restricted access A Response to Wainwright's Letter to the Editor
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

A Response to Wainwright’s Letter to the Editor

To the Editor

DID I "snidely question" Nature's description of Wainwright as "an independent medical scientist?" No, they described him as an "independent medical historian,"1 and it was the objectivity of his history, not his scientific record, that concerned me.

Did I "conveniently ignore" the award of the Rutgers Medal to Schatz in 1994? No, it is dealt with on page 454.

Did I write that his book "was published a year before Lawrence's article, when in fact it was published some twelve years before?" No, I wrote (p. 442) that it was published a year before Wainwright's own article, which is correct.

Had I actually read his article? Of course—I cite it four times (pp. 442, 456, 458).


1. William Kingston, "Streptomycin, Schatz versus Waksman, and the Balance of Credit for Discovery." J. Hist. Med. All. Sci., 2004, 59, 442.