In May, the US Department of Justice indicted two Japanese researchers, alleging that they engaged in economic espionage on behalf of Japan. A central claim is that one of the researchers, Takashi Okamoto, stole reagents from the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) in Ohio, and transferred them to the RIKEN Brain Science Institute near Tokyo. Because RIKEN is funded by the Japanese government, the Justice Department considers that theft of trade secrets on its behalf constitutes foreign economic espionage. This is an extraordinary allegation against a major research institute, but the available information suggests it is unfounded.

Until July 1999, Okamoto was a lab head at the Lerner Research Institute of the CCF. According to the indictment, Okamoto conspired with another Japanese scientist, Hiroaki Serizawa of Kansas University Medical Center, to steal DNA samples and cell lines from the CCF and transfer them to RIKEN via Serizawa's lab. Other materials from Okamoto's lab were said to be destroyed, and the researchers sought to conceal the damage by substituting vials filled with tap water. Colleagues became suspicious when experiments started to fail, and a few weeks later Okamoto abruptly resigned his position at CCF and returned to Japan to take up a position at the Brain Science Institute. CCF reported the incident to the local police, who turned the case over to the FBI.

Okamoto had told RIKEN that he was in a dispute with his former employer, but they considered it to be a personal matter and did not pursue it. Neither the FBI nor CCF informed them that a criminal investigation was underway, according to RIKEN sources, so the May indictment, almost two years after Okamoto left CCF, took them by surprise. When it was announced, Okamoto disappeared on administrative leave, and had no further contact with RIKEN until his resignation on 31 July. Okamoto's motives remain mysterious. His current location is unknown, and it seems unlikely that Japan will allow him to be extradited to face trial in the US, given that it does not recognize economic espionage as a crime. Serizawa, however, was arrested in Kansas and released on bail; his trial will begin in November.

Although the indictment does not explicitly allege wrongdoing by RIKEN, the implication seems unmistakable from the claim that Okamoto's and Serizawa's actions “would and did confer a benefit on RIKEN” by providing them with the stolen reagents. An affidavit from the investigating FBI agent is more specific, claiming that RIKEN employees discussed with Okamoto how the stolen reagents could be transported and stored there.

RIKEN, which has conducted its own investigations since Okamoto's disappearance, insists that it has done nothing wrong. It acknowledges that stolen reagents did reach RIKEN, but claims that they disappeared soon after Okamoto's arrival and were never used. It also acknowledges that there were e-mail discussions about storing boxes of reagents from CCF, but claims that these were normal for any researcher relocating to a new institute. Finally, it rejects any suggestion that Okamoto was hired because of his access to reagents developed at the CCF.

RIKEN may have been sloppy in its hiring process, but that is not the same as conducting foreign espionage. The charge seems inherently implausible, and unless the Justice Department or the CCF can provide evidence to the contrary, RIKEN's denials should be taken at face value. Whether the Serizawa trial will provide RIKEN with an opportunity to clear its reputation, however, remains to be seen. The prosecution has asked the presiding judge to conduct the trial in closed session, citing concerns about the effect on CCF of revealing its trade secrets. CCF supports the prosecution's request, according to public relations director Mark Cohen, who declined to discuss the case further with Nature Neuroscience. However, the prosecution has a vested interest in demonstrating the commercial sensitivity of the information, so this argument should be treated with skepticism, particularly as the director of the Lerner Research Institute has been quoted as saying that Okamoto's research there produced no patentable discoveries.

Most intellectual property disputes are resolved by either negotiation or civil litigation. A criminal charge of economic espionage is far more serious, and this case has caused considerable offense in Japan, where it has been widely reported. Finding treatments for Alzheimer's disease is a high priority for drug companies in both countries, and as one prominent Japanese newspaper put it, “many feel the United States' intention is to launch a pre-emptive strike against an emerging rival.” This may be overstated, but the question remains why the Justice Department chose to bring espionage charges, rather than more mundane charges of theft or vandalism.

It is hard to escape the suspicion that the charges are politically motivated. The Economic Espionage Act was passed by the US Congress in 1996, reflecting widespread concerns about the threat to the United States from theft of its trade secrets. However, no espionage convictions have yet been obtained, and indeed this case is the first indictment under section 1831 of the act, which refers to espionage by foreign governments. Economic espionage is a serious threat, and no doubt the Justice Department is under pressure to obtain convictions under the new act. It is difficult to believe, however, that the actions attributed to Okamoto and Serizawa, deplorable though they may be, represent the type of serious crime that the act was meant to deter.

Meanwhile, the reputation of a major international research institute has been tarnished, probably unfairly, by the Justice Department's interpretation of an individual researcher's conduct. It would be too much to expect an apology from the Justice Department if the charges prove to be unsubstantiated, but in that event, one hopes at least that the CCF will help RIKEN to restore its good name.

CORRECTION: In the above editorial, it was stated incorrectly that Dr Okamoto had no contact with RIKEN in the interval between his indictment and his resignation. In fact, according to Masao Ito, director of the RIKEN Brain Science Institute, Dr Okamoto communicated twice with the RIKEN during that time; once in the form of a letter sent via his lawyer to the RIKEN investigating committee, and once by answering some questions in the presence of his lawyer about his employment at RIKEN.