Sir

Your Editorial “A recipe for trouble” (Nature 438, 1052; 2005) raises concerns with me of a disconcerting mindset around the ‘preciousness’ of science, which I sense exists in parts of the scientific community. The view that working with industry demeans the quality or integrity of science, or that using the media to translate scientific findings into uptake strategies is tainted by commercialism, is worrying. If we continue to give the perception that science is the stuff of ivory towers, not everyday life, then we will see ever greater reductions in research funding over the years to come.

By working in partnership with industry, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) created the Total Wellbeing diet, which can contribute to reducing obesity in Australia. This has been an outstanding success for the CSIRO, not because it is returning funds to the organization for further research, but because it represents a successful translation of research findings to the public in a way that can be understood and absorbed into everyday lives. Just as the CSIRO was pleased to have its name associated with the peer-reviewed publications associated with the diet, so it continues to support further communication of the work to the public through the diet book. It has not been manipulated either by the food industry or by the publisher.

Of course, human nutrition is complex, and a lively debate continues about the benefits of high-protein diets (see, for example, http://www.atkinsdietalert.org/advisory.html). But the book's high-protein, moderate-carbohydrate eating plan is based on peer-reviewed science within robust experimental frameworks and the term ‘scientifically proven’ is justified.