Ever since the potential of genetic engineering became apparent, it has been clear that a major beneficiary, in terms of its applications to both human health and enhanced food production, could be the developing world. There was therefore much enthusiasm in the early 1980s for the proposal, spearheaded by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), to set up an international centre dedicated to help achieve this. The International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), as it became known, was accordingly set up with twin 'components' — one in Trieste, Italy, and the other in New Delhi, India.

In its 13 years of existence, the centre appears to have achieved much to its credit. Thousands have taken its training courses, and researchers at the two components have a growing list of publications in international journals (see http://www.icgeb.trieste.it). But these successes appear in danger of being undermined by bitter disputes in recent months about the operation of the New Delhi component (see page 127). The disputes centre around allegations of lax management, external pressure on appointments, and fears of intimidation among staff. The result, at least according to those making the allegations, is a loss of morale among researchers and a rapid turnover of junior members, particularly PhD students.

The directors of both the ICGEB itself and the New Delhi component insist that, although mistakes may have been made, the broader allegations are ill-founded and essentially “mischievous”. Certainly it is impossible, without knowing the full details of each case, to make a definitive judgement on the overall situation. The ICGEB had a difficult gestation, marred by a siting dispute that was even more bitter than usual. Apart from Italy and Russia, no large industrialized nation has joined, and the resulting financial pressures have been worsened by the slowness of some of the other 41 members to pay their dues.

Such pressures have inevitably created their own tensions. But the strength of the allegations about the working environment at the New Delhi centre, and the possibility that the scientific vitality of the whole exercise could be undermined, need to be treated seriously. It is essential, for example, that senior appointments in an institution seeking a high international profile are made in a way that engenders trust, not suspicion — and that staffing adequately reflects the international diversity of the goals and activities of the centre itself.

There have been calls for an independent inquiry into the operation of the New Delhi component. Such a commitment should not be undertaken lightly, if only for financial reasons. But the proposal should be considered seriously by ICGEB board members when they meet in New Delhi next week. Internal tensions are clearly running so high that perhaps only an objective, outside view can ascertain the truth.