Articles by Theodore Rockwell

In legalese, the words that distinguish good science from bad are "mainstream" or "generally accepted." This is about as far as the law can go. This standard places a serious responsibility on the scientific community to ensure that mainstream science is indeed good science. Institutions are scrambling to develop means to monitor and deal with departures from proper scientific practices. Science reported1 that in Europe "a rising tide of retracted papers and some high-profile fraud cases

Fred Singer's Commentary ("Cancer Risk Analysis: Major Policy Changes on the Way?" 12[21]:8, Oct. 26, 1998) makes a good point. National and international policies with respect to low-level radiation and chemical exposure, premised on the idea that a single gamma ray or chemical molecule can result in a fatal cancer, are in need of basic change. They conflict with both science and common sense. But using ultrasensitive means to detect DNA damage is the wrong approach. This is like trying to pro

The great scientist-philosopher Sir Arthur Eddington wrote that his words about "the soulless dance of bloodless electrons" might be truth, but they were not reality. He urged us to get away from theoretical speculations periodically and watch a sunset. Speculation is our business, but when people ask us about a technical matter, they deserve an answer that has real-world meaning, not a hypothetical argument. For example, one day consumer activist Ralph Nader was debating radiation pioneer Ralp

Where public-health policy is concerned, it makes sense to be conservative. But when we try too hard, we may actually do more harm than good. An egregious example is our policy on low-level ionizing radiation, primarily gamma rays and neutrons. Regulations are based on the premise that any amount of radiation, however small, must be considered hazardous. This premise was not derived scientifically, and the policy based on it is not conservative but is actually detrimental to public health. Il

Your good article on the "rising tide of irrationalism" [F. Hoke, "Scientists See Broad Attack Against Research And Reason," The Scientist, July 10, 1995, page 1] starts appropriately with a picture captioned "GROWING FEARS" and ends with a mainstream scientist's plaintive cry: "We are the oppressed. We have to find a voice." In between, we read about "the vitriolic tone of many of the speakers . . . polarizing vehemence . . . extreme and virulent form, almost hate- mongering. . . ." This is no

In their respective articles in the March 20, 1989, issue, Andrew Herxheimer (“Make Scientific Journals More Responsive—And Responsible”) and Murray Saffran [see above letter] are onto something important. We owe them and The Scientist a vote of thanks for articulating and publicizing it, and I hope it doesn’t end there. We tend to think that science is what goes on in laboratories, and we turn the spotlight on the poor experimentalist every time there is a question of