Letters archive
Join the conversation in New Scientist's Letters section, where readers can share their thoughts and opinions on articles and see responses from experts and enthusiasts across a range of science topics. To submit a letter, please see our terms and email letters@newscientist.com
10 February 2001
From Jessica Sandler, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Your recent editorial on the rights and wrongs of animal testing (27 January, p 3) was highly relevant, for both sides of the Atlantic. Public awareness of official inaction is increasing in the US. The Environmental Protection Agency continues to condemn hundreds of thousands of animals to painful death by promoting massive animal-testing programmes that …
10 February 2001
From Bill Shingleton, University of Newcastle upon Tyne: On behalf of the Joint Universities
Research Team on Deer Hunting; Roger Harris, Tim Helliwell, Jeremy Naylor and
Bill Shingleton
Patrick Bateson was correct to highlight the dangers of scientists being influenced by the self interests of funding bodies (6 January, p 38) , especially when this concerns public debate or even government policy. While such dangers cannot be ignored, we can only hope our system of peer review will prevent such a study being …
10 February 2001
From Lynne Jones MP, House of Commons
C. Wells (20 January, p 50) suggests that MPs were not aware that blood stem cells are available from placentas and umbilical cords after birth when they voted to allow the use of embryonic stem cells for research. I would like to reassure your readers that this was not the case. Indeed, some of us …