Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
In their response to the "Neurogenetic determinism and the new
euphenics" article, Craddock et al. accuse Steven Rose arguments to be out
of date and not aware of the new achievements of molecular biology that is
demonstrating a lot of genetical links to psychiatric pathologies.
Curiously enough the advanced research in molecular biology (see for
example S.Huang, Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 18, May 2000: 471-472) is more
similar to Rose's position recognizing the global vacuity of looking for
single genes responsible for given diseases and shifting to holistic and
complexity based methodologies like DNA chips technology and, more in
general, bioinformatics approaches.
The situation would be quite comic if it should not involve deep
political and ideological consequences and, more importantly, the way our
society faces the sufferings of real people.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
23 June 2000
Alessandro Giuliani
Ph.D.
Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Roma, Italy
Keeping in pace
In their response to the "Neurogenetic determinism and the new
euphenics" article, Craddock et al. accuse Steven Rose arguments to be out
of date and not aware of the new achievements of molecular biology that is
demonstrating a lot of genetical links to psychiatric pathologies.
Curiously enough the advanced research in molecular biology (see for
example S.Huang, Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 18, May 2000: 471-472) is more
similar to Rose's position recognizing the global vacuity of looking for
single genes responsible for given diseases and shifting to holistic and
complexity based methodologies like DNA chips technology and, more in
general, bioinformatics approaches.
The situation would be quite comic if it should not involve deep
political and ideological consequences and, more importantly, the way our
society faces the sufferings of real people.
Competing interests: No competing interests