Sir

Louis Guenin's Commentary (Nature 402, 577; 1999) is a welcome contribution to defining misconduct in scientific research. A related problem is that research misconduct is all too frequently seen as a victimless crime to which indifference is an adequate response. As recently as October 1997 the heads of the UK research councils were reported in Research Fortnight to have decided that misconduct is a lesser evil than the encumbrance of any mechanism to prevent it.

More recently, the research councils have had a change of heart and published policies on misconduct. But there is no mechanism for ensuring compliance, so institutions can whitewash misconduct or sweep it under the carpet. Since investigations bring adverse publicity, these are tempting options. Nor is there any adequate means of protecting honest whistle-blowers — a gaping hole, given the fraudster-friendly nature of UK libel law.

All honest scientists are victims of scientists who commit misconduct. Jobs in science, research funds and journal space are all scarce. Every job occupied, every grant received and every paper published by someone who engages in misconduct deprives at least one honest scientist of an opportunity to which he or she was entitled. To that can be added the waste of time and resources when other scientists attempt to use fraudulent or misrepresented results.

Scientific fraud resembles financial fraud in that it can bring undeserved remuneration and power, a salient difference being that in scientific fraud the ill-gotten gains are automatically institutionally laundered.