Sir

David Ritson in his Commentary “Fuel for thought” (Nature 421, 575–576; 2003), addressing Stanford's new Global Climate and Energy Project (G-CEP), inaccurately describes the motivations and arrangements for this programme.

The premise of G-CEP is that energy is a critical component of modern societies. Supplying energy for a growing world population while significantly reducing emissions of greenhouse gases is one of the grand challenges of this century. It is entirely appropriate for Stanford faculty and students, working with institutions around the world, to engage in research that will have global benefits.

Stanford's independence is fully protected. The project's sponsors have their own substantial, related research programmes. They have chosen also to support research in a university because it brings a healthy independence of views that they value and support. Academic freedom is an essential component of that, as both Stanford and G-CEP's sponsors agree. Stanford's considerable experience in working with companies, both in protecting the interests of research and in developing applications, will guide this project.

Any technologies developed under the G-CEP will be widely available, and all the work done will be reported publicly, as required by Stanford's standard policy on openness in research. Patents that arise from the research will be held by Stanford. During the first five years, a short period on the timescale of changes in energy systems, the sponsoring companies can license those technologies. Subsequently, Stanford and sponsors may license and sublicense broadly.

The G-CEP agreement explicitly calls for Stanford to explore broadly technology alternatives that can supply energy with substantial reductions in greenhouse emissions. There has been no attempt to favour fossil fuels or to exclude other energy sources. An initial G-CEP project involves research on the biological generation of hydrogen, for example.

The three-year funding commitments under G-CEP are less restrictive than many research support agreements. Federally funded research projects often make continued support contingent on availability of funds and acceptable progress; funding for existing projects can be delayed or cancelled if agency budgets are reduced.

Under G-CEP, the proposal cycle will be shorter and the reporting requirements less stringent, and there will be greater flexibility to pursue new ideas.