To the editor:

We were dismayed to read the article on the new directorship at the Institut Pasteur and the steps that are being taken to pacify the campus after a recent period of upheaval1.

As researchers working at Pasteur, we welcome the attention the media has paid to this institution and are of course happy with the favorable light cast on the present director, Alice Dautry. Her job is indeed a very difficult one and the benefits of a sympathetic press are appreciated.

Most researchers at Pasteur support her in her endeavors, and everyone is committed to seeing this centenary institution attain even higher levels of excellence. However, we cannot let pass without protest the unfair, inelegant and inappropriate portrait of Philippe Kourilsky painted in this article. Kourilsky served as the institute's director for six years and his dedication to the institute is beyond doubt. He always had the best interests of the institute in mind.

It was under Kourilsky that many of the measures intended to boost competition, including the idea of promoting young scientists through the creation of five-year programs, were initiated. Dautry herself maintained support for many of those initiatives, an indication of how important they are.

Certain remarks quoted in the article deny Kourilsky the respect he deserves. What's more, they convey the impression that everyone found the Institut Pasteur an unpleasant place to work. There are alternative views of this period in the institute's recent history. Although some people obviously have unpleasant memories of that time, Nature Medicine's readers have the right to know that that opinion is by no means unanimous.

Some of the signatories of this letter were appointed by Kourilsky, but were also either confirmed or chosen for new positions by Dautry.