In the article, Watkins states that I refused to respond to comments by Earle Brauer of Revlon. In fact, I gave Watkins a rather extended telephone interview. He called me back several weeks later with a series of questions, saying "Person A said this and person B said that, what do you think about that?" Wonderful tactics for journalism, to which The Scientist pretends.
The article states that "Revlon plans to make reduced contributions to the Johns Hopkins center, according to Earle Brauer." Revlon has not yet provided support to the work of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CATT), but to the Rockefeller group. It is most difficult to reduce a contribution when there was none to begin with.
Is it reasonable for a newspaper for the scientific community to state conclusions from unpublished results of studies? "There has been progress. Results from an unpublished validation. . . ...
