Sir

There is no doubt that freedom of speech as well as freedom of science are values that need to be protected. But the News article about a dispute over freedom of speech at the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology (IMB) at Jena, Germany, seems to give credence to a small group of people whose main aim seems to be to discredit the institute (Nature 401, 201; 1999).

The goal in the present case was not to limit Günter Löber's rights, but to prevent further dissemination of false allegations about his former place of work. It is important to ensure that the many current IMB employees retain the freedom to conduct their research. Löber was not prohibited from criticizing the IMB, but he has agreed not to repeat groundless statements harmful to the institute publicly.

The News article contains other errors. After Manfred Eigen's departure from IMB's supervisory board, for example, the other members did not resign “in sympathy”. The only other member who left then had resigned six months previously because of his workload.

Eigen has never been chairman of the supervisory or scientific advisory board of the IMB.

The statement attributed to Eigen — that he was told by the research ministry of the state of Thüringen only to speak to IMB employees in the presence of a ministry representative — is also incorrect. The truth is that the chairman of the supervisory board had expressed his desire to be present at one discussion in June 1996.