Hillman's Response

I should like to comment briefly on Richard Stevenson's article on my "heresies" (The Scientist, July 25, 1988, page 5). Firstly, on January 1, 1978 in the columns of one of the best known British newspapers, I invited the senior officers of the Royal Microscopial Society, or anyone who agreed with their "orthodox" views on cell structure, to a public debate anywhere in the world at any mutually convenient time. I have repeated this invitation in several publications and at many lectures. Only one such debate has occurred. I repeat this invitation now. Michel, Finean, and Coleman (1980) made a detailed defense of the conventional views on cell structure in School Science Review. I replied listing 11 crucial points they had not addressed in a letter entitled "Cell structure: some questions not answered by the electron microscopists." (School Science Review, September 1982, pages 173-177). I have since communicated with the three of them, asking them to discuss these particular points privately, but only one answered my letter and even he would not discuss them. Secondly, my "heresies" consist of (a) pleading to cytologists to do the control experiments to find out how much their final subcellular fractions reflect the biochemical properties of the original tissue in the intact animal or plant (which have never been done); (b) asking how intracellular movements of relatively large particles seen in living cells are compatible with the existence in life of a cytoskelethn, endoplasmic reticulum, or microtrabecular network, because they clearly are not; (c) insisting on the distinction between findings and hypotheses; (d) expecting academic colleagues to respond scientifically and politely to questions or discussion about their own findings; and (e) insisting that the laws of solid geometry and thermodynamics be respected. Thirdly, history should have taught us that the validity of an idea is not measured by the number or personality of its adherents. Furthermore, the concept of "heresy" is a theological one, arising out of a belief that the answers to all important questions related to a particular belief have been found and agreed. Until scientists believe that this, indeed, is the present situation, the concept is quite inappropriate. Fourthly, it is completely untrue to say that the Unity Laboratory of Applied Neurobiology, which I direct, was judged by the University Grants Committee (UGC) to be "below average." I have correspondence with the chairman of our research committee showing that the University of Surrey would not permit me to submit my publications for assessment, despite my request to do so. Nevertheless, the university decreased resources to the biochemistry and microbiology departments—which the UGC judged to be "below average"—by 5%, and my laboratory by 100%. As a result of letters of support from many countries, and promises of financial subvention, the University of Surrey recently reversed its previous decision and decided to keep open the Unity Laboratory for at least three years, but it is denying it any UGC funds: I believe that my case represents the first attempt in modern British history to stop research work because of the scientific views of an academic. Several colleagues and I are intending to set up an International Committee for the Promotion of Academic Freedom, if we obtain sufficient encouragement from our colleagues. Harold Hillman University of Surrey Guilford Surrey GU2 5XH, England

Hillman's Response

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of