Animal Research Articles Draw Fire

A Scientific American forum on the controversial issue has some scientists crying foul, contending editors failed to delete misstatements. TRUST BUSTED: UC-Berkeley’s Sharon Russell says her faith in Scientific American has been shaken. Some biomedical researchers are responding with disappointment and concern to the February issue of Scientific American, contending that portions of the magazine's cover package, a forum on the benefits and ethics of animal research, were misleading and

Thomas Durso
Mar 30, 1997


A Scientific American forum on the controversial issue has some scientists crying foul, contending editors failed to delete misstatements.

TRUST BUSTED: UC-Berkeley’s Sharon Russell says her faith in Scientific American has been shaken.
Some biomedical researchers are responding with disappointment and concern to the February issue of Scientific American, contending that portions of the magazine's cover package, a forum on the benefits and ethics of animal research, were misleading and untrue. They worry that the magazine's primary audience, the general public, may be unable to discern what is and what isn't scientifically legitimate. Critics also note that the coverage enables animal-rights groups to cite a respected science periodical as one that has published their views.


"ACCURATE": Neal Barnard, coauthor of the piece under the most scrutiny, contends the disagreements are matters of opinion.
The piece that has caused most of the controversy among scientists is an article entitled...

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?