Nature © Macmillan Publishers Ltd 1998

8Sir — As a former scientist married tosomeone who is in his second year of apostdoctoral fellowship, I could not agreemore with John Moore’s comments on thesad state of funding for young scientists inthe United States (Nature 395, 431; 1998). Isuspect that the career situation forscientists will get worse before it gets better,resulting in the frustration anddemoralization of a generation of brightyoung people. I hope that the voices ofpeople such as Moore will be heard inCongress before the next generation ofscientists is lost.

My decision to leave my postdoc wasbased on several factors, but one of theprimary reasons was concern that we wouldnot be able to support a family on twopostdoc salaries. Most of my colleaguesbelieved that I would be able to succeed inacademic research, but they all supportedmy decision then and agree now that it wasthe right move. Although my husband is

correspondence

12 NATURE | VOL 396 | 5 NOVEMBER 1998 | www.nature.com

committed to research, we sometimeswonder about our financial future.

I now work at a public relations firmthat specializes in the biotechnology,pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors. Inaddition to providing better wages andbenefits, this position offers something thatis sorely lacking in academia: recognitionand reward for a job done well. I have twicebeen promoted, and get daily positivereinforcement from co-workers and clients.

My office recently hired a friend of minefrom graduate school, my sister left sciencefor a job on Wall Street and another friendis thinking of leaving her postdoc for a jobin industry where she could earn more andhave more time to spend with her child.Judging from the résumés I receive eachmonth from scientists seeking new jobopportunities, we are not alone.

Without changes to the current system, Ifear that financial realities will force agrowing number of talented people to seek

alternative careers that will enable them touse their hard-earned degrees for greatermonetary reward.Stephanie SeilerNoonan/Russo Communications,220 Fifth Avenue, New York 10001, USA

Sir — John Moore rightly suggests that oneway to attract bright US students topostdoctoral positions, and eventually toacademia, is to raise their salaries. But hisconcluding sentence appears to suggest thewrong solution.

If the government spends money to“train more young scientists” this shouldtend to create a further glut of postdocs,and depress their salaries further. To raisesalaries, we should be funding fewer youngscientists in order to pay them individuallymore with the same pot of money.Keith Alverson Past Global Changes International Project Office, Bern, Switzerland

Generation of young scientists in peril

Wronged by Crookes

Sir — The 10 September Daedalus columnwas, as usual, fascinating and charming(Nature 395, 120; 1998). But it raises thepossibility of a grave academic injusticedating from nearly 20 years ago.

At the time, I was a sophomore in aprestigious university in the AmericanMidwest (we’ll leave out the institution’sname, but its initials are University ofChicago). I recall with chagrin breaking upon the rocks of an introductory quantummechanics examination (I had an A gradegoing into the final) in which one of thequestions was an explanation of the Crookesradiometer, as dealt with by Daedalus.

Never mind what I answered; you’re notgoing to get me to admit to that. But thecorrect answer, I was told by a tired-lookingprofessor, was that photons hitting theblack side of the vane were experiencing aninelastic collision, while those hitting thewhite side were colliding elastically. Theinelastic collision imparted a momentum, P(derived from the photon), onto the vane,but in order to conserve momentum theelastic one had to impart a 2P momentum.Hence, motion in the direction of the blackside of the vanes, QED.

I existed at the time in a perpetual stateof indignation, which was not helped by theintrusion of classical mechanics into myworld of hamiltonian operators andeigenfunctions (any misuse of terms, by theway, I blame on my teachers).

Now, however, Daedalus provides a

mechanism of action for the Crookesradiometer that deviates from the givenwisdom of that fateful day, nigh on twodecades ago. Have I been wronged? Should Ibring this case before the university’s ethicscommittee? I am, of course, willing todispense with any considerations ofacademic collegiality or respect for atalented researcher/teacher. I’m a journalistnow, I need neither.

I await a reply with high expectations oftwisting that A out of said professor. Betterlate than never. Kenneth B. Chiacchia Public Relations, UPMC Health System, 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA

On the world stage

Sir — Your article “Urgent thinkingrequired about development” refers to theWorld Conference on Science to beorganized next year in Budapest by theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization (Nature 395, 527;1998). In fact this conference is jointlysponsored by UNESCO and theInternational Council for Science (ICSU).

This is the first time that UNESCO, agovernmental organization, has joined witha non-governmental organization to co-sponsor such an international event.

The conference will be held from26 June to 1 July, not in May as stated inyour article, and will deal with such topicsas sustainable development, science and

development, science and industry, andknowledge as a public good.Jean-François Stuyck-Taillandier(Executive director)ICSU, 51 Bld de Montmorency, 75016 Paris, France

Fishing for compliments

Sir —There is an alternative explanation forthe cause of citation errors to that offeredby Nicholas Price (Nature 395, 538; 1998).

In 1957, I was the author, with R. J. H.Beverton, of a book (On the Dynamics ofExploited Fish Populations, HMSO) which,according to citation indexes, is still themost cited reference in fisheries science. Weboth occasionally wondered why thatshould be when the book was long out ofprint — until republished in 1993 — andnot readily available outside specializedlibraries. It seemed that it became‘politically correct’ for newcomers to ourfield to cite our work, and a considerableproportion of them had clearly never reador even seen it, as we could tell frominternal evidence in their publications.

So one or two incorrect referencesreproduced themselves; they were notmistakes or typos or due to simplecarelessness. Naturally, we were proud ofour citation records, but, as we say here, it isun po’ esagerata.Sidney HoltPodere il Falco, 06060 Ponticelli PG, Italy