The letter to the editor was the standard way scientists discuss their work. It was pointed out that a statement was made that was unsupported and that it should be followed up with data. It was not followed up with the data - hence the statement no longer enjoys peer-reviewed status.
If Beecher had provided the data then the statement would be accepted. I wonder why Beecher didn’t provide the data? But I’m sure you don’t wonder why.
TrebleRebel,
Or the offering from Harvard University Press from September 2006 is “Anthrax: Bioterror as Fact and Fantasy” by French history professor Philipp Sarasin (Translated into English).
That book quotes a June 2005 interview of Dr. Alibek in a Swiss (German language) weekly news magazine, Neue Zurcher Zeitung, in which he addresses the anthrax mailings:
A. “...What if I told you Swiss scientists are paid by Al Qaeda? You could believe it or not. It has become somewhat fashionable to disparage Russian scientists. Americans, Iraqis, or whoever could just as well be involved with Al Qaeda. Why doesn’t anyone speculate about that?”
Q. “But could one of your students build a biological weapon in the garage?”
A. “Let me reply philosophically: Two hundred years ago, it was unthinkable to believe that people would be using mobile telephones, wasn’t it? Everything changes. Our knowledge grows, and technology develops incredibly quickly. These days even high-school kids can breed recombinant microbial strains. I am not saying that a student is in a position to build a biological weapon all by himself. But the knowledge needed to do it is certainly there.”
I discussed the article with Dr. Beecher. I KNOW why he hasn't responded to the criticism. So, there's no need for me to wonder.
As to why he didn't provide support for statements about things that any microbiologist should know, is it really necessary to include an explanation of elementary microbiology in a paper about ways of detecting anthrax in mail bags?