do we need cummins ?

suter at suter at
Thu Jun 24 04:31:00 EST 1993

in: <C93z86.3vu at> Reid Cooper and Dianne Murray wrote:

+I would just like to reiterate that we posted Prof. Cummins's article to
+generate such open-minded discussion. His article, although written in
+his usual 'colorful' style, was *not* meant to be flamebait. It was
+written for a lay audience - it was intended to bring the issue to the
+general public's attention. This had certain advantages (eg., it's
+short, non-scientists will easily understand it); it also has some
+disadvantages (eg., popular journals won't bother printing cites, it
+has to be highly rhetorical to get people's attention).

1. an article like this will never generate open-minded discussion: all
readers are forced to take a stand after the few first sentences
2. it isn't written in a colorful style, i would rather say it is black and grim
3. it isn't written for a lay-audience, if he was writting about another topic, 
in which i was a layman, i would have skipped it (just on the basis of style)
4.  i cannot see the advantages that you mention: in my opinion the article is 
much too long, and, since i as a scientist already have problems understanding
some of his far-out criticism (see seperate posting by erickson) i can hardly
imagine that non-scientists will easily understand it)
5. the only point on which i can agree with you is that the article is 
highly rethorical.

Clemens Suter-Crazzolara, PhD
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Zuechtungsforschung
Abteilung Genetische Grundlagen der Zuechtungsforschung
Carl-von-Linne Weg 10
5000 Koeln 30, Germany
Tel. xx49-221-5062.221       Fax. xx49-221-5062.213
e-mail: suter at

More information about the Bioforum mailing list