Letters archive
Join the conversation in Âé¶¹´«Ã½'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
17 May 2003
From Michael Phillips, New York Medical College
You have recycled the old flawed reasoning why natural selection should not permit genes for longevity to exist (19 April, p 26) . According to this dogma, the pressures of natural selection should weed out genes for longevity because they confer no reproductive advantage after an organism has become too old to reproduce. Therefore (the …
17 May 2003
From Bob Cornez, Regulatory Affairs Europe
Several large pharmaceutical companies have been working on a contraceptive vaccine for dogs (19 April, p 19) , but to my knowledge they all abandoned it. Whichever technique you use to stimulate the response of the T-cells, you never reach 100 per cent. And while in a clinical trial a result of 98 per cent …
17 May 2003
From Brian Spratt, Royal Society working group on depleted uranium
The Royal Society is accused of not being firm enough when it argues that the risks to health from internal exposures to depleted uranium are uncertain. According to Sean Foley (3 May, p 24) , we should simply accept the recent report from a new group calling itself the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), …