Sir

Your Editorial “Not just academic” (Nature 431, 1; 2004) on the political climate in Russia stresses the importance of respecting academic freedom. But this is beside the point. To avoid bowing to political pressure, or indeed political incentives, Russian scientists should simply stop giving any political advice (either unsolicited or solicited) and confine themselves to developing genuine scientific concepts that reflect reality, not opinions.

Most conscientious researchers can distinguish the ideological and scientific aspects of the problems they study, and keep them separate. The existing range of scientifically justified concepts on climate change provides a wide, but well delineated, field for political manoeuvring. There is a broad consensus among climate scientists that humankind must urgently develop legal, institutional and financial mechanisms for regulating climate. The extent of regulation that's needed is open to debate, but most scientists support the Kyoto Protocol as the first practical step towards this goal.

However, the problem of assessing the costs of such actions is traditionally tackled by politicians, not scientists. If we all agree that such problems are best addressed through politics, it is clear that the only advice a conscientious researcher can give to a Russian politician is as follows: “Read the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”