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
15 August 2007
From Orlando Hispano-Suiza
Richard Findlay's enthusiasm for fire (28 July, p 23) leads him to repeat the common error that it satisfies all seven criteria necessary to be considered alive. Alas, fire does not display irritability, neither here nor on Mars: if one pokes a flame with a stick it will neither run away nor turn around to …
15 August 2007
From Stephen E. Levick, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
The only human clones known are monozygotic twins: so it is understandable that Hugh McLachlan turns to them for a reassuring analogue to cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer (21 July, p 20) . Such reasoning by analogy can be useful, but you must take care to note any particular model's weaknesses, as well as …
15 August 2007
From Derek Wall, Green Party
Thank you for the excellent article by James Hansen (28 July, p 30) . Science can never eliminate all doubt, but policy advocates, whether environmental pressure groups, political parties or corporations, often indulge in spin and gross oversimplification to get a clear message across. Of course, climate change sceptics use the uncertainty of science as …
15 August 2007
From Ana María Cetto, International Atomic Energy Agency
Najmedin Meshkati asserts that Iran is prevented from having access to "the independent safety review, knowledge and practices" of the IAEA's technical cooperation programme (14 July, p 46) . This is incorrect. In accordance with the relevant resolutions of the IAEA board of governors and the UN Security Council, the agency continues to assist the …
15 August 2007
From Howard Dalton, Chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
I found your editorial on nanotech safety misleading (14 July, p 3) . Considerable effort is being expended in meeting regulatory and research needs. As you mention, the Royal Society's 2004 report looked at possible ethical, social or health and safety issues raised by nanotechnology that were not covered by existing regulations. The UK government …