Nature © Macmillan Publishers Ltd 1998

8

Sir — Two points mentioned in a recentbook review on beer1 deserve clarification.The term ‘real ale’ does need to bedistinguished from other beers. Real alerefers specifically to an ale made fromtraditional ingredients in whichcarbonation is produced by means ofsecondary fermentation in the cask (orcontainer) from which it is served2.

A real ale uses no external source ofcarbon dioxide pressure to drive beer fromthe cellar to the tap, but instead employs atraditional hand-operated pump called abeer engine. The result is a beer with amuch lower level of carbonation than thatusually encountered in other beers, whichmight well be loosely defined as alcoholicbeverages made with water, malted barleyand hops, and fermented by yeast. A real alerequires the careful management by skilledpublicans of a live beer whose flavour maychange subtly with each passing hour or fewpints served.

The preservation and revival of thismethod of preparing and serving beer hasbeen largely due to the Campaign for RealAle (CAMRA) in England, formed in 1971.

As mentioned in the book review1, theseactivities have indeed led in part to thegrowth of this art in England, but have alsoplayed a decisive role in the evolution of thecraft (pub, small/micro- and home-)brewing industry throughout the world.

Second, the brewing of mass-producedbeers probably should not have beenreferred to as “sophisticated”. Historicallythe largest breweries in the world wereeasily able to out-compete smallerbreweries and public houses from the endof the prohibition years until thebeginnings of the craft brewery movementby producing beer more inexpensively thansmaller breweries (by virtue of the largevolumes produced), and through extensiveadvertising campaigns. Along the way,though, the drive to increase the profitmargin of beer and reduce the costs of itsproduction led to the excessive use ofbrewing adjuncts (cheaper sources offermentable sugars for yeast fermentationthan malted barley) and to excessivedilution of the beers produced by means ofhigh-gravity brewing techniques (reviewedin ref. 3).

This increased “sophistication” in thebrewing industry led inevitably toconsumer demand for better beers (if notindeed for ‘real beer’). This worldwidetrend in which beer consumers increasinglydemand a quality product has led tosignificant losses in sales by the largestbreweries, which are now making efforts torectify this by introducing all-malt andother speciality beers to compete in thisgrowing consumer sector. So, if anything,the “sophistication” of the large brewerieshas been responsible for their ownmisfortune.Victor E. Buckwold Ricardo Amils Centro de Biología Molecular, “Severo Ochoa” Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain e-mail: vebuckwold@trasto.cbm.uam.es

1. Postgate, J. Nature 393, 129 (1998).

2. Daniels, R. Designing Great Beers: The Ultimate Guide to Brewing

Classic Beer Styles (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO,

1996).

3. Buckwold, V. E. Brewing Techniques (in the press).

correspondence

NATURE | VOL 393 | 4 JUNE 1998 407

How big breweries failed the taste test

Bullying of PhDsSir — The ‘feudal’ master–servantrelationship existing between a PhDsupervisor and his or her student1 hasanother facet seldom broached byacademics. That is bullying. Employmentlegislation prohibits bullying at work, but,because PhDs are not salaried orcontracted, they are not legally ‘employees’and so are vulnerable to capricioussupervisors.

I regret to say that the conduct of myPhD supervisor was tantamount tobullying. Corroborative complaints bypeers and by me proved futile, culminatingin my supervisor misappropriatingcorresponding authorship after editorialreview of our manuscript. Althoughnebulous commitments to PhD supervisionpublished in guidelines are welcome, theyare merely cosmetic unless enforcedimpartially against the occasional aberrantsupervisor. Experience has left medisaffected with my university, which isostensibly content to allow a roguesupervisor to usurp authorship andconfidence by allowing vulnerable PhDs tobe bullied.

PhDs may now, however, be able to seek alternative recourse. In anunprecedented move, the British HighCourt has granted a student at theUniversity of Cambridge, Mr Beg, judicial

review to challenge internal academicprocedures2. Mr Beg was allegedly deniedan MPhil because he criticized a professor.If future legal challenges are to be avoided,reform is required to make possibleequitable adjudication in alleged cases ofsupervisor misconduct. If UK institutionsinsist on maintaining the status quo, thecourts may now intervene and universitieswill increasingly become embroiled inunwelcome litigation3. Denying theexistence of bullying could become costly.Universities competing for funding andkudos can ill-afford to risk harbouringknown aggressors, thus condoning theirconduct and bringing departments intodisrepute.

Inevitably, ‘whistleblowers’ (whether on matters of personal or academicmisconduct) risk damage to their careers4.To ensure scientific integrity, postgraduatestudents need adequate protection from the repercussions of ‘speaking out’. PhDs should surely be protected frombullying and unfair termination ofstudentships, in the same way as ‘employed’researchers are protected by legislation andcontracts.Name and address supplied

1. McComb, J. Nature 387, 448 (1997).

2. The Guardian 27 January 1998.

3. Robinson, J. Education and the Law 9 (2), 93–107 (1997).

4. Macilwain, C. Nature 385, 669 (1997).

5. Poon, P. J. Law, Med. Ethics 23, 88–95 (1995).

Summing up a wizard atmaths... warts and allSir — In his review of my book Wizard: TheLife and Times of Nikola Tesla (Nature 388,135–136; 1997), L. Pearce Williams says that“no evidence is presented that [Tesla’s]mathematical competence was at the levelof contemporary mathematicians or evenhis fellow ‘electricians’”. I find this claimdifficult to understand.

In 1937, Tesla was nominated for aNobel prize in physics for his fundamentalequations explaining AC polyphasesystems, and his application ofmathematical principles to his variousinventions was acknowledged by AmbroseFleming, Lord Kelvin, Ernest Rutherford,W. H. Eccles, Niels Bohr and AlbertEinstein, among others.

Also, the statement that I “always”portray Tesla in a favourable light isincorrect. His financial deception of JohnJacob Astor, his breach of contract with J. P.Morgan and his self-destructive tendenciesand their link to the death of his olderbrother are just some of Tesla’s quirks,mistakes, foibles or miscalculations that Ipointed out. Marc J. SeiferMetaScience Productions,Box 32,Kingston, Rhode Island 02881, USA