Sir

Your editorial on the sharing of research tools called for a uniform materials transfer agreement (MTA) (Nature 396, 97; 1998). As a research scientist, I endorse this proposal, but there is a problem that requires urgent attention.

The legal security that MTAs offer to those who sign them requires a legal basis — but which law should apply? MTAs issued by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) require that US law applies. The NIH also insists that anybody providing it with material signs an indemnity clause in its favour. This means that my institution would be liable for damages resulting from the use of any research material that I sent to the NIH.

Anyone who provides research tools should take responsibility for their safety. However, they must be allowed to express the reservation that the material might be partially unknown and potentially hazardous, so removing liability for incidents that might result from its use in experiments. It also worries my research institution, which cannot accept the NIH's MTAs, that US law should apply to material we send to them. We insist that German law applies, because donors must be in a position to assess the legal consequences if they give sensitive material to others. This is particularly important given the US enthusiasm for litigation.

Solving this problem should be a challenge for the lawyers, the enjoyment of which might even compensate for their loss of business if MTAs are made simpler.