Letters

Euro-Science News Lab Break-Ins Gene Sequencing IEEE’s Voting Rules Bernard Dixon’s short Opinion piece “Why Does the U.S. Neglect Euro-Science” (January 25, 1988, p. 11) on the asymmetry between U.S. and European mass media coverage of science neglects one of the made by Harrois-Monin in her original article. That point is that the proportionate coverage of European science by U.S. periodicals is a matter of editorial policy and practice. American journalists, particularly those who are regular staffers on popular monthlies, do not have the main say in topic selection; their editors do. As Harrois-Monin indicates, these editors operate on what they believe their readers want to see. Whether these beliefs are correct is another matter altogether. To suggest, as Dixon does, that the pattern of popular coverage has anything to do with the perceptions or attitudes of American scientists requires the acceptance of a chain of logic that is absent some links. —Jerry S. Kidd Library and Information Services University of Maryland Hornbake Library Bldg., Rm. 4105 College Park, MD 20742 To her credit, Elisabeth Carpenter avoided the inflammatory and commonly applied term “terrorism” in characterizing breakins of laboratories and reported the suspicions of many that the U.C. Davis fire was not set by animal activists. The pattern of break-ins conducted to date includes removal of animals or damage to property, but no threat of personal injury. While researchers are understandably indignant and upset over break-ins to the laboratories, they do not feel terrorized. Break-ins are nonetheless serious business. The Humane Society of the United States does not condone them. However, we do understand the frustration that underlies these illegal acts. Protection for lab animals, though increasing, is still woefully inadequate. Expressions of concern from students, animal technicians, local humane organizations, and the general public are often met with arrogance and indifference. Too many members of the research community act like musk-oxen under attack even when exposed conditions clearly offend common sensibilities and violate existing laws. Small wonder some activists are driven to extreme action. Researchers have not been the only targets of extreme action in conflicts over animal rights issues. Several animal advocates have received death threats and some have even found their pets killed under circumstances that suggest foul play. The best way to prevent break-ins by would-be liberators is not through more security or secrecy, but through closer attention to legitimate concerns about the treatment of animals and more aggressive efforts on replacing animals with alternative research methods. Martin Stephens -Randall Lockwood David Fanfarillo Humane Societyof the United States 2100 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 I add support to Robert A. Weinberg’s opinions advanced in “The Case Against Gene Sequencing” (November 16, 1987, p. 11). Previous mass-screening programs have failed in their avowed purposes. In the late 1930s the government sponsored chemical screening for possible antibacterial or anti-biotic agents. In the process, the sulfanilamides and other sulfa drugs were screened out. Barely two years later, the effectiveness of sulfa drugs was demonstrated by a motivated investigator. These chemical agents proved remarkably useful in treating World War II casualties. In the 1960s a mass screening of many chemicals was undertaken to discover anti-cancer properties. This screening program produced many thousand-page tomes, but did not find an effective agent. The effect of transmitted energy via the electromagnetic spectrum was thought to be harmless for non-ionizing radiation (i.e., for wavelengths below the infrared) except for the obvious heating effects that had been applied medically in diathermy machines. A screening program had searched for biological effects, harmful or otherwise, throughout the spectrum—from power-line frequencies and extremely long wavelengths to microwaves and the infrared spectrum without making any attention-getting findings. Since then, exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation has been implicated in causing opacity in the membrane enclosing the lens of the eye, among other biological effects. I surmise that such surveys fail because they lack the dedication of a knowledgeable investigator with clearcut goals. Juxtapose the screens I’ve mentioned, and the proposed human gene-sequencing program, with the directed search made by Thomas Edison for a suitable material for the incandescent lamp filament. Can the human gene-sequencing project meet any criteria for success? Who will be able to read its data meaningfully? How will the correctness of the sequences be measured, and against what standard? —Leo Gross 36-11 217th St. Bayside, NY 11361 The article in your January 25, 1988 issue (p. 7) about the new method of voting approved by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) fails to explore the implications of the newly mandated “approval voting.” Given the fact that IEEE’s newspaper, The Institute, has consistently savaged all non-board approved candidates, approval voting makes it very difficult for petition candidates like myself to win. Indeed, every trade publication that has commented on approval voting has denounced it. IEEE is, and has always been, an organization dedicated to advancing the views of the academics and the corporate executives, even though it is supported largely by American working engineers. —Irwin Feerst Committee of Concerned EEs P.O. Box 19 Maasapequa Park, NY 11762 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, 1101 15th St., N. W, Suite 605, Washington, DC 20005.

Letters

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of