Sir

Your Editorial “Standards for papers on cloning” (Nature 439, 243; 2006) invites comment on current peer-review procedures and fraud detection. The use of deception for personal gain is neither new nor restricted to human beings. To my mind, the three relevant new things in contemporary society are intense media attention, piles of bureaucracy through which even the lowest-ranking staff have to wade and a culture dominated by lawsuits where redirecting blame seems increasingly prevalent.

During my undergraduate studies, the idea of reporting fictitious data never crossed my mind. And yet I witnessed friends regularly ‘massaging’ graphs, in spite of being taught the proper scientific technique. Is this not, therefore, a problem rooted in personal character? Would the introduction of yet more bureaucracy really solve the problem?

Science and fraud have coexisted for millennia, throughout which time progress was made without computers or armies of administrators. In the case of Hwang and, more recently, Jon Sudbø — who invented test subjects and published his results in The Lancet (Nature 439, 248–249; 200610.1038/439248b) — the open scientific process of peer review, publication and further study revealed the falsehood, and the only people who should be held accountable are those committing the deception. I believe the scientific method as it exists now is all we need as a community. Indeed, given the current power of the media, the quantity of academic fraud may well decrease, as potential fraudsters witness in full colour the disintegration of their dishonest colleagues.