Sir

From reading your News story on the trial of Thomas Butler, “Plague trial verdict leaves biologists split on defence” (Nature 426, 593; 200310.1038/426593a), it is not yet clear that US scientists are eager to work on biodefence projects, as suggested by the former president of the American Society for Microbiology, Ronald Atlas. What is clear, however, is that they are eager to get their hands on the flood of new federal money for biodefence research. No doubt the money will be used to finish current research projects, buy new equipment, hire technicians, fund graduate students and impress tenure committees. Only later will they have to consider the burden that comes with that money: regulatory paperwork, conflicting rules and regulations, and the scrutiny of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other security bureaucrats.

Atlas says he has not seen evidence that new regulations are having an adverse impact on researchers, but that is largely because the ink is not yet dry on many of the new laws and regulations. We will have to wait a few years to see their full impact on academic research.

“We live in a new regulatory environment; it is our responsibility as scientists and citizens to comply with the laws and regulations,” writes Atlas. It is also our responsibility as scientists and citizens to question the utility and enforcement of such laws and regulations. As the economist Lester Thurow reminds us (Atlantic Monthly 283, 6; 1999): “being skeptical and refusing to accept authority are the secrets of scientific advancement.”