Sir

The Commentary (Nature 421, 314; 2003) by Blakemore et al., on the principle of the universality of science and its obligations on scientists, prompts me to suggest that we should be engaging in a more urgent debate on the role of scientists in legally constituted weapons inspections. The urgency relates to Iraq and the appalling and lonely dilemma that some Iraqi scientists may be facing.

Scientists, like other citizens, have to obey the law of the land, their conscience and the ethical demands of their profession. Many also frame these as religious obligations. Additionally, in the context of disarmament, they have to consider whether they are bound by international laws to which their state either has, or has not, subscribed. They will have loyalties to their country, and may be bound by official-secrets laws. If scientists find any of these demands in conflict, they will encounter naked power and the raw sentiment of fellow-countrymen intolerant of disloyalty.

The approach taken by Blakemore et al., of testing precepts through case histories, is instructive. We could take the case of a Czech defence scientist in 1938. Suppose the scientist knew that the country had not fully dismantled defensive structures as 'agreed' in the Munich Treaty. Or what if an individual is engaged in the development of weapons that the country has legally undertaken not to acquire? And if a scientist is ordered to hide from inspectors documents that have international legitimacy, but whose authority runs counter to national obligations, what action should he or she take?

One option is that of whistle-blowing on the country's failure to comply with its legal obligations. But should an individual's opinion on the motives of either regime inform this judgement? If the individual considers the position of both sides to be morally indefensible, would this change the obligation to divulge? Can such a lack of clean hands be allowed to shade one's willingness to risk liberty and life? And would incompetent concealment be an acceptable moral position or an irresponsible fudge?