The more serious flaw in the presentation was its lack of consideration of ethical issues. The moratorium referred to in the article was on research with tissue from induced abortions, not on all research in this field. There are legitimate concerns that clinical use of fetal tissue for transplants will in many cases require scheduled (not elective) abortions. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a brain surgery team waiting for an ab

I was interested to read the Commentary by J. Gordon Muir in the Jan. 20, 1992, issue of The Scientist [page 14]. Having read the book Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, I have wondered why so little attention has been given to the findings described in it. The negative effect on our society of the research of Kinsey and his associates has been far greater than any conceivable effect of the alleged misconduct of David Baltimore and his associates. I would hope that your article will be the start of pub

I received your October 31 issue somewhat late, but found the comments of supporters of the presidential candidates (page 9) interesting anyway, especially in light of the key position Dr. Sununu will hold in the new administration. It was unfortunate, however, that Dr. Branscomb resorted to an ad hominem attack on the former Education Secretary, William Bennett. Dr. Bennett is no laughing stock around here. He was the best Education Secretary we've had, the first one to be a scholar rather th

In the spirit of Dr. Garfield’s remarks in your July 25 issue, may I bring up problems I have with some statistics in articles in that issue? On page 18, you show an analysis of research output 1979 to 1987, state by state. The number of states marked in red versus those in black is suggestive that something is wrong, and the actual figures add up to a net increase of 7.6% for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. This may reflect an increase in co-authorship across stat lines