Sir — Recent correspondents (see forexample, K. Alverson and M. Eakin, andM. Boulter, Nature 412, 269; 2001)emphasize the importance of generalrepositories for scientific data. They pointout the lack of appropriate financing forscientific data management and the needfor thematically related scientific-information systems to be networked,which is technically feasible.

The current problem resides deeper. Toenact global agreements such as the Kyotoprotocol, for example, decision-makers arerequired to pursue policies that covermany different, yet plausible, estimates ofthe likelihood of alternative, future climatedevelopment. These climate-changescenarios are frequently derived fromclimate models, whose correctness can bemeasured only by access to raw data.

The necessary database infrastructurewas created as early as the 1950s, when theInternational Council of Scientific Unionsset up the World Data Center (WDC)system (www.ngdc.noaa.gov/wdc). Thesecentres are for the international exchangeof solar, geophysical and related environ-mental data on a long-term basis, and areto assist principal investigators (PIs) inbroad data management. Yet there are nointernational regulations requiringscientists to store results as raw data andaccompanying meta-information in this orany other publicly accessible archive.

Some scientific journals and fundingagencies encourage PIs or authors tosubmit raw data or support data sharing.Yet the US National Science Foundation(NSF) is the only funding organizationthat insists on this. In its information onsubmitting climate-related proposals forits Earth System History Program (www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0011/nsf0011.html),the NSF says: “Each proposal must adhereto the USGCRP [US Global ChangeResearch Program] data managementpolicy … and the policies applying torecipients of Federal funding in thegeosciences. Unless otherwise specified inthe proposal, the [PI] will be responsiblefor ensuring that all data generated by thefunded project will be documented andsubmitted to the World Data Center”.

Our example of climate-change modelsis but one of many where raw data areneeded for accurate scientific assessmentin the long term. An internationallybinding regulation that adheres to WDCprinciples is required. It should guaranteethat all scientific data are archived andfreely available. Because some PIs stillrefuse to archive data individually in

appropriate databases such as the WDC,still refuse to make their published datapublicly available as raw data, and stillignore the potential benefit fromnetworking through WDCs, additionalfinancial and temporal effort must bespent to gain access to these data.

Until a free-access global repository canbe set up, this may be the best first step.The long-term goal must be to secure theworld’s stock of valuable data, and to

overcome practical difficulties in so doing.Nicolas Dittert*, Michael Diepenbroek†,Hannes Grobe‡*SINOPS Project Office France, Institut UniversitaireEuropéen de la Mer, UMR 6539 - LEMAR, PlaceNicolas Copernic, Plouzané F-29280, France†World Data Center for Marine EnvironmentalSciences, Klagenfurterstr., Bremen D-28359, Germany‡PANGAEA Network for Geological and Environ-mental Data, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar andMarine Research, Bremerhaven D-27515, Germany

correspondence

NATURE | VOL 414 | 22 NOVEMBER 2001 | www.nature.com 393

Scientific data must be made available to allAn internationally binding regulation should be the first step towards securing vital data.

Speak out against wrongdone in your nameSir — Edgar Pick in his Correspondence“Science is universal, not part of anyreligion” (Nature 414, 249; 2001) is right inpointing out that simply trying to engagewith ‘Islamic’ science is not a way forwestern (presumably ‘non-Islamic’)scientists to contribute to the struggleagainst terrorism. However, he is wrong issaying “the evil of killing people … hardlyrequires a restatement” by Islamic scholars.

The terrorists who flew planes into theWorld Trade Center may very well be “aninternational gang of well-financedcriminals” but they apparently carried outthese acts in the name of Islam. If a groupof deranged scientists began slaughteringinnocent people in the name of cellbiology, then I would be the first to standup and say “Hang on a minute, not all cellbiologists adhere to this view”.

To the millions in the non-Islamicworld who have neither Pick’s educationnor his knowledge of Islam, the statementsof condemnation by Islamic leaders andscholars provided essential reassuranceand may have helped deflect retributiveacts by the more thuggish elements of our society.Stephen E. MossDivision of Cell Biology, Institute of Ophthalmology,University College London, Bath Street, London EC1V 9EL, UK

Chimaeric mice on theroad towards stem cellsSir — In his engaging Commentary “IVFand the history of stem cells”1 BobEdwards gives me undue credit in assertingthat I produced the world’s first mousechimaera. Unquestionably, it is KrzysztofTarkowski who should be credited withthis. He aggregated mechanically denuded

mouse morulae in pairs to obtain giantblastocysts, some of which developednormally to term following transfer touterine foster-mothers2. Although perinatal losses were inexplicably high,seven of nine available young showed amixture of pigmented and unpigmentedcells in their eyes, in accordance with thegenotypes of the morulae that werecombined3. Subsequently, Beatrice Mintzintroduced various technicalimprovements that enabled chimaericmice to be produced routinely4.

My contribution was to show thatsimilar chimaeras could be obtained bytransplanting cells between blastocysts5.This was a refinement that enhanced thevalue of such organisms for studyingdevelopment6 and was later adopted as thestandard way of obtaining germlinetransmission of genetically modifiedembryonic stem cells.Richard GardnerDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford,Oxford OX1 3PS, UK1. Edwards, R. G. Nature 413, 349–351 (2001).

2. Tarkowski, A. K. Nature 190, 857–860 (1961).

3. Tarkowski, A. K. NCI Mongraph 11, 51–71 (1962).

4. Mintz, B. Science 138, 594–595 (1962).

5. Gardner, R. L. Nature 220, 596–597 (1968).

6. Gardner. R. L. BioEssays 20, 168–190 (1997).

The perils of peer review Sir — Your News feature “Peers underpressure” (Nature 413, 102–4; 2001) on thehoary old chestnut of peer reviewreinforces my decades-old comparison ofthis ritual to the Latin mass. Obviouslymany (Protestant?) leaders, including mostof the best-known scientists such as Nobellaureates, regard peer-review as a greathindrance to good science (the gospel?).Many excellent journals (churches?), suchas the Proceedings of the Royal Society andProceedings of the National Academy ofSciences managed in my opinion very wellwithout it for a long time. An enormousamount of the best science has been and is

© 2001 Macmillan Magazines Ltd

being run without benefit of this rubric, asis the worldwide patent system.

The allusion in your Feature to PaulChu and the 1:2:3 superconductor paper— the contents of which had clearlyreached rival research groups beforepublication, and in which “ytterbium” waschanged to “yttrium” at the last minute —points to but one of the very minor inerad-icable defects of the peer-review system,that we can confirm. At the time that paperwas submitted, several of its authors,including one of us (J. R. A.) who hadmade the very first samples of 1:2:3 at theUniversity of Alabama, had a conversationwith his Alabama colleagues and Dr Chuof the University of Houston, at which thewise decision was made to substitute Ybfor Y in the text. The galley proof (still inJ.R.A.’s possession) shows Yb, not Y, in allfour places where it appears. The fullchemical name of ytterbium — and,subsequently, yttrium — was convenientlyomitted from the text of the paper so thatthe amendments before final printingcould be confined only to the symbols.This stratagem was also alluded to in theMaterials Research Society videotapes onthe history of the 1:2:3 discovery,organized by one of us (R.R.). Everyoneexcept the true believers knows that it isyour nearest competitors (adversaries?)who often ‘peer’ review your paper. Hence,you must protect yourself by this and othersubterfuges, like proposing work you havejust completed.

Yet this is but a minor defect in thepeer-review system. The enormous wasteof scientists’ time, and the absolute,ineluctable bias against innovation, are itsworst offences.

‘Review by competitors’ is an all-too-accurate description of this system,wreaking devastation on papers andproposals in science. Financial and self-interest disclosures, such as competing forthe same funds, should surely now berequired of peers.

More: where is the evidence for anybenefits from peer review? Recently,Nature (Nature 412, 751; 2001) and mostmedical journals have been forced torequire financial disclosures by authors todeal with the fact that peer review could donothing to avoid the widely acknowledgedcontamination of the literature. This wasillustrated by papers published about thedrugs Vioxx and Celebrex — just oneexample picked up by the secular press(Washington Post, 5 August 2001; WallStreet Journal, 22 August 2001) in front-page stories after a paper in the Journal ofthe American Medical Association (J. Am.Med. Assoc. 286, 8; 2001) reported thatthese popular painkillers carried a risk ofcardiovascular problems. The newspapersreported that cardiovascular risks from

Celebrex had been simply “omitted” froman earlier paper (J. Am. Med. Assoc. 284,10; 2000). All sixteen authors of the earlierpaper — including faculty from eightuniversities — were either employees,funded by or consultants of the manufac-turers. What use was peer review here?

Finally, Nature should not repeat theold canards such as: “despite the problemsthrown up by peer review, no seriousalternative has yet been proposed”.Nonsense. They have not only beenproposed but have been in regular useworldwide for a very long time. The usersinclude the world’s largest research agency,the US Department of Defense, andindustrial research worldwide. Rustum Roy*, James R. Ashburn†*The Pennsylvania State University, 102 Materials Research Laboratory, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA†Elmco, 60 Technology Drive, Building 1, Suite N,Huntsville, Alabama 35805, USA

Carrots, not sticks, givebest ‘quality assurance’Sir — I was interested in your News story“Proposed scheme will scrutinize studentsupervisors” (Nature 413, 761; 2001)describing the plans by the Biotechnologyand Biological Sciences Research Council(BBSRC) and the Higher EducationFunding Council for England (HEFCE) toimprove training and standards for thesupervisors of postgraduate students in theUnited Kingdom.

Raising the standards for postgraduatestudent supervision is a good thing.However, the rush by government andother higher-education bodies tointroduce ‘quality assurance’ whereverconceivable, with initiatives such as theResearch Assessment Exercise and theInstitute for Learning and Teaching,appears little more effective in alleviatingthe real problems than sticking a plasterover a gangrenous wound.

The acknowledged difficulty inenrolling well-qualified postgraduatestudents in the United Kingdom — andthe reason so many PhDs do not seekemployment in their subjects — probablystems from the lack of an equitable careerstructure in higher education. I cannotthink of another career where the mostexperienced practical practitioners,postdocs, live from short-term contract toshort-term contract and risk being pricedout of the job market when they haveacquired years of experience.

This situation needs to be urgentlyremedied. Introduce a nationallyrecognized training scheme which allowsresearch trainees to build a recognized

skills portfolio. This would help themsecure jobs as they progress through theircareer — even if this means reducing thenumber of PhD places. Training couldinclude skills such as grant writing, staffmanagement, project management andwriting papers, in addition to traditionaltechnical hands-on abilities.

Even when postdoctoral trainees domanage to get academic positions, theyfind that, since the late seventies, academicsalaries have fallen far below those ofcomparable professions and of the privatesector. Students graduating with anundergraduate degree and saddled withdebts of, on average, £16,000 (US$22,600)are hardly likely to consider further yearsof penury and job insecurity worth therisk. Unless the government has theforesight to address these overarchingproblems, the future of the highereducation sector and the intellectual skillsbase of the United Kingdom looks bleak. Inthe end you get the system that you pay for.

It would also be of help if carrots wereused instead of sticks. How about HEFCEgiving a pay rise to staff who do meet theirnew training standards? I would also beintrigued to know if this new spirit of‘above-board correctness’ extends topaying realistic fees for external examinersof PhD theses. Currently the average fee is£120 to examine a PhD thesis; theAssociation of University Teachersrecommends a fee of £450, which is notunreasonable. Try asking a managementconsultant to read about 250 pages,consult libraries and travel to cross-examine someone for this fee. The lasttime that I heard of an external examinerasking for £450, the candidate’s supervisorwas told to find another examiner whowould accept the lower fee. Roddie McKenzieDepartment of Dermatology, University ofEdinburgh, Lauriston Building RIE, EdinburghEH3 9YW, Scotland, UK

Motion and meaningSir — In his News and Views Feature“Where drunkards hang out” (Nature 413,686–687; 2001), Ian Stewart states“Brownian motion is no longer importantin its original physical context”. I beg todiffer. Analysis of diffusion as brownianmotion is central to understanding thephysics of diffusion-controlledbiochemical reactions, such as ionpermeation through protein channels, totake one example. Eric JakobssonDepartment of Molecular and IntegrativePhysiology, National Center for SupercomputingApplications, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA

correspondence

394 NATURE | VOL 414 | 22NOVEMBER 2001 | www.nature.com© 2001 Macmillan Magazines Ltd