Dear Dr. Beck,
Thank you for your kind letter. As an introduction, I am already a member of SPME…
Below is the text of the letter sent to as many colleagues as I could manage from my computer (in blue print). It also contains the text of our Letter to Nature (black print). As you can see, I asked colleagues to distribute the letter and also to write and ask colleagues to write to Nature. Nature is extremely biased against Israel (for reasons which are not clear to me) but they react to pressure (meaning letters to the Editor, from more than one group).
Publishing our letter in the SPME Faculty Forum would be of great help. I also sent a copy of the letter to the US Executive Editor of Nature, Dr. Linda Miller, who is located in New York. Some of my colleagues feel that the Nature editors, located in London, are especially antagonistic to Israel. It is possible that this is explained by their young age and by their political orientation (readers of The Guardian and of The Independent). Thus, it is possible that we are dealing with the political anti-Semitism of the Left. Another interpretation is that the pro-Iran orientation is motivated by financial interests. I tried to find out who actually owns MacMillan (the Publishers of Nature) but it is not an easy task. My feeling is that the Editorial of August 17 (which follows on the steps of a smaller pro-Iranian article in the August 10, 2006 issue) is a coordinated effort originating in Iran, planned to coincide with the tension around the UN deadline and the war between Hizbollah and Israel. It is meant to convince the West that Iran is interested in science progress in a genuine manner not connected to the nuclear program. A similar campaign was organized by sympathizers of Saddam Hussein during the pressure exerted by the UN controllers, which culminated in an invited Editorial by R. Zilinskas, in no lesser journal than Science, in January 1998.
Best regards,
Edgar Pick, M.D.,Ph.D.
Professor
Director, the Julius Friedrich Cohnheim – Minerva
Center for Phagocyte Research
Head, the Ela Kodesz Institute of Host Defense
against Infectious Diseases
Incumbent, the Roberts-Guthman Chair in Immunopharmacology
Sackler School of Medicine
Tel Aviv University
Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
Tel: 972-3-640-7872
FAX: 972-3-642-9119
E-mail: epick@post.tau.ac.il
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
August 27, 2006
Dear Colleagues,
Please have a look at NATURE of August 17, 2006. On pages 719-720 (Nature 442.719-720.2006), there is an unsigned Editorial entitled “Revival in Iran”, which lavishes praise on Mr. Ahmadinejad, for promoting science and education in Iran. I am attaching a pdf of the document. The President of Iran is described in the most positive terms as a true reformer and humanist. The Editorial also deplores the many problems encountered by scientists in the West, due to attacks on Darwinism and on embryonic stem cell research, compared with the freedom in Iran, where research is constrained only by “humanistic ethics” (!)
The Editorial has as subtitle the sentence “Whatever its motivation, Iran’s support for education is to be welcomed”. In the body of the text, the Editors of Nature play at being faux-naifs and ask, in feigned innocence, “Perhaps the rise of science relates to the importance that Iran’s government attaches to the development of nuclear technology. Many regard Iran’s interest in these technologies with extreme suspicion. Nonetheless, Iran’s embrace of science should be welcomed”. A true scene from Moliere’s “Tartuffe”!
Do the Editors of Nature really believe that the motivation is unimportant? Are we to understand that Nature condones all uses of science even if these are focused on the development of means of mass destruction, such as atomic, chemical or biological weapons? Perhaps, an Editorial rehabilitating Dr. Mengele would be timely. After all, it was part of a program in Eugenics supported by the German Government, just as keen as present-day Iran in its embrace of science and education!
We have written a Letter to the Editor of Nature (see below). If you agree with the content of our letter, please distribute the text of the Editorial and the Letter by e-mail among colleagues, friends and family. Each additional person, who is made aware of the fact that Nature has, on this occasion, grossly crossed the borders of decency, is significant.
From past experience, we know that Nature is very reluctant to publish letters critical of their Editorials. However, being made aware of the fact that the protest letter is being distributed to scientists in the all countries puts pressure on the Editors to publish.
Thus, we would very much appreciate it if you would be willing to write your own Letter to the Editor of Nature (corres@Nature.com ) and urge colleagues to do the same.
With many thanks and best regards,
Edgar
Edgar Pick, M.D.,Ph.D.
Professor
Sackler School of Medicine
Tel Aviv University
Tel: 972-3-640- 7872 (work)
972-3-641-9833 (home)
FAX: 972-3-642-9119
epick@post.tau.ac.il
This is the text of our Letter to the Editor:
Revival in Iran – Nature praises a Holocaust denier*
SIR – Your Editorial “Revival in Iran” (Nature442, 719-720; 2006), praises President Ahmadinejad’s commitment to science and education and deplores the difficulties encountered by Iranian scientists due to US sanctions. This unsigned Editorial follows the description, one week earlier (Nature442, xi; 2006), of the problems encountered by an Iranian neuroscientist, again caused by US hostility (which, however, did not prevent many Iranian students from studying for a Ph.D. at universities of the “Big Satan”).
The undersigned represent a group of Israeli scientists and students active at the largest university of the country, normally labeled by the Iranian leadership as the “Little Satan”. We believe that the content of this letter expresses the views of the overwhelming majority of the Israeli academic community. We would like to address the following issues:
1. Major journals of Nature‘s stature (Science, Journal of Clinical Investigation) print Editorials signed by either the Editor-in-Chief or an invited writer. Are we to assume that the opinions expressed in “Revival in Iran” are those of Dr. Philip Campbell? If not, who is responsible for the rather startling statements made?
2. Mr. Ahmadinejad proclaimed repeatedly that the Holocaust is a myth. There is, unfortunately, overwhelming “scientific” evidence (horribile dictu) for the reality of this crime and we wonder how holding and expressing such a view is compatible with the basic tenet of science and education which is the pursuit of the truth.
3. The President of Iran, a member state of the United Nations and one which laments the limitations imposed on its scientific contacts, openly advocates the “wiping off the map” of the state of Israel, described as a “disgraceful blot”. We assume, although Mr. Ahmadinejad is not too explicit about it, that this includes the extermination of the inhabitants of the “blot”.
4. However, all this is dwarfed by the description by Nature of the ayatollah-dominated, ultra-radical, Islamic dictatorship as being ruled by “humanistic (rather than religious) ethics”! Even a perfunctory look at the streets of Tehran, with women clad in the compulsory Islamic dress code (enforced by the President) puts to ridicule the picture of Mr. Ahmadinejad as a liberal and a feminist militant.
5. We are convinced that scientists active in what Nature calls Christian countries, concerned about the questioning of Darwinian evolution and the pros and contras of embryonic stem-cell research, much prefer to face these difficulties in their free societies than live and work in what is officially called the Islamic Republic of Iran.
6. The enchantment of intellectuals with dictatorships ruled by religious or ideological fanaticism is not new. Could we refresh the memory of the Editors of Nature? There was a man, not so long ago, who was as concerned about progress as Mr. Ahmadinejad. He was well known for building superb autobahns and pompous architectural extravaganzas, and was quite concerned about promoting science and education except for the fact that the Holocaust, which did not take place, severely depleted the ranks of his scientific manpower. The banning of decadent music and degenerate art by the same man is mimicked by the prohibition of Western and indecent music from public radio and TV stations by order of Mr. Ahmadinejad, who openly declares that he hates “our” civilization.
7. The interest of the little man with the moustache in physics for peaceful purposes led him to successes in rocketry and to a major effort of enriching uranium. Does it ring a bell? However, unlike Mr. Ahmadinejad, he did not claim that the Holocaust was a myth. He made it into reality.
Yevgeny Berdichevsky, Iris Dahan, Ariel Mizrahi, Shahar Molshanski-Mor, Yael Nakash, Edgar Pick, Yelena Ugolev, Anat Zehavi (in alphabetical order)
Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
* Dedicated to the memory of Jewish scientists and educators who perished in the Holocaust.
Editorial
Nature442, 719-720(17 August 2006) | doi:10.1038/442719b; Published online 16 August 2006
Revival in Iran
Whatever its motivation, Iran’s support for education and science is to be welcomed.
In eleventh-century Persia, it is said that three school friends pledged to serve their country and share their fortunes. Very different fortunes, it turned out.
Nizam al-Mulk became prime minister to two consecutive Persian kings. He built a network of roads across the country, and established the chain of ‘Nizamiyya’ schools, which taught theology, science and mathematics, adhering to a national curriculum.
Hassan-i Sabbah became the head of a fanatical religious group, the Hashshashin, which operated an almost independent government, protected by a string of castles. The many attempts by Persian kings to overthrow the Hashshashin failed, and Nizam al-Mulk was eventually assassinated by Sabbah’s followers.
Omar Khayyam became the greatest astronomer and mathematician of his age. He invented, for example, the Khayyam triangle – better known as the Pascal triangle, after Blaise Pascal who described it hundreds of years later. Khayyam also provided his country with a solar calendar, more accurate than the gregorian calendar we use today. And he became one of Persia’s most popular poets.
In the millennium since the three school friends parted company, the country we now know as Iran has witnessed a sometimes glorious, often sad, political history. Along with the rest of the Middle East, Iran’s scientific power declined as Europe’s ascended with the Renaissance. But the nation’s cultural respect for study never died.
Science regained its foothold during the 1970s, under the Shah, even though his oppressive regime drove many intellectuals into exile. It faltered at the start of the Islamic revolution in 1979, but gained momentum in the 1990s when Iran became the most scientifically productive country in the Middle East apart from Israel. About 4,000 papers from Iran were published in 2005, according to the Institute for Scientific Information, compared with just over 500 in 1995. (Nature‘s first all-Iranian research paper was published last week.)
Perhaps the rise of science relates to the importance that Iran’s government attaches to the development of nuclear technology. Many regard Iran’s interest in these technologies with extreme suspicion. Nonetheless, Iran’s embrace of science should be welcomed.
The educated young in Iran will still go their own individual ways, usually for good, sometimes for bad. But there is once again the opportunity for a privileged few to shine as scientists, if they can cope with the low pay and poor infrastructure that prevail outside the handful of elite institutions, and can sidestep the many problems caused by US sanctions.
One practical advantage for science in Muslim countries is the lack of direct interference of religious doctrine, such as exists in many Christian countries. There has never, for example, been a debate about darwinian evolution, and human embryonic stem-cell research is constrained by humanistic rather than religious ethics. The Royan Institute in Iran was the first in the Middle East to develop a human embryonic stem-cell line, using spare embryos from its in vitro fertilization programme.
The recent dramatic rise in scientific productivity coincided with the relaxing of a stern Islamic regime under reformist president Mohammad Khatami. When hard-line Islamist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president last year, some scientists felt nervous, especially, no doubt, when he replaced the presidents of all the universities with worryingly inexperienced people. But the regime has so far shown a strong commitment to higher education. One of its first acts was to wipe out the debts accrued by universities, where female students now outnumber males, even in some areas of hard science. Ahmadinejad has also taken significant steps to prepare for an expansion of university student numbers. And he has not made cuts to research funds, which had increased over the past decade.
But will he maintain growth, given other pressing priorities in today’s Iran? If not, many young scientists trained in the recent good years and now undertaking postdoctoral research abroad will have no prospects if they return home. An opportunity would be lost. So here’s hoping that he avoids the need for these lines of Khayyam as a lament:
Alas that spring should vanish with the rose
That youth’s sweet-scented manuscript should close!