Sir

A trial is under way in San Francisco, California, involving a patent dispute between Genentech, Inc. and the University of California at San Francisco (see page 289 of this issue and ref. 1). During this trial, Peter Seeburg of the Max Planck Institute for Medical Research in Heidelberg, Germany, testified that data presented in a 1979 paper published in Nature2, of which he was a co-author, were false and that he knew they were false when the paper was submitted for publication.

As the other co-authors of that paper, we, together with Genentech, categorically deny this accusation that the data submitted in the Nature paper were false. We also emphatically disagree with Seeburg's statements, made under oath, that it is permissible to make up data on the basis of “similar work” because “it's all the same game”, and that publishing a description of a non-existent plasmid is merely a “technical inaccuracy”. We believe that to do as Seeburg suggests is both intellectually dishonest and antithetical to the principles on which scientific enquiry rests.

The trial is about patent infringement. The verdict, and the appeals that will doubtless follow, will be about that issue, not about the accuracy of the scientific conclusions of the paper. Nevertheless, we feel that these accusations have falsely impugned our reputation and cast doubts on our scientific integrity.

Genentech retains the notebooks upon which our 1979 Nature paper was based. They can be seen on the web at http://www.gene.com/notebooks/. In our view, these notebooks provide documentation that this work was indeed performed as described in the paper. We have invited the editors of Nature to examine these materials, and to speak to the co-authors, to satisfy themselves as to the accuracy of the paper. We would welcome such an opportunity to resolve these issues.