Letters

Earley is correct that the book doesn't claim Colson's groups take federal funds, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I took care not to assert, contrary to Earley's letter, that Prison Fellowship receives "federal funds" -- merely to quip that Colson's "coffers" have received money from faith-based initiatives. On rereading, I can see why Earley interpreted my language as he did, and I regret that I wasn't more careful and precise in my wording. My phrase "cashing in" was meant as a lighthearted pun on the meaning of "redemption," and I regret that in my glibness I offended Earley.

The real question isn't one of taking "federal" money but rather of government's entanglement with religion. News accounts have reported that Colson's outfits have financially benefited, directly or indirectly, from state programs, including in Texas under Bush. In Iowa, a Colson group's receipt of taxpayer funds occasioned a lawsuit. Hence, my larger point stands.

Good and Bad Science

I found Keay Davidson's review of The Republican War on Science (Book World, Sept. 18) rather disturbing. The reference to "liberals and leftists . . . who fear mercury poisoning every time they bite into a tuna sandwich" implies that those of us who are concerned about the degradation of the environment are members of some sort of lunatic fringe. Many of my colleagues with a background in one of the sciences similar to my own are not in the least concerned about eating tuna fish from time to time, but we are concerned about the well-known toxic effects of lead in the ambiental air and arsenic in drinking water.

Davidson derides efforts to identify criteria for distinguishing "good science" from "bad science" and correctly points out there are surely no "sure-fire, logical criteria." In my field of preventive medicine, however, one can distinguish between poorly conducted epidemiologic studies related to disease causation and those that were carried out well. Sample sizes are at times woefully small to identify true differences between disease prevalence among those subjects exposed to, let's say, dioxin, and those who are not so exposed. Statistical tests are occasionally inappropriately selected to test hypotheses. Measures of exposure to putative noxious materials are all too frequently very imprecise.

--DONALD W. MacCORQUODALE, M.D., M.S.P.H.

Washington, D.C.

Keay Davidson replies:

Physicians and public health specialists such as Dr. MacCorquodale do wondrous good in the world, and nothing in my review of Mooney's book should be mistaken for criticism of their work. I am amused, though, that when it comes to philosophy of science, he behaves like some other scientists who are discomfited by the debates over "good" versus "bad" science. That is, he admits there are no "sure-fire, logical criteria" for distinguishing them -- except in his particular specialty! ("In my field of preventive medicine, however, one can distinguish . . . ") If the debates over science policymaking are to get anywhere, they must transcend such professional insularity.

Bonus Slants

For the sake of fairness and balance, I would like to comment on Paul Kennedy's review of Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore , by James T. Patterson (Book World, Sept. 18). Ironically, Kennedy, after mentioning Patterson's objectivity, proceeds to insinuate his own political slant on this period.

Kennedy concludes that one of the themes of the book is "the rise of the ultra-conservative right" in America, leaving the distinct impression that, therefore, the country is heading downhill at a fast clip. Obviously, the reviewer is reflecting his own Yale-endowed political bias by conveniently overlooking the cause of the rightward tilt: the utter decline and fall of the increasingly ultraliberal Democratic Party.

Kennedy goes on to interject his questionable negative 25-year historical perspective that identifies the world balance of power, the environment, weapons proliferation and "colossal Pentagon budgets" as issues that the United States (i.e., especially Republican administrations) has been ignoring.