Sir — Your News story “Max Planck plansdouble blow to chemistry” (Nature 422,105; 2003), reporting that the Max PlanckSociety is seriously considering closing itsdepartments of cosmochemistry andgeochemistry in Mainz, is most disturbing.Insofar as the Max Planck Society isconcerned with pursuing cutting-edgescientific research programmes, suchaction is difficult to understand.

Research in cosmochemistry is a vital laboratory activity, linked with astrophysics and observational astronomy.It has active and strong connections tostudy of the early chemical evolution of the Universe, cosmology, and the SolarSystem’s formation and evolution.Important pioneering work, both in termsof new discoveries and the development ofnew generations of instruments, is being

carried out under the direction of GünterLugmair and is the focus of widespreadand active interest. Cosmochemistry is anintellectually and technically exciting areaand will continue to be so during the nextfew decades.

The area of terrestrial geochemistry hasgrown enormously in terms of the depth ofunderstanding of the chemical processesrelated to Earth’s structure and dynamicsand of the geophysics of Earth’s thermo-chemical and dynamical engine. There areimportant new possibilities in studies ofenvironmental geochemistry, both inmeasurements and in theory, that are key to understanding the migration ofelements, not only in Earth’s deep interior,but also in its near-surface aqueousenvironments. A whole new array oftechniques and instrumental approaches

are now being developed, some beingpioneered at Mainz under the leadership of Albrecht Hofmann.

The absence of these research areas from the Max Planck Society’s scienceprogramme will, in our view, have adevastating effect on the level of science inGermany and will be negative for the restof Europe. There is no doubt that somerestructuring of German research isneeded for fiscal and management reasons.However, closing leading institutes that aredoing vital and innovative research is anaction that we must deplore. G. J. Wasserburg*, D. P. McKenzie† *USA Division of Geological and PlanetarySciences, California Institute of Technology,Pasadena California 91125, USA†Department of Earth Sciences, University ofCambridge, Cambridge CB3 0EZ, UK

correspondence

NATURE | VOL 422 | 3 APRIL 2003 | www.nature.com/nature 469

Max Planck: closures will damage German scienceCosmochemistry and geochemistry departments should continue their innovative work.

Max Planck: cuts weredecided years agoSir — In your News story “Max Planckplans double blow to chemistry” (Nature422, 105; 2003), you state that twodepartments at the Max Planck Institutefor Chemistry in Mainz are the “firstcasualties of a budget freeze” at the MaxPlanck Society. This is not correct.

The closure of one department wasdecided years ago and has nothing to dowith the present budget constraints of the Max Planck Society. The federal consolidation programme, aimed atreducing staff numbers in former WestGerman institutes, has obliged the MaxPlanck Institute for Chemistry to cut 25staff positions. This includes eliminatingProfessor Günter Lugmair’s position whenhe retires in 2005.

The institute’s further development hasto be seen within the context of the overalldevelopment of the Max Planck Society.Within this context, the institute is free to set its own scientific priorities, whichinclude the continued use of the ionmicroprobe pictured in your story.Bernd Wirsing Max Planck Society Press Office, Postfach 10 10 62,80084 München, Germany

Our reporter contacted the Max PlanckSociety’s press office as well as the heads ofdepartments at the Institute of Chemistryin Mainz. None of these told him that the closure of the cosmochemistrydepartment had been decided severalyears ago — Editor, Nature

Leading edge lasersSir — Your News in Brief story “Spendingspree gives German physics a high-energyboost” (Nature 421, 682; 2003) reportedthat free-electron lasers generate intenseX-ray radiation for the study of moleculesduring chemical reactions. In fact, theselasers have operated from the microwaveto the vacuum ultraviolet and can be usedto study not only molecules but atoms,condensed matter, plasmas and evenelementary particles via Compton back-scattering. Thanks to their performanceadvantages, which include tunability, pulse brevity, high repetition rate, capacity for pump–probe synchronizationwith other light sources, and high average and peak powers, the development of free-electron lasers isbeing advanced on many fronts. Swapan Chattopadhyay Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility,12000 Jefferson Avenue, Newport News, Virginia 23606, USA

Vigilance is vital to avoidconflicts of interestSir — Rahul K. Dhanda makes an excellentpoint in his Correspondence “Time forbioethics and business to start talking”(Nature 421, 573; 2003): the separationbetween bioethicists and biotechnologistsconstitutes a risk to both groups, as well asto the public good. He overstates, however,the potential for synergy.

The rift between bioethicists and the

biotech industry is not just cultural, asDhanda suggests, but also functional.Bioethicists have a social role that issometimes at odds with the goals (andsocial role) of industry. The public expectsbioethicists to offer independent, reasonedcommentary on complex issues in health-care and the life sciences. Nowhere is suchcommentary more crucial than in therapidly expanding realm of biotechnology.Surely Dhanda would agree thatunreflective collaboration with industrywould hinder the ability of bioethics tomeet this expectation.

It is true that bioethicists have oftenbeen preoccupied by questions of how they can maintain their integrity ifworking with industry. But what Dhandacalls “endless discussions over conflicts ofinterest” are, I fear, a necessity. Bioethicistsneed to carry on this discussion, but as wellas including industry they must also try todetermine what sorts of engagement withindustry are least likely to corrode publictrust in bioethics, and what kinds ofstructural safeguards are possible.

The Enron scandal taught us that theaccounting profession must become morevigilant in its struggle to avoid conflicts ofinterest, and indeed may need to considersignificant structural reforms if theprofession is to retain its useful role in thefunctioning of financial systems. Similarly,bioethicists should not stop talking aboutconflict of interest: vigilance on this countis the discipline’s only hope of continuingto merit the public’s trust.Chris MacDonaldDepartment of Philosophy, Saint Mary’s University,Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 3C3, Canada

© 2003 Nature Publishing Group