© 2006 Nature Publishing Group

CORRESPONDENCE NATURE|Vol 440|23 March 2006

408

Scientists must be able toreport without censorshipSIR — Government scientists must be able to research and report their findings to the public without fear of censorship orintimidation. We need honest results fromour science agencies that we can count on.And taxpayers have the right to know the facts.

But in recent weeks, the press has reportedallegations that scientists at NASA and the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) are routinelysilenced when reporting their findings onclimate change (“US scientists fight politicalmeddling” Nature 439, 896–897; 2006). Iftrue, this is unacceptable.

That’s why I’ve called for the GovernmentAccountability Office to review the policiesand practices of our federal physical-science agencies to ensure openness incommunication of their science results. This includes not only NASA and NOAA, but all the federal science agencies within the jurisdiction of the AppropriationsSubcommittee on Commerce, Justice,Science, and Related Agencies, on which I serve as the senior Democrat.

US citizens deserve to know what’shappening to their environment from theagencies they rely on to do the research tokeep them safe. Barbara A. Mikulski United States Senate, 503 Hart Senate OfficeBuildings, Washington DC 20510, USA

Scientists should be heard,but not expect to set policy SIR — Your Editorial “Science under attack”(Nature 439, 891; 2006) and News story “USscientists fight political meddling” (Nature439, 896–897; 2006), on friction betweenscientists and the Bush administration,impart a curious and unwarrantedly broadmeaning to the term ‘unitary executive’ withreference to the US polity. In fact, the termstems from the first sentence of Article II ofthe US Constitution: “The executive powershall be vested in a President of the UnitedStates of America”. Our president has sole(‘unitary’) constitutional power to run theexecutive branch, and also sole responsibilityfor all its actions. As Harry Truman put itwhen he was in office, “The buck stops here.”Unitary executive power does not infringe onthe legislative or judicial powers of otherbranches of government.

The problem that has arisen between theadministration and the scientific communityis how the notion of presidential executivepower is to be extended (or not) to scientificemployees of the multitudinous departments

and agencies of the executive branch, and inparticular to their strictly scientific opinions(to the extent that those can be separatedfrom policy conclusions). The constitution does not clarify this point, because its authorsdid not foresee how large the executive branchwould eventually become. The issue is neithereasy nor trivial, for government scientistshave many opinions (some opposed orcontradictory), but no independent authorityand no responsibility for public policy.

The climate of the present dispute wouldbenefit if both sides would tone down therhetoric and ease back on the partisanthrottle. No administration can gain much byignoring or silencing the best scientific adviceavailable, either within or outside thegovernment. On the other hand, unelectedgovernment scientists in the civil service arenot independent political players, and haveno inherent licence to make pronouncementsdesigned to call established public policy into question. We govern ourselves primarily through elected officials and their appointees, not by scientific consensus— be it wise or foolish.William R. DickinsonDepartment of Geosciences, University ofArizona, Tucson, Arizona 85718, USA

Fraud: anonymous ‘stars’would not dazzle reviewers SIR — In the current discussion about fraud(see Correspondence, Nature 439, 782–784;2006), the important issue of what actuallymakes people cheat in the first place has notbeen addressed. Whether an individual cheatsand lies is dependent on many factors, butinstant personal advantage is the central one.

Unlike nanotechnology and geneticsresearch, where lucrative patents can beckon,my field of Earth sciences has little to offerbut basic research in public institutions. Thepressure on the relatively few permanent jobsavailable to a growing number of scientists inthis field is therefore high, and hence therewards of publishing in the highest-rankedjournals are extremely significant for one’scareer. The temptation to fumble with thedata a bit for the sake of the story, or toinclude a big-shot author as a showcase, isunderstandable.

In the most notorious recent cases (theKorean stem-cell work and Jan HendrikSchön’s nanotechnology work), the peer-review system must be said to have failed, as the frauds were unveiled by people fromoutside the immediate process. Were thereferees the weakest link, and were both theeditors and the referees blinded by the aura of the authorships?

Despite some disadvantages, anonymouspeer-review remains the fairest way to preventpublication bias (see “Three cheers for peers”

Nature 439, 118; 2006). But who ensures thequality of the referees and the refereeingprocess? Clearly, it is the editor’s responsibilityto overlook lobbying by authors and refereesalike and to improve procedures if necessaryto ensure fair assessment of all submissions,not favouring those from ‘star’ authors.

I believe it is best for the publisher not to reveal authors’ names or affiliations to the referee until the submitted manuscripthas been accepted or finally rejected. With-holding the authors’ identities in this way will not only ensure high quality, but will stop rejected authors from believing thattheir submission had been treated unfairlycompared with those of ‘star’ authors. Henning BauchAkademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur,Mainz c/o IFM-GEOMAR, Leibniz-Institut fürMeereswissenschaften, Wischhofstrasse 1–3,24148 Kiel, Germany

Research skewed by stresson highest-impact journals SIR — Emilio Artacho, in Correspondence(“Reader-appeal should not outweigh meritof research” Nature 439, 534; 2006), raises animportant point concerning the growingtension between merit and appeal ofresearch, and alludes to the increasingpressure on young scientists to publish injournals such as Nature. This seems to havearisen from senior administrators, both atuniversities and at funding bodies, requiringsimplistic measures of esteem such asnumbers of Nature papers and citation rates.It creates problems in appointments, tenureand promotions, particularly for sciences thatdo not traditionally publish in Nature or havesmall communities and thus lower citationrates. As a result, many science departmentsare now skewed towards research that appealsto the more general reader.

I am pleased that a number of the UKResearch Assessment Exercise panels havestated that they will judge papers submittedto them, not on the basis of where they havebeen published, but rather on their inherentimpact and importance. If we want to relievesome of the pressures on young scientists andcreate a more balanced science community,then we need to re-educate ourselves, and our senior university administrators, so thatpublishing in journals such as Nature, thoughimportant, is recognized as just one of a richvariety of research outputs.Mark MaslinDepartment of Geography, University CollegeLondon, London WC1H 0AP, UK

Contributions to Correspondence may besubmitted to corres@nature.com. Theyshould be signed by no more than threeauthors; preferably by one.

23.3 Correspondence 21/3/06 9:49 AM Page 408

Nature Publishing Group ©2006