Scientists' Contribution

Recent letters from Philip Siekevitz (The Scientist, June 22, 1992, page 12) and M.P. Thomas (The Scientist, July 20, 1992, page 12) misrepresented both the content and the intent of my commentary (The Scientist, May 11, 1992, page 12). In response to Thomas, I said nothing to demean the professional accomplishments of Radcliffe College president Linda Wilson, for which I have the highest regard, and I expressed qualified support for her views. In contrast to Thomas's unabashedly sexist letter,

Wm Grogan
Sep 27, 1992

Recent letters from Philip Siekevitz (The Scientist, June 22, 1992, page 12) and M.P. Thomas (The Scientist, July 20, 1992, page 12) misrepresented both the content and the intent of my commentary (The Scientist, May 11, 1992, page 12). In response to Thomas, I said nothing to demean the professional accomplishments of Radcliffe College president Linda Wilson, for which I have the highest regard, and I expressed qualified support for her views. In contrast to Thomas's unabashedly sexist letter, I made no reference to Wilson's gender, nor did it enter into my consideration of her views. Thomas's pejorative use of "old boy" is no less reprehensible than any other race- or gender-based epithet intended to dismiss another class of people without confronting them as human beings.

In response to Siekevitz, it is not true that Grogan "refuses to recognize the social implications of scientific research...." What I addressed...