Articles by Martin Stephens

Your point/counterpoint on "The Use Of Animals In Laboratory Research" (K.P. Stoller, S.E. Paris, The Scientist, Sept. 5, 1994, page 12) was subtitled "Debate Presses Forward," but "Debate Fails to Materialize" would have been more appropriate. Susan Paris ("Animal Rights Advocates' Actions Pose Big Threat To Public Health") ignores Kenneth Stoller's ethical and technical critique of animal modeling ("Experimentation On Animals Reta

Your point/counterpoint on "The Use Of Animals In Laboratory Research" (K.P. Stoller, S.E. Paris, The Scientist, Sept. 5, 1994, page 12) was subtitled "Debate Presses Forward," but "Debate Fails to Materialize" would have been more appropriate. Susan Paris ("Animal Rights Advocates' Actions Pose Big Threat To Public Health") ignores Kenneth Stoller's ethical and technical critique of animal modeling ("Experimentation On Animals Reta

AUTHOR: Martin L. Stephens, pp.12 Patrick Cleveland accuses me of "artful use of language" (The Scientist, May 31, 1993, page 12) in my defense of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) against his mischaracterization of the organization (The Scientist, Feb. 22, 1993, page 10). Yet his verbal attacks border on McCarthyism, with the suppression of animal rights activism being the new goal. His main thesis is that HSUS is now a radical animal rights organization seeking to abolish all an

In his call to arms against the animal rights movement (The Scientist, Nov. 23, 1992, page 12), Patrick Cleveland attempts to demonize the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) by lumping it with organizations and individuals that oppose all animal research, condone terrorism, and vilify scientists. As the person in charge of HSUS's programs on animal research issues, I would like to respond to this blatant mischaracterization. HSUS does not oppose all animal research. Our policy advocate

In taking issue with my remarks about Americans for Medical Progress (AMP), Adrian Morrison has come to the defense of AMP's pro-animal research, anti-animal rights ad campaign (Ron Kaufman, The Scientist, May 25, 1992, page 8; Adrian Morrison, The Scientist, July 6, 1992, page 12). That he would defend these simplistic and polarizing ads is not surprising, given that he refers to the middle ground on this complex issue as "mythical." In his view, the controversy consists of the good guys defen

The article "Public, Private Health Concerns Spur Rapid Progress In Toxicology" (The Scientist, Feb. 17, 1992, page 1) did not mention the significant role that the public's concern for animals has had in advancing in vitro toxicology. This concern, for example, led to the establishment of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins University in 1981. In fact, one of the toxicologists quoted in the article--John Frazier--is the associate director of that center (in addition

Charles Turner labels as "misleading" Melissa Goldman's claim that leading cosmetic companies have stopped using animals in toxicity testing [The Scientist, May 13, 1991, page 12]. Turner states that under Food and Drug Administration regulations, such companies won't be able to introduce innovative new products unless the product labels contain a dire warning. Cosmetic companies are under no such restriction given the FDA's limited and flexible regulations of cosmetic safety. Companies must as