My impressions from a 17-year tenure at the US National Research Council (NRC), part of the National Academy of Sciences, do not tally with Marjory Blumenthal's views of the academy's performance (Nature 494, 423–424; 2013).

The NRC's investment in procedures aimed at assuring objectivity, independence and scientific rigour is impeccable. Ensuring the credibility of scientific advice takes time. The process cannot be influenced by the impatience of advocates under pressure from their clients, despite today's expectations for rapid information. It would indeed be desirable for the NRC to be more “nimble”, but not at the expense of its scientific standards.

I find it commendable that the NRC holds steady in its allegiance to fulfil its advisory role. In brushing over the complexities of process and product, I believe that Blumenthal misjudges the pursuit of consensus as a worthy end in itself.