This is with regard to the letter - which seemed to me to be OK to publish. I understand the need to be transparent. but the WPI also needs to be able to reach out to the research community and interact with them and support them and get supported by them in order to work effectively on XMRV. They need to be able to get grants which means not having people on a grant review panel with an axe to grind against them because one of their colleagues is upset. If they didn't have permission and McClure would be upset over seeing it posted publicly then I think it would have been a bad decision to post it. I assume she had permission since she and Dr. McClure seemed to be operating on a more personal level.
A part of a long term strategy for being an effective research institute is having good relations with your peers. I imagine that makes everything so much easier. I think that needs to be taken into account. I'm not saying that it wasn't here - I just think, in some areas, protocol overrides transparency.
With regards to not publishing the contrary results it appears that neither protocol nor transparency was followed by Kuppeveld and Groom and that following protocol required a level of transparency which obviously didn't happen!
I think they tried hard with Mclure Cort despite her cler breach of scientific protocol.She has refused to participate in an exchange of samples and wants nothing more to do with CFS research or have her techniques examined for effectiveness.
She had enough faith in them to state that there is no XMRV inthe UK but not as much faith now it seems