March 11, 1963

Dr. Philip H. Abelson, Editor,

SCIENCE,

American Association for the Advancement of Science,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Phil:

The 18 January issue of SCIENCE published Van Kiel's review of Umbreit's "Modern microbiology". The phrasing of the review is not only in poor taste, it is savage. I found it so repelling I took the trouble to check parts of it, and what I find makes the review even more repulsive.

In the first place it is difficult to locate many of the quotes cited by Van Niel because he gives no page references. One of his criticisms that I could find is the paragraph discussing whether bacteria are plants (3rd paragraph, column 3, p. 202). The quotations he takes from the book are out of context and imply a meaning that the book does not give (page 7 and 8 of the book). Is this simply carelessness? From the tone of the review it could be malicious mischief.

Van Niel criticizes (1st paragraph, column 2, p. 202) the statement about the magnification required for study of bacteria. The sentence in the book (p. 6) could be phrased better, but in its context it is not misleading. Granted individual bacteria may be seen with low power, it is only good sense that high power is needed to study them.

Figure 28-2, as Van Niel points out, is given a wrong scale. Mixing up bar scales and functional scales is a commonplace type of error in the publishing business, arising out of reductions and enlargements. We all wish such errors could be avoided, but they do not warrant abusive language.

I do not know Unmbriet or Van Niel, and I don't need to tell you that I am not a microbiologist. Nobody could be freer of bias and less hampered by facts! I can, though, recognize an irresponsible, abusive review, and this certainly is one. The unfairness is made worse by the headline you gave “On standards for textbooks".

This letter is not for publication, and does not require an answer. But in view of the nastiness perpetrated by Van Niel and published by SCIENCE, I would like to see further accounts by persons conversant with the subject. Van Niel says this book should be kept away from tyros like myself, but in view of his tone I am skeptical of his determination. How about setting the record straight?

Sincerely yours,