A science journalist and university president are trading barbs this week over the administrator's less-than-glowing book review in Nature.

Last week, Nature published a letter from science policy journalist Daniel Greenberg, who criticized the review of his latest book in the journal. (Greenberg spoke to us last month about his book, Science for Sale: The perils, rewards, and delusions of campus capitalism.)

In the Nature book review, published September 27, Arizona State University president Michael Crow dubs the book an "intriguing, if idealistic, review of the issues surrounding the funding of science in the twenty-first century."

Specifically, Crow said he took issue with Greenberg's assertion that academic researchers and institutions should be motivated by curiosity alone, not a drive for funding. It's okay for research universities to compete with each other, Crow notes. "It is not a set of corporate or capitalistic forces that are driving US academia on the path of increased complexity and stress. It is the universities, through their creativity, connectivity, influence and power, that are driving other institutions or nation states to action with science-based competition."

In Greenberg's response, he suggests Crow has a conflict of interest, given that he "is renowned for striving to make his institution the biggest in the United States while raising its relatively low academic standing. His impartiality may be open to question as a reviewer of my book." Ouch.

Greenberg added that he never said academics should be motivated by curiosity alone, simply quotes a scientist who did. "I prefer to believe that hasty reading by a heavily burdened university president accounts for these errors and omissions."

I forwarded Greenberg's letter to Crow (who, amazingly, hadn't seen it), and he sent me a response yesterday (October 25). He called Greenberg's letter "curious indeed," and said he reviewed the work "completely."

Not surprisingly, Crow defended his work from Greenberg's allegation. "The work load of college presidents is heavy, but never too heavy to offer critiques of work that need context to be better understood," he said. Both authors are certainly taking the time now to defend their positions.