CORRESPONDENCE

NATURE|Vol 437|20 October 2005

Don’t underestimate thedeath rate from Chernobyl
SIR — Your News story “Chernobyl: povertyand stress pose ‘bigger threat’ than radiation”(Nature 437, 181; 2005) suggests that thehealth and environmental effects of theChernobyl accident were not as great asoriginally suggested.
Writing on behalf of an international groupof researchers in this area (see http://cricket.
biol.sc.edu/chernobyl/nature/letter.pdf),
we believe that these suggestions, based on
the reports of the UN Chernobyl Forum,
are misleading.

“As we approach the twentiethanniversary of the Chernobyl
disaster we should be sensitive tothe long-term implications.”— T. A. Mousseau and colleagues
The full estimate, given by the UN report,of people who could eventually die of factors
linked to radiation includes people in othercontaminated areas as well as those within
Soviet Contaminated Zones and is 9,335,
not 4,000 as reported. This estimate is similar
to earlier estimates of future cancer mortality
prepared by the US government in December
1987 (Report on the Accident at the Chernobyl
Nuclear Power Station, US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC).
Further details to support our argument thatneither of these estimates should be downplayed are available at the website above.
We believe it is too early to assess theoverall impacts of radionuclide exposure
on human health or on plant and animalpopulations. In particular, we do not know
all the possible consequences of the multigenerational accumulation of genetic defects.
As we approach the twentieth anniversary of
the Chernobyl disaster we should be moresensitive to the long-term implications ratherthan suggesting that the coast is clear for
redevelopment in the contaminated zones.
Up to now, most studies have focused oncancer, because of funding constraints, withlittle investment in studies of non-cancer
morbidity or model systems. But modelorganisms with relatively short lifespans
may provide a clear picture of the multigenerational consequences for humanhealth, while humans exposed to Chernobyl
are a unique population that must be
supported and observed far into the future.
Given the long latency period for many
diseases and the growing interest in
rejuvenating the nuclear power industry,
it is imperative that studies of the affected
populations continue.
Timothy A. Mousseau*, Neal Nelson†,V. Shestopalov‡*School of the Environment,

University of South Carolina, Columbia,
South Carolina 29208, USA†8102 Ashton Birch Drive, Springfield,
Virginia 22152, USA‡Radioecology Centre of the Ukrainian
National Academy of Sciences,
Kyiv 01054, Ukraine

Media reports: call for aworking party is unrealistic
SIR — The call, made in your Editorial“Responding to uncertainty” (Nature 437,1; 2005), for learned societies to create
fast-acting working parties to respond tosensational news stories arising from journals,
is unrealistic in the United Kingdom.
Having worked in and with UK biologicallearned societies for a couple of decades,
including a term as a member of theCouncil for the Association of Learned
and Professional Society Publishers, I cantestify that the vast majority simply do nothave the resources to implement thissuggestion. Further, their members havefull-time commitments and so would find
it difficult to attend such working parties
at short notice.
The best that might be achieved would befor those societies that publish journals tocall upon their editorial boards to justify
the decision to publish, and to clarify any
uncertainty arising out of media reporting.
However, even this would not be applicable
to all cases: for instance, the example you citeof the MMR vaccine would not be covered as
The Lancet is produced by a publishing houseand not a learned society.
Jonathan Cowie
Science-com.concatenation.org,
Northumberland Heath,Kent DA8 3EU, UK

Main effect of bureaucracy
is to reduce productivity
SIR — Your News Feature “The nightmare
before funding” (Nature 437, 308–311; 2005),
on the horrors of writing grant applications,will strike a chord with researchers
everywhere.
To my knowledge there has never been any
objective analysis to determine whether or
not increasing the complexity in the funding
process has improved decision-making by
the funding agencies or produced higherquality research from the recipients of thefunds. The only outcome of which we can becertain is that the wasted time makes grantwriters less productive. This in turn means
that, for those agencies that burden us withthis administrative nonsense, the sciencebase is less competitive. I know this because,©2005 Nature Publishing Groupin order to keep my own research grouprunning on a relatively modest scale, I havenot been able to do an experiment for five
years, and I am certainly not alone.
The pessimistic view is that we are now too
bogged down in this mess ever to return toa simpler, more sensible way of doing things.
I tell my PhD students that the allure ofresearch used to be the intellectual challenge,
but nowadays you’d better be up for theadministrative challenge too.
Stephen Moss
Ashton Chair of Biomedical Research,
Division of Cell Biology,
Institute of Ophthalmology,
University College London,
11–43 Bath Street, London EC1V 9EL,UK

Concern at animal researchshould not be dismissed
SIR — Your Editorial “Still not deterred”(Nature 437, 1–2; 2005) calls on universities
to support animal research. We are all
horrified at the techniques of the terrorists,
but the much wider public is increasingly
sceptical about animal research. These
are legitimate concerns that should not bedismissed because of a few fringe characters.
As scientists, we depend on public funds, so
we are under an obligation to explain whyanimal research is morally acceptable.
We argue that animal research can yield
information not available through otherexperimental techniques. Historically, wehave experimented on slaves and prisoners.
Given that we can no longer justify thesuffering of human research subjects, even
if it could save lives, how can we accept
the suffering of animal research subjects?
We must recognize that the decision toexperiment with animals is a moral decision,
not a scientific one. Our society does notbelieve that the end justifies the means.
Do we disagree?
Our contention that humans are uniqueamong the animals is a religious argument.
As an evolutionist, I find it absurd to thinkthat human culture and society developed
without precedents among animals. We infact now have evidence for animal cultures,as reported in the pages of this journal.
Perhaps we need to come up with better
arguments — or better experiments that don’toffend the public.
Jacqueline Zupp
CCBC - F520, 7201 Rossville Boulevard,Baltimore, Maryland 21237, USA

Contributions to Correspondence may besubmitted to corres@nature.com. They
should be no longer than 500 words, andideally shorter. They should be signed by no
more than three authors; preferably by one.
Published contributions are edited.
1089