Sir

As president and secretary-general of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, we wish to clarify the academy's position in the investigation into the alleged scientific misconduct associated with the urological clinical trial that you discuss in your Editorial 'Scandalous behaviour' (Nature 454, 917–918; 2008). Contrary to your implications, the academy is committed to help in the resolution of this case.

You note that the academy put its investigation, requested by the rector of the Medical University of Innsbruck, on hold following the announcement by the university council that the rector would shortly lose his position (which has since happened). However, the investigations mandated by the rector are still under way, although no externally visible measures have yet been carried out. His withdrawal will not terminate or otherwise influence the investigations.

The academy has declined to make any pronouncement in advance of a verdict by a formal enquiry because the affair's scientific, ethical, legal and political issues must all be taken into consideration. A premature statement would not help to clarify the situation and would encourage accusations that its release was politically motivated.

We consider that it is of the utmost importance for the scientific community in Austria to investigate the case in an impartial and unprejudiced way, which will allow us to draw valid and independent conclusions. Individuals being chosen for the investigation will be completely independent and selected for their high scientific competence and moral integrity.

We therefore strongly reject your implication that the Austrian Academy of Sciences could be directly or indirectly involved in any political moves that might promote scientific misconduct and corrupt the scientific community.