Sir — As director of the laboratory thatanalysed the samples for the National LynxSurvey sponsored by the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture’s Forest Service(USFS), I am responding to the damagingyet unsubstantiated conclusions in yourOpinion article “Lynch mob turns on lynxresearchers”1 and News article “Fur fliesover lynx survey’s suspect samples”2 aboutsampling for Canada lynx (Lynxcanadensis).

My laboratory developed the protocolto distinguish among species of NorthAmerican felids based on DNA analysis ofhairs using known individuals across thegeographical range of the target species,and comprehensively validated it usingblind control tests both within our lab and at another lab. Our protocol was peer-reviewed and published3.

In practice, positive and negativecontrols are used with every sample setanalysed. We have never misidentified aspecies when the identity of the sample wasknown, and we consistently detect lynx inareas where they are known to exist. Incontrast to the implications of yourOpinion article, therefore, the laboratoryprocedure to distinguish lynx based onhair samples is fully diagnostic andvalidated.

In 1999, the USFS implemented theNational Lynx Survey to evaluate systemat-ically the distribution of lynx on federallands across 12 states; species identifi-cation based on DNA analysis was the finalstep. I was principal investigator in chargeof DNA analysis, and Kevin McKelveyfrom the Rocky Mountain ResearchStation (USFS) was the principalinvestigator for the nationwide surveyprotocol. Field personnel (several hundredpermanent and temporary federal andstate employees) collected hairs from over13,000 rub pads4 and sent them to the labin labelled vials with accompanying datasheets. Because integrity of the data streamis particularly crucial in a study of suchenormous scope and scale, the protocolwas explicit, with comprehensive writteninstructions for all aspects of gathering,labelling and submitting samples.

For a field worker to arbitrarily decide“to test the lab” by labelling a hair fromelsewhere as if it were a field-collectedsample corrupts the integrity of the dataand does not constitute a blind control. Byanalogy, a medical field worker whosurreptitiously contaminates a bloodsample to “test the rigour” of theserological protocol during a wide-scalesurvey to assay a disease is not conducting

a blind control but is fabricating data thatcould lead to false conclusions aboutdisease distribution.

I do not know the field personnel whosubmitted false samples and cannotassume anything about their motivation.But the vast majority of those participatingin this unprecedented large-scale surveyfollowed scientific protocol. The few whomisrepresented data without notifyingthose who analyse and interpret the datadid not, as your Opinion article suggested,merely implement blind controls.

Nobody contacted either me or theUSFS research scientist in charge of thesurvey protocol about any concerns or toldus about the plan to misrepresent data. Infact, we learned about the 1999 falsesamples only after the start of an internalUSFS investigation.

I agree with your Opinion article that“Clean data are needed to prevent years ofcourt battles over use of the forests”1. In

this case, the methodology was peer-reviewed, published, explicit, completeand followed by all except those few whointentionally mislabelled samples. Theonly potential smudge on the ‘cleanliness’of data in the National Lynx Survey at thispoint comes from submission of samplesnot in compliance with scientific protocol.

Our Letter published on page 424 ofthis issue5 is not part of the National Lynxsurvey; all 599 samples used in ref. 5 werecollected from freezers and other knownsources.L. Scott MillsWildlife Biology Program, School of Forestry,University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812, USA1. Nature 415, 101 (2002).

2. Dalton, R. Nature 415, 107 (2002).

3. Mills, L. S., Pilgrim, K. L., Schwartz, M. K. & McKelvey, K.

Conserv. Genet. 1, 285–288 (2000).

4. McDaniel, G. W., McKelvey, K. S., Squires, J. R. &

Ruggiero, L. F. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28, 119–123 (2000).

5. Schwartz, M. K. et al. Nature 415, 424–426 (2002).

correspondence

False samples are not the same as blind controlsInformal efforts to “test” a laboratory corrupt the data stream, where integrity is crucial.

Mislabelling muddiesthe forest-survey watersSir — Calling people who object todeliberate mislabelling of samples a “lynchmob”, as your Opinion article (Nature 415,101; 2002) does, is like asserting that thecollapse of the US energy company Enronwas lamentable, and that those employeeswho lost their retirement savings deserveto be ashamed. It is half true (it islamentable), but the implied criticism iscompletely misdirected.

Although conservatives in Congressand the media have indeed harvested a bounty of partisan hay from themisbegotten actions of some agencyemployees, several important issuesremain unresolved.

It is not clear whether the field workershad any fraudulent intent or whether theyintended the submitted lynx (Lynxcanadensis) hairs to be controls in a test ofthe analytical lab. But it is clear that earliersamples submitted from the samegeographical region to a different labproduced what were subsequently believedto be false positives — lynx hairs werereported from areas with no previous orsubsequent evidence of lynx.

How the submission of blind positivecontrols could have provided a check onfalse positives is far from clear. Moreimportant, the laboratory supposedlybeing tested in the episode described in

your article was in no way suspect in theearlier problems.

Any criticism should be levelled at thefield workers who undertook a series ofundocumented, informal steps that couldbe misinterpreted as fraud. Clearly, allwould have benefited had they written aprotocol, received documented approval,and notified the analytical lab that blindcontrols would be included in submittedsamples.Steven W. BuskirkDepartment of Zoology and Physiology, Universityof Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071-3166, USA

Regional network raisesprofile of local journalsSir — Researchers worldwide strive topublish in journals with high impactfactors, but such journals are concentratedin developed countries, leaving journals indeveloping countries ranked at the bottom(see S. B. Vohora & D. Vohora, Nature 412,583; 2001). These journals are furtherimperilled by the decreasing level ofsupport among local subscribers, who inthe face of economic constraints mayprefer to subscribe to journals with highimpact factors.

Electronic publishing is bringing hopeto these threatened journals. Citationsincrease when papers are freely available on

NATURE | VOL 415 | 31 JANUARY 2002 | www.nature.com 471© 2002 Macmillan Magazines Ltd

the Internet (see S. Harnad, Nature 410,1024–1025; 2001), and journals canincrease their impact factors by publishingtheir contents electronically (see M. Curti,V. Pistotti, G. Gabutti & C. Klersy,Haematologica 86, 1015–1020; 2001).

However, two shortcomings still standout. First, online publication involvessubstantial costs (software development,hosting support, and so on), despitepotential price cuts associated with thereduction of print editions. Second, freeonline access to local journals does notnecessarily lead to increasing readershipwithout a powerful means of dissemination.For these journals to be internationallyrecognized, regional networks with speedyaccess from search engines, portals andindexing services are required.

Such a network was launched in 1997:SciELO (Scientific Electronic LibraryOnline: www.scielo.org) is a publiclyfunded initiative set up to promotecooperative, free electronic publishing of scientific journals from developingcountries; the development of regionaldatabases; and the implementation ofindicators of scientific literature usage. It currently comprises 93 journals fromBrazil, Chile and Cuba. We assessed itsinternational impact by comparing theimpact factors of journals before and afterbeing incorporated in SciELO.

We found five Brazilian journals thathad been indexed by ISI for at least fiveyears and available in SciELO for at leasttwo. The impact factors of these journalsmore than doubled (132.7% increase, one-tailed Wilcoxon signed ranks test, P<0.02)since their inclusion in SciELO.

This indicates that such networks notonly foster the availability of scientificinformation on a regional scale, but alsogenerate international impact which mayentice researchers into publishing in thejournals concerned. Those who fund andpromote regionally coordinated networksfor scientific electronic publishing can help developing countries to revitalizetheir local journals and enhance theinternational representation of locallygenerated knowledge.Wladimir J. Alonso, Esteban Fernández-JuricicDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford,Oxford OX1 3PS, UK

Laboratories’ gravy trainhas ground to a haltSir — Your Opinion article “Time to haltthe gravy train” (Nature 414, 829; 2001)questions the salary and benefits packagespaid by international laboratories. It is

entirely correct that these should bescrutinized at a time when cost efficiency is high on the agenda of most institutions,but some of the comparisons you make are oversimplified and misleading. Thereality is that the gravy train ground toa halt long ago.

In comparing CERN (the Europeanlaboratory for particle physics) with DESY,Germany’s main high-energy physicslaboratory, which is in Hamburg, forexample, you fail to take into account thesignificant cost-of-living differentialsbetween Geneva and most other Europeanlocations.

As you rightly point out, CERNconducts regular tracking studies whichcompare our salary and benefits packageswith industry and other institutions thatcompete for the scientific, engineering, ITand other skills we need. In this context,CERN is primarily a provider of researchinfrastructure, supporting a usercommunity of more than 6,000 scientists— only 90 of our 2,700 current staff areengaged in fundamental research. We arefar from topping the compensation table:indeed, in some skills areas we find itincreasingly difficult to attract suitablyqualified people away from their homemarkets, particularly in northern Europe.

As your leader implied, multinationalinstitutions must be increasingly efficientin managing their resources and in beingable to justify the investments they make.Maintaining the skills levels and humanvitality of CERN is fundamental to beingable to fulfil its mission as one of theworld’s leading scientific researchestablishments. In my view, the budgetarypressures we and many comparableinstitutions face are such that one of ourbiggest challenges will be to remaincompetitive in this respect. Luciano MaianiDirector general, CERN, CH-1211, Geneva 23,Switzerland

Tax-free pay lets fundersevade responsibilitiesSir — Although I agree with your Opinionarticle (Nature 414, 829; 2001) that thetax-free salary status of a few scientificresearchers in Europe is an anachronism, I dispute your use of the phrase “gravytrain”. Many life-science researchers arepaid apparently generous tax-free stipendsat some point in their careers, but thesesalaries are less generous after makingreasonable provision for healthcare andretirement. Until Europe-wide agreementson these standard employment benefitshave been reached, the alleged “gravy

train” will continue. You do not mention that government

organizations such as the Max PlanckSociety in Germany often pay postdoctoralresearchers tax-free stipends that canhardly be described as generous —between 17,850 euros (US$15,344) and22,000 euros a year, depending on theexact circumstances. After private health-care (about 2,500 euros a year) and a basicpension (about 2,000 euros) have beendeducted, this is not a great deal of money.

This practice should be stamped out.Surely scientists deserve the same pay andworking conditions as other professionals?The era of the tax-free stipend is indeedover, but for very different reasons fromthe ones you suggest.

It is easy to print melodramaticheadlines about the high tax-free salariesof a few physicists at CERN and tooverlook the real problems faced by manymore scientists around Europe. Tax-freestipends are simply a way that scientificinstitutions and funding bodies escaperesponsibilities to their employees.Francis BarrDepartment of Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Am Klopferspitz 18a,Martinsried 82152, Germany

People, payments andpositions at DESYSir — In your Opinion article aboutbenefits for scientists working abroad(Nature 414, 829; 2001) you state that onlyone-third of the scientists at DESY(Germany’s high-energy acceleratorcentre) are German.

This is correct for the scientists whovisit DESY to perform experiments asmembers of one of the four HERA collabo-rations or in the Synchrotron RadiationLaboratory HASYLAB. They are, however,not employed by DESY. Of the scientists onthe DESY payroll, 75.4% are German.

You also state that at DESY a young,unmarried graduate can expect to earn18,500 euros (US$16,346) a year. Thatfigure is incorrect. The correct amount is 40,000 euros. Petra FolkertsDESY, Notkestrasse 85, D - 22607 Hamburg,Germany

The “young, unmarried graduate”positions discussed in the Opinion articlereferred to PhD students, who inGermany are usually paid a half-salary,which is typically 18,500 euros. Peopleearning the full-time salary of around40,000 euros cannot study for a PhD. —Editor, Correspondence.

correspondence

472 NATURE | VOL 415 | 31 JANUARY 2002 | www.nature.com© 2002 Macmillan Magazines Ltd