I read with interest the recent commentary by Professor Werner Z. Hirsch ("Campus/industry ties pose risks," May 22). I fully agree with his efforts to raise awareness about this important issue among UCLA faculty members.

At the request of Vice Chancellor Roberto Peccei, I have been chairing a faculty Task Force on Financial Conflicts in Clinical Research. The group's recommendations have been submitted to the vice chancellor and cover many of the areas described by Professor Hirsch. A few of the recommendations are summarized below:

-Create an institutional statement of principles regarding financial conflicts of interest in clinical research;

-Develop a set of guidelines for faculty that would include a description of various types of potential conflicts;

-Outline for faculty how disclosed conflicts of interest are managed by UCLA;

-Require disclosure of financial conflicts of interest by "key personnel," including investigators;

-Develop an interactive educational program for investigators and key personnel in the area of financial conflicts of interest.

To maintain the trust of the public and the integrity of the research enterprise, it is essential for there to be open discussion among the faculty on these recommendations, and prompt action by the university administration in enhancing the current campus programs in this area.

Allen R. Nissenson
Professor
School of Medicine

To the Editor:

The Voices piece by economist Tom Lieser ("So. Cal economy may at long last beat Bay Area's," May 8) reminded me of a quote by the late, great environmental writer Edward Abbey: "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." Lieser champions "long-term, new growth" for California, especially its southern part. Well, I can't think of anything worse for the state, the nation or the world than yet more growth based mostly on "business as usual" increases in population and consumption.

UCLA and Los Angeles have grown a lot since I first encountered them not quite 30 years ago. Are they better now? I think not. I visited Austin, Texas, after a 20-year-absence, during which time it grew enormously. Is Austin a better place now? Absolutely not, unless one prefers quantity to quality.

By virtually any indicator (see, e.g., Worldwatch's annual State of the World series), the stress placed on the biosphere by modern industrial "civilization" is already well beyond levels of sustainability. Unfortunately, it will take a catastrophe to get people to change their value systems and, ultimately, their ways.

Ben Zuckerman
Professor
Physics and Astronomy