Reprints 121-144

Date:
1992-2001
Reference:
PP/CRI/M/1/7
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Reprints 121-144. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    50/284
    LETTERS TO THE EDITORS Global Research The solution to the prejudice against scientists in developing countries, de scribed by W. Wayt Gibbs in Lost Sci ence in the Third World [ Scientific American , August], lies with these re searchers turning their backs on pub lishing in Western journals and writing in their native languages and journals. Such scientific efforts, if worthwhile, will eventually attract mainstream attention. Discrimination can also take a form not mentioned in Lost Science in the Third World. American scientists work ing at the Organization of Tropical Stud ies in Costa Rica generally avoid the scientific journal of the very country where they do their fieldwork, despite the journal's international standards, excellent distribution in tropical re search centers and inclusion in Current Contents. They would rather publish in newer, less stringent tropical journals published in the U.S. and England. Julián Monge-Nájera Editor, Revista de Biología Tropical University of Costa Rica I read with great interest Gibbs's news story about the Information Have-Nots [Science and the Citizen, Scientific American , May] and his more extensive follow-up article in Au gust. I am constantly throwing out journals; this seems like a tragic waste. Is there some central location that col lects and distributes to needy areas? Lost Science in the Third World makes points based on anecdotal evi dence, but these ideas are not well sup ported by statistical data. To use per cent of total articles published per na tion without regard to the size of a nation is all but meaningless. For ex ample, when adjusted for population, Iceland (given in the table as 0.029 per cent) in fact produces as much per capi ta as the U.S. (30.817 percent). Gibbs replies: My aim was to illustrate which nations are represented most in mainstream scientific literature and which are large ly invisible, despite having large research communities, when viewed through this lens. I thus compared the scientific pro duction of nations, not their scientific productivity. A comparison of produc tivity, taking into account not only pop ulation but also research spending and the number of active scientists in each country, would also be interesting. In sufficient data are available for such an analysis, however. For those who would like to donate material to scientists in developing countries, the International Network for the Availability of Science Publications (INASP) provides guidelines on how to select books and journals to donate and will try to locate the program near est you. Contact the INASP at P.O. Box 2564, London W5 1ZD, U.K. You can also e-mail them at inasp@gn.apc.org or fax them at (44) 181-810-9795. Neighbors, Beware! Inspired by your July cover story, The Trebuchet, by Paul E. Chevedden, Les Ei- genbrod, Vernard Fo ley and Werner Soe- del, my son Ernie and I built a model in our garage out of two-by-fours. Our trebuchet has a five- foot lever with the fulcrum one foot from the end. The weight is a 50-pound bucket of concrete. It can throw a base ball or a water balloon 100 feet. intelligent design implies the existence of a Creator, the notion is religious. If creationists have their way, the initial complexity model will be taught with the initial primitiveness model, their new name for the theory of evolution. John C. Frandsen Chair, Committee on Science and Public Policy Alabama Academy of Science Up Close, Too Personal The profile of Stephen Jay Gould by John Horgan [Escaping in a Cloud of Ink, Science and the Citizen, Scien tific American , August] is a thorough ly unpleasant piece of work. Obviously irritated by Gould's ground rule of not wanting to talk about personal matters, Horgan forces personal items into the whole article. In addition, a snide tone replaces an analysis of the quality of the science. There is no discussion of how Gould's theory squares with the avail able evidence; instead we are treated to some pop psychiatry about Darwin and daddy. Perhaps it is a good idea to try some other approach to profiles of sci entists than as a God-in-a-lab-coat. But what we have here is a mugging. National Anthem Peter M. Narins seemed mystified in his article Frog Communication [ Sci entific American , August] when 10 co- qui frogs failed to call out after he ex ported them from Puerto Rico to Ger many for the purpose of measuring their calls. As any Puerto Rican will con firm, no coqui will sing once removed from its native home—a distinction that has made the coqui the national sym bol of Puerto Rico. Darwin Denied [Science and the Citizen, Scientific American , July], Tim Beardsley's excellent review of the attempts to place creation science in public schools, fails to note that the guise of intelligent design is being re placed by the initial complexity mod el. Thus do scientific creationists hope to deflect the charge that because Letters selected for publication may be edited for length and clarity. Unso licited manuscripts and correspondence will not be returned or acknowledged unless accompanied by a stamped, self- 10 Scientific American December 1995 Achieving the impossible? It's always possible.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3