Controversial Articles

Your readers should be advised that the editor of Scientific American spoke inaccurately when he said, "In cases where the authors were making statements of unsubstantiated facts, we obliged the authors to change them" (T.W. Durso, "Animal Research Articles Draw Fire," The Scientist, March 31, 1997, page 1). The correct phraseology would have been "Barnard and Kaufman" instead of "the authors," for we were obliged only to agree to a shortening and stylistic editing of our article, as well as to

Adrian Morrison
May 25, 1997

Your readers should be advised that the editor of Scientific American spoke inaccurately when he said, "In cases where the authors were making statements of unsubstantiated facts, we obliged the authors to change them" (T.W. Durso, "Animal Research Articles Draw Fire," The Scientist, March 31, 1997, page 1). The correct phraseology would have been "Barnard and Kaufman" instead of "the authors," for we were obliged only to agree to a shortening and stylistic editing of our article, as well as to add data on the actual numbers of people benefiting from treatments developed through animal research. Furthermore, we reaffirm that misstatements and unconscionable distortions remain in the Barnard-Kaufman article, not "mere matters of interpretation." That the former remain after a reading by "individuals with a variety of scientific backgrounds" as well as the writer of the lead piece supports our concern that Scientific American has unwittingly and...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?