Sir

Your editorial “Dangers of publication by press conference” represents an excellent opportunity for open discussion of the peer-review process and how best to present scientific results to the public ( Nature 393, 397; 1998 ). We also appreciate the compliment that the US space agency NASA has played an important role in increasing public interest in science.

You argued that public release of science results should occur only after peer review by journals. Without it, journalists may be unable to do justice to the story, and perhaps “the public will more often be faced with sensational and triumphant stories that subsequently prove to have been false”. You concluded that NASA risks “undermining the respect for objectivity on which the public support for science ultimately rests”. This narrow conclusion gives short shrift to public interest and the skills of the media.

NASA's charter requires the agency to disseminate as widely as possible the results of its publicly funded research. In the process, we must and do scrupulously safeguard our scientific credibility through strong attention to the peer-review process. Most of NASA's press briefings and press releases feature peer-reviewed results.

However, the benefits of having a larger vision are evident in many recent examples of near real-time science being presented to the people who've paid for it. Consider public awareness and excitement about science spurred by announcements of possible subsurface oceans on Europa and ice on the Moon, a glorious image of the Eagle Nebula, and breaking news such as comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 and Mars Pathfinder. There is little evidence of damage to public support for science in the wake of these often tentative findings — indeed, quite the opposite.

When a NASA-funded researcher chooses to submit a paper at a scientific meeting before journal publication — as with Susan Terebey's possible extrasolar planet — we consider its merits on a case-by-case basis. Usually, the results are scrutinized intently by scientists independent of NASA before we decide to release the results, which Nature acknowledged constitutes a form of peer review. My office turns down four or five interesting scientific results for every one that we decide to present publicly.

In subsequent media activities, we strongly underscore the preliminary status of the results, and the need for further observations. We work hard to ensure the story is told correctly. This message was clearly received during the press briefing on Terebey's research, as every one of the dozens of press reports that we saw included the proper caveats. Journalists were indeed able to do justice to the story and, in addition, probably did more to educate the public about the scientific process than any amount of journal editorializing ever could.

The tax-paying public is entitled to receive scientific results expeditiously in simple, understandable language. Non-scientists enjoy participating in the excitement and adventure of science — it may be preliminary and uncertain, but letting them participate in the progress of science can only be beneficial.

Finally, if the so-called “blob” in the image Terebey obtained is later proven not to be a planet, NASA will endeavour to be the first to announce it. We trust the public's common sense and its ability to understand that progress is not made without some missteps. Based on the NASA values of openness and honesty, we are confident in the correctness of our philosophy.