Sir

How lovely to see the word “bollocks” appearing, perhaps for the first time, in (Nature 392, 663; 1998). And how appropriate that it should occur in Martin Kemp's series of pieces exploring the assimilation of scientific ideas into artistic creation.

It has been said that scientists tend to have a greater appreciation of art than artists have of science. Kemp's illustrations, together with his report of the unnamed biology graduate student's thoughtful appraisal of Cornelia Parker's work, provide a powerful counter-argument to this assertion.

A fellow-scientist of my acquaintance recently ridiculed a monochrome painting at an exhibition into which she had presumably stumbled by mistake, or to escape from bad weather; superficially ‘simple’ modern works — Mark Rothko's canvases and Carl Andre's sculptures come to mind — are especially vulnerable. I suggested to my colleague that an article in Nature might be no more intelligible to the painter than this painting was to her, but that the artist would be unlikely to dismiss the article as casually as she had the painting.

If the University of Leicester student is working towards a PhD, and if it is not too late, I would urge the student's supervisor to invite Cornelia Parker to act as an external examiner for the thesis. Ms Parker can hardly be any less eligible to evaluate this student's work than the student is to assess hers.

She could announce her verdict in the departmental tea room.