To the Editor:
Re "Give Doctors Tougher Rules" (Op-Ed, Dec. 10), by Dr. Joseph R. Wilder: Most serious medical mistakes relate to inadvertent medication errors, which can best be handled on a hospital-by-hospital basis, using computerized safeguards and guidelines. Oversight by medical governing bodies would have the counterproductive effect of encouraging doctors (and other caregivers) to hide, rather than learn from, their mistakes: plaintiffs' lawyers lurk in every corner.

To the Editor:
The "big one" got away in the recent article on the supersalmon ("Supersalmon to the rescue," Nov. 30).
The article definitely missed the boat on the critical issue that faster-growing salmon can safely help to feed the growing world population. Armed with biotechnology, fish farms would be able to double their production of salmon.
The supersalmon was modified by the introduction of a gene that was found in flounder. When the gene is introduced into the Atlantic salmon, they grow faster by using their natural growth hormone more effectively.

The Nazi War on Cancer (Princeton Uni- versity Press, 1999) the latest book by Robert N. Proctor, Professor of the History of Science at The Pennsylvania State University integrates themes from, and has the same strengths and weaknesses as, two of his previous works, Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don't Know About Cancer (1995) and Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (1988). One cannot fully comprehend The Nazi War on Cancer without referring to these earlier works. The book under consideration echoes the chemophobia of Cancer Wars.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has cited "Ten Great Public Health Achievements" of 20th-century America which the medical monthly Consultant described, loosely, as the CDC's "top ten" pick of "medical triumphs." Consultant is distributed to more than 160,000 physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. Its descriptions of the public health advances are similar to the CDC's summaries. I asked all ACSH advisors to offer comments on both the Consultant article and the CDC's list and to propose additions and replacement items.

To the Editor:
I applaud Holman Jenkins' attempt to shed some light on the so-called "Biotech. controversy" ("Fun Facts to Know...", Nov.17). He seems to clearly understand that those who propagate this scare care nothing for scientific facts, and will brook no interference with their Luddite goals.

On the 40th anniversary of the great "cranberry scare" of l959, scientists at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) urged Americans to "eat, drink, and be wary" of those who attempt to frighten us about trace levels of synthetic chemicals in foods.

Ben & Jerry's ice cream has a reputation for being the most politically correct item in your freezer. For years the company has decried the dangers of even trace levels of "toxins" in food. It is apparently unaware that toxins, such as arsenic, occur naturally in almonds, cherries, and many other natural foods. Ben & Jerry's might be described as a chemically holier-than-thou company.

In his Oct. 30 radio address, President Clinton announced efforts to protect Americans from "some of the most dangerous chemicals ever known." He incorrectly encouraged us to believe that very low exposures to certain chemicals are increasing our risk of cancer and other diseases.
He pointed his finger squarely at industry for releasing chemicals like dioxin, PCBs and mercury into the air we breathe and the water we drink. He then promised to protect families from these chemicals by requiring industry to tell us when they release even a tiny amount of certain chemicals.

To the Editor:
American consumers should be appalled at the thought of the consortium of anti-biotech activists declaring war on socalled "genetically modified organisms." These "activists" assume they know what is best for all of us, and would limit our choices, as well as those of plant breeders and farmers world-wide with no rational, scientific basis for their actions.

What topic can embroil one of Britain's leading scientific journals, various newspaper, TV and radio commentators, as well as the Royal Society British counterpart to our National Academy of Sciences in heated controversy? The culprit, at least at first glance, is genetically engineered potatoes. But the real question underlying this latest skirmish in the bioengineering wars is 'what constitutes good science?'