- Email: [email protected]
Truth travels slowly
Letters– lightly dismissed. The idea of a dual society in which a genetically engineered “super race” coexists with a conventionally conceived underclass is troubling indeed. London, UK
Truth travels slowly From David Read, Vice President, The Royal Society Robert Matthews makes some interesting points about animal experimentation (16 February, p 20) but seems more concerned with scoring points than promoting genuine debate. Those who are interested in the Royal Society’s actual views on this issue should look at our full position, not just the single sentence that Matthews is keen to refer to. In this we reaffirm our commitment to supporting the use of animals in research where there are no alternatives. We strongly endorse the “three Rs” principle: the refinement of processes to keep suffering to a minimum; the reduction of the number of animals used in research projects to the minimum required to achieve meaningful results; and the replacement of live animals with non-animal alternatives where possible. The Royal Society was one of the first scientific organisations to speak out in support of the use of animals in research under strictly controlled conditions. Together with the great majority of the scientific community, we continue to believe that the benefit from the use of animals in research justifies their use. London, UK From Caroline Herzenberg I must disagree with the sentiment expressed in the headline “Nothing but the truth” on Robert Matthews’s article. After a lifetime in science and of wholehearted commitment to protecting intellectual integrity, I have come to the conclusion that in the world outside science, cold facts alone are not enough. Truth travels slowly, and falsehood moves fast. Additional techniques must be used by scientists in struggling against propaganda, and I recommend ridicule. Here in the US we are contending with huge amounts of propaganda from very powerful 20 | NewScientist | 22 March 2008
Medical devices in court
institutions, including corporations and our own government, as Dan Hind has already set out (19 January, p 46). This propaganda generates and publicises falsehoods at a greater rate than any well-intentioned individual or limited group of individuals could possibly research and examine on the timescale of an effective counter-argument. Of course we must present the evidence and the facts, but this response will be too little and too late when the propaganda is being churned out by well-funded political or corporate noise machines working around the clock. I suggest an immediate response of publicly ridiculing the most obvious lies and propaganda, followed promptly by a detailed response that is as thorough, thoughtful and accurate as possible. Chicago, Illinois, US
From Stacy Taylor Your report of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Riegel vs Medtronic may create the erroneous impression that the court has given manufacturers of medical devices a free pass to sell defective products (1 March, p 6). While the court did hold that the Riegels’ negligence claim was pre-empted by Food and Drug Administration approval of the catheter used, the scope of the ruling is limited to those medical devices that have undergone the full rigours of pre-market approval. The court’s 1996 decision in Lohr vs Medtronic stands: claims can be asserted against medical devices that were approved by the FDA as being “substantially equivalent” to a previously approved device. In 2005, 3148 devices were approved in this way and only 32 devices underwent full pre-market evaluation and approval. Claims that address issues not considered by the FDA, such as post-approval misuse of a device, may still be brought. Poway, California, US
Promoting inequality From Eric Willner In arguing that “social inequity is not an objection to genetically engineering children” (23 February, p 48) Arthur Caplan perpetuates a naive argument that is used to justify all sorts of inequities. Providing everyone with the same level of access as the wealthy will blatantly never be possible, in any field, from healthcare to education. So controls are needed to at least attempt to redress inequities. More worrying, though, is the way this point seems to be so
North Yorkshire, part of its global missile defence system. The US hopes to install other parts in the Czech Republic and Poland. In both countries public opinion is strongly opposed. US missile defence plans already appear to embrace Israel and perhaps the Gulf states, evidently against Iran; and Japan and South Korea, against China. Just what the central Asian states are agreeing to is obscure. The satellite destroyed on 20 February was shot down by an Aegis anti-missile missile launched from a US warship, after a few weeks’ fiddling with software. Such one-off shots may score a hit, but this is not good enough for a defensive system. For defence to be effective, every incoming missile has to be intercepted, and this is impossible to guarantee. It is far easier to see an antimissile system as part of an offensive strategy by a state that has adopted a ”pre-emptive” strategic posture – as has President Bush. It would need to protect only against the depleted retaliatory forces of, say, Iran. An anti-missile arms race would be astronomically expensive, as well as unrewarding to all except the arms industry. Russia and China both propose a treaty banning the militarisation of space. The US is against this, choosing instead to work for “full spectrum military dominance” of land, sea, air and space – and now of cyberspace (23 February, p 24). London, UK
Missile offence From Elizabeth Young Laura Grego is right to refer to the destruction by the US of its runaway satellite as a threat to the “fragile taboo against interfering with satellites” and to “efforts to protect the future use of space” (1 March, p 23). The whole business of antiballistic missiles is coming to a head, and a new arms race seems inevitable. The British government has agreed to the US making its base at Fylingdales,
ID theft made easy From Martyn Thomas You report proposals that computer operating systems should be modified to keep a copy of RAM on the hard disc, to aid forensic analysis when computers are found running at crime scenes (23 February, p 23). This is a terrible idea. All sorts of confidential data is held in RAM, including the keys to any encrypted disc partitions. www.newscientist.com
Truth travels slowly From David Read, Vice President, The Royal Society Robert Matthews makes some interesting points about animal experimentation (16 February, p 20) but seems more concerned with scoring points than promoting genuine debate. Those who are interested in the Royal Society’s actual views on this issue should look at our full position, not just the single sentence that Matthews is keen to refer to. In this we reaffirm our commitment to supporting the use of animals in research where there are no alternatives. We strongly endorse the “three Rs” principle: the refinement of processes to keep suffering to a minimum; the reduction of the number of animals used in research projects to the minimum required to achieve meaningful results; and the replacement of live animals with non-animal alternatives where possible. The Royal Society was one of the first scientific organisations to speak out in support of the use of animals in research under strictly controlled conditions. Together with the great majority of the scientific community, we continue to believe that the benefit from the use of animals in research justifies their use. London, UK From Caroline Herzenberg I must disagree with the sentiment expressed in the headline “Nothing but the truth” on Robert Matthews’s article. After a lifetime in science and of wholehearted commitment to protecting intellectual integrity, I have come to the conclusion that in the world outside science, cold facts alone are not enough. Truth travels slowly, and falsehood moves fast. Additional techniques must be used by scientists in struggling against propaganda, and I recommend ridicule. Here in the US we are contending with huge amounts of propaganda from very powerful 20 | NewScientist | 22 March 2008
Medical devices in court
institutions, including corporations and our own government, as Dan Hind has already set out (19 January, p 46). This propaganda generates and publicises falsehoods at a greater rate than any well-intentioned individual or limited group of individuals could possibly research and examine on the timescale of an effective counter-argument. Of course we must present the evidence and the facts, but this response will be too little and too late when the propaganda is being churned out by well-funded political or corporate noise machines working around the clock. I suggest an immediate response of publicly ridiculing the most obvious lies and propaganda, followed promptly by a detailed response that is as thorough, thoughtful and accurate as possible. Chicago, Illinois, US
From Stacy Taylor Your report of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Riegel vs Medtronic may create the erroneous impression that the court has given manufacturers of medical devices a free pass to sell defective products (1 March, p 6). While the court did hold that the Riegels’ negligence claim was pre-empted by Food and Drug Administration approval of the catheter used, the scope of the ruling is limited to those medical devices that have undergone the full rigours of pre-market approval. The court’s 1996 decision in Lohr vs Medtronic stands: claims can be asserted against medical devices that were approved by the FDA as being “substantially equivalent” to a previously approved device. In 2005, 3148 devices were approved in this way and only 32 devices underwent full pre-market evaluation and approval. Claims that address issues not considered by the FDA, such as post-approval misuse of a device, may still be brought. Poway, California, US
Promoting inequality From Eric Willner In arguing that “social inequity is not an objection to genetically engineering children” (23 February, p 48) Arthur Caplan perpetuates a naive argument that is used to justify all sorts of inequities. Providing everyone with the same level of access as the wealthy will blatantly never be possible, in any field, from healthcare to education. So controls are needed to at least attempt to redress inequities. More worrying, though, is the way this point seems to be so
North Yorkshire, part of its global missile defence system. The US hopes to install other parts in the Czech Republic and Poland. In both countries public opinion is strongly opposed. US missile defence plans already appear to embrace Israel and perhaps the Gulf states, evidently against Iran; and Japan and South Korea, against China. Just what the central Asian states are agreeing to is obscure. The satellite destroyed on 20 February was shot down by an Aegis anti-missile missile launched from a US warship, after a few weeks’ fiddling with software. Such one-off shots may score a hit, but this is not good enough for a defensive system. For defence to be effective, every incoming missile has to be intercepted, and this is impossible to guarantee. It is far easier to see an antimissile system as part of an offensive strategy by a state that has adopted a ”pre-emptive” strategic posture – as has President Bush. It would need to protect only against the depleted retaliatory forces of, say, Iran. An anti-missile arms race would be astronomically expensive, as well as unrewarding to all except the arms industry. Russia and China both propose a treaty banning the militarisation of space. The US is against this, choosing instead to work for “full spectrum military dominance” of land, sea, air and space – and now of cyberspace (23 February, p 24). London, UK
Missile offence From Elizabeth Young Laura Grego is right to refer to the destruction by the US of its runaway satellite as a threat to the “fragile taboo against interfering with satellites” and to “efforts to protect the future use of space” (1 March, p 23). The whole business of antiballistic missiles is coming to a head, and a new arms race seems inevitable. The British government has agreed to the US making its base at Fylingdales,
ID theft made easy From Martyn Thomas You report proposals that computer operating systems should be modified to keep a copy of RAM on the hard disc, to aid forensic analysis when computers are found running at crime scenes (23 February, p 23). This is a terrible idea. All sorts of confidential data is held in RAM, including the keys to any encrypted disc partitions. www.newscientist.com