Sir

We were puzzled by your News story “Hungary's science academy slammed as 'obsolete'” (Nature 441, 1034–1035; 200610.1038/4411034b), because we had previously provided you with information that contradicts it. Contrary to your story and the statements made by people cited in it, our academy does not discriminate against scientific achievement obtained outside Hungary.

To cite the relevant part of our byelaws when conferring a Doctor of Science (Doctor of the Academy) title, from the http://www.mta.hu website: “When evaluating results arising from research done in an advanced industrial country, articles can be included fully in the impact factor total only if the applicant is the first or last mentioned co-author. If not, articles can be included in the impact factor or citation index total only to the effect of 25%. If the applicant competes for a Doctor of the Academy title on the basis of research done in a foreign country scientifically as advanced as Hungary, or less advanced than Hungary, reaching the domestic minimal measure is the minimal condition of allowing him/her to compete for the title.”

By quoting people who call the Hungarian Academy of Sciences “obsolete” you are unjustly offending almost two-thirds of its members, and indeed three-quarters of our Doctors of the Academy, elected after 1990, not to mention more than half the academy's research staff, who started their scientific careers after that date.

We are troubled that you ignored the information we provided to your reporter before the article was published, and instead featured overwhelmingly the views of people who had previously denounced the academy and the scientific community in Hungary, and had met with rebuttals. We find your News story tendentious and partial, at odds with Nature's widely respected objectivity and editorial integrity.