Volume publishing

280 Nature Vol. 260 March 25 I976 correspondence Allergic reactions to laboratory animals SIR-There is a growing concern about allergic reactions in laboratory workers who handle animals but little factual evidence is available. The Bri·tish Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology appointed a working party to investigate this subject and here we report preliminary findings, which give some idea of the size of the problem. We used a questionnaire in two laboratories, one industrial and the other non-industrial, but the results were closely similar, so here we amalgamate them. 474 individuals were questioned. Salient points were, that of this population, • 23 % had had one or more symptoms occurring repeatedly within 12 hours of animal contact • 9 % had had chest, 17 % nasal, 10% eye and 11% skin symptoms • 4 % had had to stop working with animals • after two years of exposure the incidence of allergy did not increase significantly with further exposure • a family history of allergy was present in 22 % of those who reported symptoms, 19 % of those who did not. This surprisingly small difference calls into question the usefulness of a preemployment family-history screen, and is M variance with results from a recent survey in the USA (Lutsky L 1. , and Neuman, I., Annals Allergy, 31, 201 (1975)). We regard the figure of 23 % as disturbingly high, higher than those reported recently from the USA (two surveys gave 15 % and 11 %), and we are starting a much larger survey to investigate factors whkh may alter the incidence of allergic reactions in exposed populations. Yours faithfully, GEOFFREY TAYLOR (CHMN.) G . E. DAVIES (SEC.) R . E . c. AL TOUNY AN H . MoRROW BROWN A. W. FRANKLAND J. MORRISON SMITH R . WINCH British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Working Party on sensitivity to laboratory animals, c/o Immunology Laboratory, University of Manchester, Manch ester, UK Volume publishing Alternative refrigerants SIR,-1 write to draw a·t tention to, to underline, and to generalise from, the exquisite rev.iew (March 4, page 82) of the Handbook of Perception, which I have not seen. Dr John Mollon lambasts non-editing, a feature not confined .to .the publishers of the Handbook, and unfortunately rife in the field of science publishing Progressive specialisation and illiteracy make i•t clea•rly more and more difficult for any one author to cover a field in depth: :hence the mushrooming of Ed1tored volumes during ·t he last decade or two. A publisher approaches a Name, offers a percentage out of aoll proportion •t o the services rendered (which frequently consist Jn no more than drawing up a list of contributors and acting as a ·r elay station for the receipt of typescripts), and informs the Inland Revenue at the appropriate time. The contributors are also offered a percentage out of aH proportion to the services rendered: I know of a case where the typist was paid more than the author. 11hey are often up-andcoming youngsters wlho will not heed the warnings of us older hacks. I always point out to younger colleagues that fix.ed payments are to be avoided like the plague •especially Jf they are made after pub!.ication : inflation eats into the terms but the selling price of the book can protect the publisher and editor. I also stress the nai"vete of the notion that they wiH detive any kudos: later references are almost invariably made to the Editor-so-called, with the author's name sunk in Lethe. Tille crowning insu!.t occurs when a generous publtsher sends along 25 reprints, and so ensures a reduction in sales. It ~eems to me that there is a case for an agt'eed code of good conduct to protect the interests of (young) authors who probably cannot afford the luxury of member~hip of authors' protective associations-which can, in any case, do little more than offer adv.ke. Moreover, if Edi.t ors started spelling their designation w.itJh a lower-case e, the interests of autJhors might begin to be guarded, and one of the last reJ.ics of child labour expunged from society. Yours faithfully, R. A. WEALE Department of Visual Science, Institute of Ophthalmology, University of London, London, UK SIR-The letter from Birks and Leek, (Correspondence, March 4, pa?e 8) avers that while we can do without aerosol cans our civilization cannot function without refrigerators. It is •t hen suggested that, if we do not choose to give up refrigerators, we may ha~e to continue tolerating atmosphenc pollution by chlorofluorocarbons, e'ven if we ban aerosol cans. The implication that we are faced with such an awkward choice is not, I think , correot. It is true that we can prevent release of chlo rofluorocarbons into .the atmosphere by aerosol cans in only one way : ban aerosol cans. It is an essential part of their operation to release the gas they contain. This is not true of refrigerators, which normally release their refrigerant gas only when junked. This release could be almost completely prevented by • a law making it an offence carrying a heavy penalty to junk a refrigera•t or without first having a suitable public or private {licensed) agency remove the refrigerant, or • much better, requiring a meaningfully large deposit to be left when a refrigerator is purchased and rebating that sum , plus inflation related interest, only upon presentation of proof that the refrigerant has been duly recovered by the designated agency. We can in short, keep refrigerators and save 'our atmosphere, even if it becomes necessary to discontinue using aerosol cans. Yours faithfully, F. A. CorroN Department of Chemistry, Texas A & M University, College of Science, Texas 77843 © 1976 Nature Publishing Group The pace of life SIR-Hermits can communicate with everyone in their community by standing still (February 19, page 557 and March 18, page 188). But what about pedestrians in downtown Tokyo (population in excess of 107 )? Can anyone confirm that they walk at almost 2m s-'? Yours faithfully, RALPH A. LEWIN Scripps Institution, La Jolla, California 92037  (...truncated)