We are all human, we are not always right, and as scientists we should be constantly questioning and encouraging questioning. The most solid foundations of science are those built upon work that is questioned and proven. Work that has not been questioned and proven is of uncertain value to the foundations

of science and may weaken them. The above are my definitions of ‘crossing the scientific line’. I would be interested to hear whether readers agree, disagree or can suggest other sins. Letters to the Editor on this subject would be most welcome. So how and why was I accused of ‘crossing the line’ in an e-mail by my old colleague? Because I and my co-authors (Landrum et al., 2012, Page et al., in press and Page et al., 2012) are questioning work done by government scientists who my accuser considers “good” and who thus should not be “harassed” by questioning their findings – to quote from his e-mail “…the US Government Selleckchem BAY 80-6946 and its scientists are working for the people of the United States”. Because my research was funded by Exxon Mobil (related to the Exxon

Valdez oil spill), and as he stated, Exxon has a history of “some really dirty tricks”. Because I was working with what he called, “…the oil industry-hired scientists who are incompetent and/or out to prove something decided a priori, and who cheat and play dirty”. Because in questioning the government scientists’ work, I and my co-authors accessed laboratory notebooks; this was, my accuser believed, neither “necessary or ethical scientifically”. PI3K inhibitor Because I am a consultant and, as he put it, “…a private consultant…has to earn a living and has to pursue issues which his clients want pursued”. In his opinion “…I think the best way of doing things is to have taxpayer-supported scientists seeking the

truth on behalf of the public interest”. Scientists do not have to like each other, but they do have to act like scientists – with good manners and forming their opinions based on facts not unsubstantiated beliefs, no matter how personally attractive those beliefs may be (Chapman Diflunisal and Giddings, 1997). As scientists we have a responsibility to seek out the truth no matter what. All scientists, regardless of whom we work for, or what we choose to believe, need to be true to this responsibility. I sincerely thank the old colleague who accused me of ‘crossing the line’ for making me think hard about the work I am doing and have done, and which led to my writing this Editorial. As I told him, I still like him and I respect him for questioning (what scientists do) my work. “
“The publisher regrets that a typographic error appeared in the above article. On page 48, second column in the section Fine-scale spatial genetic structure, the formula for the Sp statistic should read as follows: Sp = −bLd/(1 − F1).