Sir — Your Editorial “PhD — club orhistory?” (Nature 429, 789; 2004), aboutthe withdrawal of Jan Hendrik Schön’sdoctorate, raises an important point.You argue that a PhD is a “piece of history”and that by revoking Schön’s, as a sanctionagainst fabricating results, the University of Konstanz is treating a PhD as a mere“club membership”.

However, a PhD is seen by the widerscientific community as a de facto ‘licence’to perform science. It is true that somenotable scientists, including the late John

Maynard Smith (see Nature 429, 258–59;2004), have not needed the benefit of aPhD to carry out excellent science. Butholders of the degree are perceived by the general public as being experts in their fields. I would argue that knowinglypublishing fraudulent results does far moreto diminish the status of a PhD than sellingthe bogus doctorates widely available onthe Internet “for only US$35 plus postage”.

Although Schön’s PhD thesis was foundto be free of malpractice, no one wouldargue that someone passing a driving test

correspondence

NATURE | VOL 430 | 29 JULY 2004 | www.nature.com/nature 503

flawlessly could not, at some later date,have their licence revoked should theirconduct behind the wheel suggest they are no longer a safe and responsible driver.Given the trust that the scientific and non-scientific communities place in a PhD, it is not unreasonable to withdrawone under certain circumstances — rarethough I hope these would be.Adam G. HartDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences,University of Sheffield, Western Bank,Sheffield S10 2TN, UK

Species problem solved100 years ago Sir — In his Turning Points essay “Learningfrom the Altmeister”, Axel Meyer highlightsthe 100th birthday this year of the greatevolutionist Ernst Mayr (Nature 428, 897;2004). Yet the other major centenary forevolutionary biology has been overlooked,both by Meyer and in your anniversaryCommentary article “1904 and all that”(Nature 426, 761–764; 2003). EdwardBagnall Poulton’s paper “What is aSpecies?” (Proc. Entomol. Soc. Lond. 1903,lxxvii–cxvi; 1904) was the first to grappleexclusively with the problem of species inan evolutionary framework. Poulton’spaper, a version of his January 1904presidential address to the EntomologicalSociety of London, laid out the researchprogramme for speciation largely adoptedtoday. (See http://abacus.gene.ucl.ac.uk/jim/Mim/poulton.html.)

I do not wish to belittle the work ofMayr and the geneticist TheodosiusDobzhansky — but our impression thatthey solved the species problem is illusory.They were merely the ones who translatedit from the technical literature, enunciatingmuch more clearly than before what hadbecome the prevailing view of speciesamong those who had thought about the problem.

Both Mayr and Dobzhansky werestrongly influenced by Poulton, as well as by Poulton’s friend Karl Jordan, also aFellow of the Entomological Society, andboth cited their work. Mayr was to formhis views on species and speciation, andparticularly the ‘biological species concept’,nearly 40 years after Poulton’s pioneeringargument that species were reproductivelyisolated populations.

Yet the historical links go back evenfurther. In December 1903, shortly beforePoulton’s lecture, Alfred Russel Wallacegave him a signed book on mimicry and

speciation. This contained a reprint ofWallace’s 1865 paper on Asian Papiliobutterflies: the first to recognize that thefemale mimics of poisonous swallowtailswere members of the same species as non-mimetic males.

Wallace also made the first carefulanalysis by a darwinist of ‘varieties’below the species level, in particulardistinguishing geographic races fromreproductively isolated species. Darwin hadnever provided such an analysis, leaving hisdefinition of species vague. Both Poultonand Jordan worked on Papilio butterflies,and cited Wallace’s paper.

So, as well as Mayr’s 100th birthday,we should celebrate the centenary ofPoulton’s paper and his gift from Wallace.These events were as epochal in their way for evolutionary biology as was theunderstanding of the structure of DNA for genetics.James MalletGalton Laboratory, University College London,4 Stephenson Way, London NW1 2HE, UK

Tight budget should fundbenefits, not more postsSir — Your News story “Young biologistsrejected as NIH budget squeezes traininggrants” (Nature 428, 879; 2004) lamentsthe loss of training positions caused by thestagnant training budget at the USNational Institutes of Health (NIH).

The desire to hire all deservingcandidates is understandable. However,the scientific community must realize thatit is in everyone’s interest to make suretrainees receive adequate compensation,even if that means fewer positions arefunded overall.

The Federation of American Societiesfor Experimental Biology is concerned thatfunding restrictions will limit the growth

of stipends and benefits for all NIH-supported trainees and fellows.

The NIH Kirschstein–NRSA (NationalResearch Service Award) institutionaltraining grants and individual fellowshipsare the gold standard for postdoctoralresearch training in the United States.They identify our most talented andpromising young researchers. Despite theprestige of this award, postdoctoral NRSAfellows are not guaranteed access to basicemployment benefits. With the median age of postdoctoral fellows rising, thesebenefits are particularly critical to thosewho must support families with relativelylow salaries and inadequate health andretirement benefits.

The Kirschstein–NRSA programmeshould put aside extra funds to cover the costs of health and other benefits —even if this requires funding fewer slots.This will enhance the stature of the NIH Kirschstein–NRSA programme andstrengthen its ability to recruit exceptionalresearch talent.

This much-needed increase in NRSAbenefits will send a positive signal to thebest and brightest young scientific mindsin the United States. We also favour anincrease in the NIH training budget, butgiven the severe budget constraints, it may be necessary to reduce the number ofNRSA postdoctoral positions. There is nodoubt that this will be a painful decision.However, we cannot afford to compromisethe programme by penalizing theseoutstanding young scientists.Robert D. WellsFederation of American Societies for ExperimentalBiology, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda,Maryland 20814, USA

correspondenceContributions to Correspondence may be submitted to corres@nature.com. They should be no longerthan 500 words, and ideally shorter. Published contributions are edited.

If you can lose a driving licence, why not a PhD?A doctorate is seen as a licence to do science. It should be revocable for misconduct.

29.7 correspondence 503 MH 26/7/04 3:04 pm Page 503

© 2004 Nature Publishing Group