Letter: Where there's muck. . .
I am pleased to learn that the British government is considering organic
farming as an option within the European Community’s extensification scheme
(Thistle Diary, 16 December).
The Edinburgh School of Agriculture and the University of Edinburgh’s
Centre for Human Ecology have recently started a European pilot project
entitled ‘Organic farming as an instrument for extensification and diversification’.
This Pounds sterling 600 000 project, funded equally by Safeway plc,
the Scottish Development Agency and the European Commission, breaks new
ground in Europe. It is the first time that major institutional funding
has been applied to organic farming, and it is an indicator of the positive
way in which major organisations can respond to social, environmental and
economic conditions.
The project will contribute expertise throughout all aspects of the
organic farming industry. It will cover research and development of weed,
pest and disease control systems in organic vegetable production, and the
continuity of supply of organic beef on 100 acres of organic farm land in
Fife. There will be a wide-ranging information, advice and training service;
an economic assessment of organic farming in relation to extensification;
and, in association with Safeway, an assessment of the existing and potential
market for organic food.
The establishment of this project, which lays the foundation for a permanent
Organic Farming Centre in Edinburgh, should indicate to David Currey, under
secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and indeed
to Downing Street, that the inclusion of organic farming into extensification
proposals would be a worthwhile step for the government to take, and one
which would receive the whole-hearted support of the general public.
Angus Marland Edinburgh School of Agriculture
Letter: Pavlovian response
P. G. Clifton states that Pavlov’s work on conditioning wasn’t published
in an easily accessible form until 1927 (Letters, 11 November). However,
it is certainly the case that American behaviourists knew of Pavlov’s work
before 1927. In my biography of John B. Watson, the founder of behaviourism,
I provided ample evidence that Watson was using Pavlov’s ideas by 1909 when
his friend Robert Yerkes published with Sergius Morgulis a paper entitled
‘The Method of Pawlow in Animal Psychology’. Watson’s own paper, published
in 1913, was entitled ‘The Conditioned Reflex – Its Place in Psychology’.
Well before 1927, psychologists were using Pavlov’s ideas. Watson even tried
hard to get permission to visit Moscow just after the 1917 Revolution to
meet Pavlov but the American military stopped him going.
David Cohen London WC1
Letter: Vaccine safety
It used to be said that careless talk cost lives. To add ‘careless captions’
might be overreacting, but the caption accompanying ‘Genetic jabs for whooping
cough’ (Science, 23/30 December) was certainly careless. Even though there
is always room for improvement, there already is an acceptable whooping
cough vaccine, and wise parents give it to their children. Your article
clearly stated the case: whooping cough carries a risk of 1 in 1000, the
vaccine a mere 1 in 300 000.
The myth that the whooping cough vaccine is dangerous is costing lives,
and must be quickly dispelled.
Nick Beard London SW17
We welcome short communications and reserve the right to edit the longer
ones. Write to: Letters to the Editor, New 杏吧原创, King’s Reach Tower,
Stamford Street, London SE1 9LS. We regret that we cannot acknowledge all
letters.
Letter: The lady vanishes
The letters of Jim Flood (11 November) and Linda Gamlin (9 December)
concerning Robert Foley and Robin Dunbar’s article ‘Beyond the bones of
contention’ (14 October) address the issue of differential representation
of females and males in communications about human evolution.
Flood correctly questions what impression nine male-only drawings makes
regarding evolving hominids. Whether the authors or New 杏吧原创’s illustrators
are responsible for the absence of female figures, this is, unfortunately,
all too common in portrayals of human evolution.
Why is this bias so persistent? Gamlin’s explanation is that females
pose a problem for reconstructing soft anatomy. She contends that modern
male torsos are virtually unchanged in the ape-human transition, whereas
modern female breasts and hair-loss on the chest present an unknowable and
therefore not easily depicted sequence.
We believe that the portrayal of soft anatomy in evolving hominids presents
difficulties in both sexes. If we are uncertain when and how female breast
confirmation changes, then it is equally the case that we have no information
whatsoever on the appearance of male genitalia – especially, the pendulous
penis and scrotal sac which are large relative to those of apes.
If Gamlin perceives that artistic reconstructions of male ‘intermediates
are not too difficult’, it is because of a persistent habit of placing evolving
hominid heads on modern male human torsos.
It is wrong to say that ‘the male torso is not radically different from
that of an ape, just less hairy’. To the contrary, changes in the torso
– in the size and shape of the rib cage, pelvis and vertebral column – distinguish
early hominids (both sexes) from apes. And the amount of chest hair on both
males and females is highly variable among and within human populations.
Female hominids are no more difficult to depict than any other extinct
species where there is no living counterpart. Such attempts simply require
knowledge of comparative anatomy, and an appreciation of the great range
of variation that exists among ape as well as modern human populations.
But the necessary first step is a willingness to bring women into the evolutionary
picture as active participants, as they surely have been.
Linda F. Marchant Miami University Oxford, Ohio Adrienne L. Zihlman
University of California Santa Cruz, California
Letter: Equality for some
Hans Eysenck writes that in the Israeli Kibbutz ‘absolute equality is
asserted . . . and an extreme form of sexual egalitarianism is . . . practised’
(Letters, 23/30 December).
This statement hardly tallies with the experiences of women on Kibbutz
as recently as two years ago.
While officially the sexes are equal, in practice the men work in and
control the important sectors of the Kibbutz economy (such as food-processing
factories, cotton growing, and so on). Women are much more likely to do
the unskilled and semi-skilled jobs.
In recent years men have become more willing to work in the communal
kitchens and laundries than previously, but child-minding is still women’s
work.
There are Kibbutz meetings where all members are free to make suggestions
about future work, investment and so on. In practice, the men, whose greater
involvement in the day to day management of important economic sectors gives
them a deeper understanding of detail, are not likely to take much notice
of women’s suggestions.
It may well be that reverting to traditional standards of male/female
behaviour is women’s reaction to the dullness of semi-skilled work, not
a retreat from equality. A similar trend is observed in the Soviet Union,
where many women are demanding a return to the home after 50 years of phoney
equality.
F. R. Davies Birmingham
Letter: Light work
The answer to Alan Murta’s question about my article on compact fluorescent
lamps is that his calculation of the cost-effectiveness of a CFL ignores
interest charges (Letters, 6 January). If the lamp is used for only a short
time each day the cost of financing it can exceed the cost of the electricity
saved. On my assumptions (for example, I have only a 40 W incandescent lamp
in the hall) a CFL would break even with about one hour’s use a day. Since
I do not use the light that much it would not pay to buy one. As I suggested,
if I used it more (so recovering the capital cost more quickly) a CFL could
pay its way.
Having said this, I need to point out that I do use other lights for
more than an hour a day. Unfortunately, the words ‘as this is the light
which is left on for longest’ were inserted in the wrong sentence in my
article: they should have appeared at the end of the sentence immediately
after the one in which they actually appeared, relating to the hall light
in other people’s homes.
John Feather London NW3
Letter: Research on embryos
A number of your correspondents appear to regard the embryo research
debate as a re-run of Galileo-versus-the-Church (‘Why experiment on embryos?’,
by Gail Vines, 4 November). As an atheist, a trained scientist and a supporter
of the pro-life movement I would strongly challenge this.
The view that human life begins at fertilisation is stated in virtually
any embryology text book, for example, ‘human development is a continuous
process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilised by a sperm
from a male’ (The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, by K.
L. Moore, 1988). Secular medical ethics has traditionally taken this view.
The Declaration of Geneva (World Medical Federation, 1949) states ‘I will
have the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception.’
A number of quite specious arguments are advanced against fertilisation
as the start of life.
First, it is said that ‘life is a continuum’. True, but we are not talking
about the start of life per se, but the start of the life of an individual
human being. While there is certainly a continuous line of living cells
linking me with my ancestors who lived in 1066, I was not alive in 1066,
and I will be lucky to be alive in 2066. Life is a continuum but individuals
are clearly not. They have a beginning and an end.
Secondly, we are told that most of the cells will go to make up the
placenta. Again true, but the placenta is a part of the embryo, an organ
which is shed at birth. In any case, how does the supposed unimportance
of the cells which go to make the placenta detract from the importance of
those which go to make the rest of the baby? Thirdly, much weight is given
to the fact that an embryo may twin up to about 14 days. But I have never
heard of a biologist agonising over whether an amoeba is really an ‘individual’
amoeba, or whether it is one, two or zero entities because it may or may
not divide in the next half hour. Biologically, there is no paradox. Until
it divides there is one amoeba, after it has divided there are two. So,
too, for human embryos. I can see how those with a naive idea of an indivisible
soul might find this concept difficult (though a competent theologian would
not), but it surprises me to find the pro-experimentation lobby apparently
taking this line. In a similar vein, the Archbishop of York tells us that
if embryos have souls, heaven must be full of people who have only ever
been embryos.
It seems that some people would like to have their cake and eat it,
accusing their opponents of religious fundamentalism, while themselves relying
on woolly metephysical arguments with little rational basis.
Gareth Williams Society for the Protection of Unborn Children London
SW1P
Letter: Resident scientists
Peter Borrow’s idea of having a scientist resident in a school and working
among young people (Letters, 16 December) is already in operation, and is
working exceedingly well. At this school we have succeeded in attracting
outside funds to explore exactly this idea; our prime area of interest is
in the natural chemistry and biology of scent communication, but the educational
consequences of having creative sciencetaking place in a school hasramifications
across the whole ofscience.
We do not want to keep this endeavour to ourselves and we are actively
developing links with other schools. We would certainly be interested to
hear from any other teachers who are thinking in these directions. If Borrows
can spare the time, he might like to come to a workshop on scientific research
in schools which we are running at Clifton next Easter as a sequel to a
very successful first event which we ran two years ago with backing from
ICI, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Trade and
Industry and the Royal Society of Chemistry. There’s a lot happening! It
is truly remarkable that it hasn’t happened before.
Eric Albone Stephan Natynczuk (杏吧原创 in residence) The Science School
Clifton College, Bristol
Letter: Resident scientists
In my school we have 10 graduate scientist teachers, and two excellent
graduate art teachers to boot. They are ‘in residence’. Perhaps Peter Borrows
lives in the same world as the little girl who once remarked of her teacher:
‘Gosh, Miss has got a purse, just like a real person!’
Robin Moorshead Ilford, Essex
Letter: Feeling the draught
Tam Dalyell is partly right when he argues that the government has a
good story to tell regarding improving the number of homes draughtproofed
under the Community Insulations Scheme between 1983-4 and 1987-8 (Thistle
Diary, 9 December). That is undeniably true if he stops at that point. What
however he fails to examine is what has happened to the programme subsequently.
For instance, in the last six-month period he refers to, from October
1987 to March 1988, 7848 people were employed draughtproofing 96 000 homes
under the Community Insulation Scheme. By July 1989 the numbers employed
had fallen to just 3501 – and it is likely that the number of homes draughtproofed
has fallen just as much. Much of the relevant funding had been withdrawn
and many local projects have folded as a result.
Meanwhile, even during the (relative) boom period for energy conservation
between 1983-4 and 1987-8, the parallel loft insulation scheme collapsed
to less than one-third of its original funding. The saddest news of all
is that these two markets have continued to fall during 1989, down 15 per
cent and 7 per cent further respectively.
When energy conservation is being touted by governments worldwide as
the single most cost-effective way of dealing with the greenhouse effect,
but drops in investment levels like this are recorded, I fear that Dalyell’s
definition of what is a ‘good story’ is not one I find easy to accept.
Andrew Warren Director, Association for the Conservation of Energy London
W1
Letter: Evolutionary trees
Stephen Young’s article ‘Root and branch in the groves of academe’ (23/30
December) highlighted the great historical significance of the two-dimensional
tree as an analogy for natural phenomena in general, and biological evolution
in particular. Unfortunately, his fascination with the tree as a structural
form seems to have caused him to overlook its much more profound role as
a means of summarising scientific data.
In particular, he failed to note the fundamental distinction between
phylogenetic trees that merely convey a vague personal impression of evolutionary
relationships (all three evolutionary trees illustrated by Young fall into
this category) and those that are generated by algorithms and rooted firmly
in scientific data.
This second, genuinely scientific category includes two contrasting
but equally topical methods: the first, phenetics, was mentioned only briefly
and anonymously by Young and the second, cladistics, was wholly ignored.
Phenetic trees (phenograms) represent measures of overall similarity among
organisms or taxa, and reached fruition in the 1960s and 1970s. Cladistic
trees (cladograms) explicitly depict specific character state transitions,
and are the quintessential tree of the 1980s. By ignoring cladograms, Young
sold us a topless Christmas tree! It remains to be seen what will be the
evolutionary tree of the 1990s. The current exponential increase in biomolecular
data appears the most likely spur to further advances in the application
of tree-building algorithms to biological problems. I am, however, willing
to predict that ‘elegant imagery’ will be a fortuitous byproduct rather
than a goal in itself.
Richard M. Bateman Paleobiology Department NMNH, Smithsonian Institution
Washington DC