Going on a diet is a popular new year's resolution. This year, a diet book penned by researchers in Australia is set to turn up in many Christmas stockings. But its runaway success could damage the reputation of Australia's foremost research institution (see Diet book attacked for its high-protein advice).

The diet book in question is by no means ground-breaking. Its high-protein message is not that different from others that have drifted into fashion in the past few years. But this one bears the badge of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

In some parts of the world, it might seem odd that splashing the name of a scientific institution on the cover would shift copies of a book to the public. But CSIRO — which runs Australia's main network of government laboratories — has an unusually good public reputation. It is widely perceived as a trusted national institution. Its history, including its pivotal role in the development of agriculture and mining in Australia, has left a strong impression that it knows how to put science to good use.

But the commercial success of the book, which knocked Harry Potter and The Da Vinci Code off the national bestseller perch, is irritating some scientists, and for good reason.

The benefits of a high-protein diet remain a hot topic of debate among nutritionists. But even some of those who approve of such a diet question whether it should rely as heavily on meat as this one does, given the health risks associated with high meat consumption.

There's something decidedly unsavoury about using the phrase ‘scientifically proven’ to sell anything to the public, yet this is writ large on the book's front cover.

But what really rankles with the book's critics is the way it is being marketed. There's something decidedly unsavoury about using the phrase “scientifically proven” to sell anything to a trusting public, yet this is writ large on the book's front cover. The diet is also being promoted as being beneficial for everyone, whereas the published research indicates that it is superior to a high-carbohydrate diet only for a subpopulation of overweight women with symptoms of metabolic dysfunction.

Furthermore, the research behind the book was largely funded by the meat and dairy industries, whose products feature prominently in the diet. Detractors say that this aspect should have been more explicitly recognized, instead of being buried in the book's acknowledgements. The authors insist that the sponsors had no influence on the book's content, but the impression remains of a conflict of interest.

To be fair, the book was not the idea of the researchers or even CSIRO's management. It came from a wily commercial publisher who spotted an opportunity. CSIRO, which has its own publishing arm, only reaps a small percentage of the profits in the form of royalties to its nutritional-research division.

Defenders of the book will argue that its success illustrates how to translate research into an accessible and popular format that puts science into practice. But that argument doesn't justify CSIRO giving permission for its name to be used in a way that could ultimately taint its hard-earned reputation.