Sir

Your Editorial “Rules of engagement” (Nature 436, 2; 2005) discusses the need for biologists to adhere to new codes of conduct. But is further control of biological research really necessary?

In recent years, some urgently needed controls have been adopted. In Brazil, all projects that will involve human or animal experimentation must be submitted to an ethical or animal-use committee for consideration, and any research using genetically modified organisms must be approved in advance by a federal committee.

In addition, most Brazilian research is preceded by an application for funding, which ensures that projects are refereed by two or more peers before approval. Any resulting manuscripts submitted to accredited journals are again reviewed, with referees in many cases being specifically asked to judge all possible outcomes or uses of the research. In my institute, professional practice in all laboratories is also evaluated by a panel of internal and external investigators every four years.

There is a danger that implementing further controls would simply add to the number of time-consuming obstacles that already make competitive research all but impossible.