ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´

DID libel Papua New Guineans in a high-profile article? I don’t know. And, most likely, neither do you.

Diamond is being sued for $10 million in a New York court over an April 2008 article in The New Yorker magazine concerning violence and revenge in Papua New Guinea, where he has spent many years. Diamond named names, and some of those names say that claims made in his article are false – and may have put the life of one of them at risk.

An allegation that a prosperous first-world scientist has intentionally or carelessly maligned powerless people in the developing world naturally tempts us to stand alongside the underdog, and condemn the researcher. Yet there may equally well be convincing explanations that put matters in a different light.

Over the years, many field researchers have faced similarly serious challenges to both reputation and character. Napoleon Chagnon, one of the greatest anthropologists to set foot in the Amazon, was later vilified for, among other things, purportedly infecting Yanomami people with measles to test a new vaccine. The charges are now mostly regarded as spurious.

Then there is the case of . In 1933, he was lauded for his discovery of an ancient human species. When he invited geologist Percy Boswell to verify the claim, Boswell could not do so because Leakey had not marked or documented the site of the find carefully enough. Leakey’s reputation never fully recovered.

For researchers who spend lonely years slogging it out in difficult circumstances, having to submit their claims to independent testing can seem a heavy burden to bear. But it is a necessary evil.

So what does the dispute over Diamond’s article teach us? First, field scientists need to document claims with the utmost care. Others will visit, no matter how remote the site, to check out their assertions. As I write, a team from Germany is evaluating my claims about the language and culture of the Pirahã people.

Second, no one should take the word of any one researcher. All claims – yours, mine, Diamond’s, his critics’ – must be tested and retested. And last, the internet makes research globally available: this only serves to underline the need to always get approval from the real names we name before we publish.