask A. Carl Leopold to write an Opinion article for The Scientist (“Weapons Research Extracts A Toll On Academic Science,” Oct. 16, 1989). I’m sure many of your readers will feel that Leopold’s arguments are unnecessarily alarmist, but, alas, such is not the case. If, as Leopold asserts, 65% of federal allocations for R&D are for military purposes, scientists cannot afford to bury their heads in the sand for another decade; immediate act

As a scientist and an ex-psychologist, I am continually intrigued with the lengths to which psychologists will go to justify their shoddy little experiments at the expense of other animals, human and nonhuman alike. Susan Suarez certainly has my vote for "Rationalizer of the Year" with her letter "Humane Society Should Stop Criticizing, Start Funding," commenting on a letter by Lockwood and Stephens (The Scientist, December 15, 1986, p. 10 and February 9, 1987, p. 10). The humane community is, i