Nature © Macmillan Publishers Ltd 1998

8

correspondence

NATURE | VOL 395 | 1 OCTOBER 1998 | www.nature.com 431

Sir — The Aaron Diamond Aids ResearchCenter in New York has only a few students,as it is primarily a research institute. But wehave many young postdocs. My own labconsists of me (British), six postdocs (oneeach from Britain, Serbia, China, India andtwo from Austria), one student (American)and several American technicians.

It is immediately obvious whichnationality is missing from the senior line-up. Of the two US postdocs I have had, oneleft after three years for a position inscientific administration with greaterperceived job security, the other quit after ayear to move to industry and was paid morefor less intense work. I have been trying torecruit another American who has justcompleted his PhD at a top university. Ourinstitution is his first choice academically,but he prefers to move to industry “becauseit pays more”.

When smart students could go on tomake fortunes in US society as lawyers,investors, bankers and so on, how canscience compete? All it has going for it is thenoble but nebulous “vocational” aspect that

only a minority of students ever feel.The NIH official stipend for a new

postdoc is $21,000; for students it is a mere$11,748. In the United States, a PhD inbiological sciences is rarely awarded beforethe age of 30, so smart students spend their20s earning a pittance compared to their ex-colleagues in other fields. Then they mayeasily fail to find a full-time academicposition, while still having student loans topay off. Is it any wonder, given the nature ofUS society, that fewer and fewer youngpeople want to enter science (see Nature395, 101; 1998)? As one of our students putit to me: “when my lawyer friends want togo to a pricey restaurant or I have to spendanother sleepless night rushing around thelab, I figure the effort to reward ratio is a bitskewed in science. It’s worth it, butsometimes I wonder.” The most committedstudents stick it out regardless, but it is notmade easy for them, given alternativetemptations.

For foreigners, especially non-Europeans but even including Europeans,US scientific salaries are very attractive by

the standards in their own countries. If itweren’t for foreign imports at the postdoclevel, the US science structure wouldrapidly disintegrate. Some countries use theUnited States to train their brightest youngpeople so that they can create a nativescientific infrastructure if and when theyfinally return: first Japan, then Korea, nowChina and, to a lesser extent, India.Excluding immigrants is not the answer,unless the United States is willing tominimize its scientific output for severalyears while it trains home-bredreplacements (assuming it could).

In reality, if more young people in theUnited States are to study scienceprofessionally, the government will have topay them more. Perhaps instead ofspending $40 million on the Starr report,the money could have been used to trainmore young scientists how to, for example,analyse DNA samples.John Moore Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, New York, New York 10016, USAe-mail: jmoore@adarc.org

Plight of US postdocs… in the US

Hope or hype forlexipafant?

Sir — I read the News article on the largemulticentre trial of lexipafant (Zacutex) insevere pancreatitis and the response of thechief executive of British Biotechnology(Nature 393, 291, 299 & 509; 1998). I usedlexipafant to block platelet-activating factorin different models of shock and sepsisduring 1993–95 at Linköping University,Sweden. It was hard to defend my PhD thesisbecause of the lack of published data on thebasic pharmacology of lexipafant at thattime. I am disappointed that this remains thecase despite progress in clinical trials.

Commercial considerations resultingfrom the potential for profit from a newtreatment in areas where there is a high rateof death, like severe pancreatitis, are noexcuse for keep this basic pharmacologicaldata hidden.

I searched three major medicaldatabases and found that 37 peer-reviewedscientific papers related to lexipafant havebeen published. Fourteen were reviewarticles and five were original experimentalpapers on acute pancreatitis, which did notcollectively show clear evidence forimproved survival (via an anti-inflammatory effect) for those taking thisdrug. Yet only two of the review articleswere conservative about the future of

lexipafant whereas most, including mine,were hopeful.

Scientific literacy in the investmentcommunity is of no use without anappreciation of the difference between hopeand facts — I will not be surprised if thelarge multicentre trial of lexipafant in theUnited States fails, but I hope it will not.

I wonder how much it will cost toacknowledge that the inflammatory processcannot be hit by a single golden bullet. Theline between hope and hype is a thin one,and in this case it is only when the results oflarge-scale trials are available that it will beclear where it should be drawn.Fikri M. Abu-ZidanDepartment of Surgery, Auckland Hospital,Faculty of Medicine and Health Science,University of Auckland, Park Road, Auckland,New Zealande-mail: f.abu-zidan@auckland.ac.nz

Animals at the Salk

Sir — I would like to comment on the Newsitem “Salk Institute investigated after claimsof inhumane research” (Nature 394, 709;1998). Since this matter is still in litigation, Iwill not address the specific allegationspresented in the article. It is important tonote, however, that most of these allegationsare part of a continuing civil lawsuit broughtby a former Salk employee who was

dismissed for cause. They are not fact andshould not be treated as fact.

That said, the first paragraph of yourarticle omits the word “alleged” whendescribing “past inhumane treatment andfaulty experiments” at Salk, while the term“exposed” is also argumentative. Otherstatements in the article do not accuratelyrepresent testimony or court record, or arepresented without appropriate caveats. Youstate that our faculty was divided on theplaintiff ’s performance, but neglect toinform the reader that only one of 55supported her and testified on her behalf.

The Salk Institute welcomes aninvestigation of our animal researchdepartment by responsible outsideagencies, including the US Department ofAgriculture and the NIH. We have run, andcontinue to run, a first-rate facility thatmeets all federal guidelines for the humaneuse of animals in research.

Not only is it in the animals’ best interestthat we operate in this manner, it is in ourown best interests as well. We cannotconduct the kind of research with whichwe’ve been entrusted unless our labs andanimal facilities are a match for theoutstanding scientists we have assembledhere.Thomas D. Pollard (President)The Salk Institute for Biological Studies,Post Office Box 85800San Diego, California 92186-5800, USA