Letters

FANSI Facts Big Mac Attack The Extreme Peta Doctors in the House The USDA and Biotech In “A Utilities Toolbox for PC-Minded Scientists” (February 8, 1988, p. 22), Barry Simon lists the old price for the registration of FANSI-CONSOLE. As of December 1, 1987, the registration price was $49.95. The price for the complete package including the printed documentation is still $75. Otherwise we found no errors of fact in the article. We do bristle at the manual being called “badly written.” However, this obviously is one person’s point of view, to which he is entitled. We have found that most folks enjoy our manual, in spite of the volume of technical detail it presents. —Mark Hersey Hersey Micro Consulting, Inc. P0. Box 8276 Ann Arbor, MI 48107 I was very interested in the following ad for a research scientist in the February 22, 1988 issue (p. 30) until I read the salary. Fortunately, I already have a job at McDonald’s making more money than this employer is offering. They should be ashamed! —Al Burgoon 6470 Skyward Court Columbia, MD 21045 Alex Pacheco of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals argues somewhat plaintively for recognition of PETA as a non-extremist organization (February 22, 1988, p. 8). My personal experience with PETA suggests the opposite. I am sure that a number of readers have seen the video “Unnecessary Fuss,” which purports to portray accurately research on head injuries conducted at the University of Pennsylvania’s Head Injury Research Laboratory at the School of Medicine. The film is approximately half an hour long, and was taken from many hours of tapes stolen from the laboratory. My purpose here is not to discuss the conduct of research in that laboratory as depicted in selected segments of the video, but to demonstrate that the film contains two gross distortions of truth of which I am absolutely certain. First, it includes quotations from newspaper interviews with my former dean, Robert Marshak, and me that suggest our direct knowledge of the laboratory. This is false. I was responding to the general charge that researchers are sadists, which they are not. Marshak’s quote was lifted from his defense of the research performed at the School of Veterinary Medicine. Quoting us represented sheer vindictiveness on PETA’s part because I had successfully defended in the courts and in governmental hearings a scientist the organization had attacked. To me, PETA’s fabrications in the video are unethical and extremist. --Adrian R. Morrison Dept. of Animal Biology School of Veterinary Medicine University of Pennsylvania 3800 Spruce St. Philadelphia, PA 19 104-6045 I am appalled and disgusted at the failure of THE SCIENTIST and indeed of the scientific community in general to insist on consistent use of the title “Doctor” before the name of any research doctor (i.e., a Ph.D. scientist), as The New England Journal of Medicine does for clinicians (i.e., M.D. physicians). Have we forgotten that the “D” in Ph.D. stands for doctor, or that doctor is a Latin word meaning “teacher”—that it has nothing whatever to do with medicine? I am saddened to see the word doctor mis-used as a synonym for physician, when in fact it is not. As for medicine itself, how much modern medicine would there be for clinicians to practice without the work of research doctors (i.e., Ph.D. scientists)? Must the retailers of medicine steal all of the glory and respect, as well as all of the money and power resulting from modern biomedical science? Must we scientists (really research doctors) be so gutless and spineless that we so easily give up the societal respect attached to the titles we have earned? Is it any wonder that journalists and the public at large fail to translate the “D” in Ph.D. into the title Doctor when we ourselves fail to insist upon it? Why does THE SCIENTIST use foreign, non-academic titles such as “Sir” (e.g., Sir Peter Medawar) while omitting the earned title Doctor before the names of doctoral scientists? Correction of this omission can go a long way toward giving scientists their rightful place of respect in society. W. Reynolds The Wetlands Institute Stone Harbor, NJ 08247 The February 8, 1988 article “Critics Skeptical of USDA Biotech Meetings” (p. 5) by Daniel Grossman gives undue attention to the opinion of a few individuals. The article has to do with the attempt by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to bring basic information about biotechnology to the press and public through meetings and workshops in four regions. These were the outgrowth of a similar effort in Washington, D.C., early last year that was acclaimed by media people. The issue is not to sell the USDA approach, but rather to provide a forum in which media people as well as others can ask questions about the science behind biotechnology. For example, not everyone in the press understands what we mean by recombinant DNA. How has the system of oversight for the release of new non-rDNA developed varieties been conducted up to this time? What is fundamentally different between biotechnologically developed new varieties and those derived through normal genetic processes? What the article doesn’t recognize is the fact that there are some individuals who seem to be dissatisfied no matter what checks-and-balances systems are put into place for biotechnology. Is this a reasonable position from the public’s point of view? Indeed, certain few selected “critics are skeptical of USDA biotech meetings.” I do not think you will find it a broad-based skepticism. —John Patrick Jordan Office of the Administrator Cooperative State Research Service USDA Washington, DC 20250-2200 THE SCIENTIST welcomes your letters. Please include your name, address, affiliation (if you like) and a telephone number. Letters must be signed. Letters selected for publication may be edited for length. Send letters to Feedback, THE SCIENTIST, ISI, 3501 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Letters

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of