Dear AgBioViewers,

Like yourself, I'm thrilled by the news that Nature is taking the unprecedented step to aknowledge that it published a paper that should not have been published in the first place. However, I'm running into a small problem: wherever I search on the Nature website, I cannot find a trace of the editorial note you (and the Washington Post) refer to. If someone is smarter than me in digging it out of their electronic site, it would be great if you could either post the text or the direct link in your next edition. Many people are going to need that reference, not least those who, like me, will be in the frontline fights for biotech in the coming weeks at the Conference of the Parties of the Biodiversity Convention and the ICCP3 of the Cartagena Protocol in The Hague.

Many thanks in advance for your efforts, and keep up the good work!

Willy De Greef
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nature Editorial note, page 1:

In our 29 November issue, we published the paper "Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico" by David Quist and Ignacio Chapela. Subsequently, we received several criticisms of the paper, to which we obtained responses from the authors and consulted referees over the exchanges. In the meantime, the authors agreed to obtain further data, on a timetable agreed with us, that might prove beyond reasonable doubt that transgenes have indeed become integrated into the maize genome. The authors have now obtained some additional data, but there is disagreement between them and a referee as to whether these results significantly bolster their argument.

In light of these discussions and the diverse advice received, Nature has concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper. As the authors nevertheless wish to stand by the available evidence for their conclusions, we feel it best simply to make these circumstances clear, to publish the criticisms, the authors' response and new data, and to allow our readers to judge the science for themselves.