Following its controversial ruling on political scientist Bjørn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) is now the subject of debate itself.

The DCSD has quietly ruled on an average of one case of alleged misconduct per year since it was established in 1992. But many researchers felt it overstepped the mark by investigating Lomborg's book, which paints an unusually rosy picture of the global environment.

In a report published on 6 January, the DCSD said that the book was “objectively speaking, deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty” (see Nature 421, 195; 200310.1038/421195b & Nature 421, 201; 2003). The decision triggered debate in the Danish parliament and newspapers. Last week science minister Helge Sander asked the Danish Research Agency to set up an independent working group to examine the regulatory basis and procedures of the DCSD.

The affair has split Denmark's academic communities. Given Lomborg's background, many social scientists think that his book should not be judged by criteria used to assess dishonesty in the natural and medical sciences.

Jørn Henrik Petersen, a social historian at the University of Southern Denmark in Odense, says that selection of information to develop a theory — anathema to natural scientists — is an integral part of many social sciences. “It is out of the question to argue that any selection can be completely objective,” he says. Petersen is one of many social scientists who say that the DCSD should be disbanded.

Some 600 natural and medical scientists in Denmark have signed a petition in support of the DCSD that has been presented to the Danish Research Agency. “We don't object to the procedures being re-examined, but it is expedient for any society to have this kind of committee,” says Jens Rehfeld, a health researcher at the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.

The working group, including social and natural scientists and journalists, will be chaired by Mogens Pedersen, a political scientist at the University of Southern Denmark. Key issues will be whether the definition of 'scientific dishonesty' should be changed, what kinds of work should be included in the DCSD's remit, and how the results of any deliberation should be presented to the public. It is expected to report before the summer.