Customer Reviews

The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The Baltimore case was really the Imanishi-Kari case. A young scientist in Theresa Imanishi-Kari's lab, Margot O'Toole, approached her superiors with a disagreeing opinion about one of the papers published by her superior and co-authored by Nobel Prize winner David Baltimore.Two committees found that there had been error, but not misconduct or fraud. Somehow, the case was brought to the attention of two self-appointed "fraud-busters" at the N.I.H., and a full-scale investigation was launched. The secret service was brought in to examine the lab notebooks and a draft report finding evidence of fraud was leaked to the press. A public controversy ensued, especially when it became clear that Imanishi-Kari did not have access to her own notebooks to prepare her defense. The case dragged on for a decade but ended in a triumphant exoneration on all charges. The book pleased me for two reasons : 1) It made clear the scientific controversy, which had often been overlooked in the press reports of the time, and it also defined the difference between scientific disagreement about the interpretation of data,versus fraud or error. 2) The book described the frightening escalation of the charges against Imanishi-Kari. What started out as an inability to reproduce experimental results with a temperamental reagent, ended with accusations that a third of the experimental notebooks would have been falsified !

One moral lesson can be drawn for all scientists : make sure your notebooks are organized in perfect chronological order !

As an engineer by training and profession, this book really makes my blood boil. It's basically the true story of some scientists at MIT who publish a paper on immunology. A student of one of the professors challenges that some of the data in the paper was faked, and an epic of Phyrric proportions ensues.

In the 10 years that this book covers, scientific careers are ruined, researchers are vilified in the media and in the court of public opinion, and (most troubling of all to me) our elected officials engage in a witch hunt of completely innocent scientists. In particular, Senator John Dingell (Michigan) and his staff are revealed as complete devils; the author has thoroughly documented and footnoted the evidence in the case, so there is really little doubt that Mr. Dingell is as pernicious as he is portrayed in this book. Unfortunately, Mr. Dingell is still a senator to this day and no doubt is still out "to get" the scientists involved. Fortunately for science (and society), history has proven the scientists involved innocent and they have all been restored to preeminent positions in the scientific community.

Be forewarned that this is quite a tomb, weighing in at hundreds of pages of meaty scientific and political reading. At times, I contemplated giving up on it, but as the story unfolded, I wanted to see just how far this tragic comedy would unfold. The subject matter (immunology) is far removed from the layperson and I found myself at times not understanding the concepts fully. Luckily, this book is more about the sociopolitical ramifications of the science, and thus not understanding the science does not detract from the novel.

"The Baltimore Case" tells a fascinating, frightening story well, but in far too many pages. The previous reviewer describes the details of the case, which are familiar to most biologists but still misunderstood by many in the sciences as well as by the general public. Mr. Kevles is a descriptive master. He lays out the facts of the case in as objective a manner as I think is possible and he makes the murkiest of quarrels clear (although more figures would have been useful), but his book is very repetitive, is excessively detailed, and by the final chapters a feeling of déjà vu permeates every page. That said, he provides a very important service by convincingly showing that the Baltimore case was primarily a congressional and media fiasco perpetrated under the guise of scientific justice. Some might say that scientists are placed on a pedestal by the non-scientific public and that it is a good thing for scientists to be monitored by "impartial" parties to "keep them honest". Maybe so, but in a country whose populace still fights the teaching of evolutionary biology in public schools and rejects genetically-modified foods without a basic understanding of biology, whose congressional members only support applied research that is fodder for votes, and whose media have trouble reporting the most basic scientific discoveries accurately or without sensationalizing them, the policing of scientists should be done very carefully, and "The Baltimore Case" shows why. When ignorant and incompetent individuals like Feder and Stewart are allowed to impact science for transparently self-serving reasons, and powerful politicians like Dingell are given free reign to try, convict and punish dedicated individuals with ill-concealed intellectual jealousy, the entire scientific enterprise in the United States is placed in serious jeopardy. The scientific community, like any other, will turn defensive, in-fight, and self-destruct, and the public will view scientists with greater suspicion than ever. If, after Margot O'toole lodged her initial complaint, independent scientists had been allowed to validate the work under question, which was later shown to be unimpeachable, millions of dollars would have been saved and many years of anguish would have been avoided. Instead, intellectual laziness and administrative incompetence won out and a travesty ensued. Mr. Kevles should be congratulated for making this simple, refreshing fact clear.

Kevles has written a masterful account of the Baltimore Case (Imanishi-Kari Case might be better). I can only second the glowing reviews already on this page. A few things that might interest the general reader: at the time of this book's publication, Baltimore-bashing was practically a national sport among scientists. Kevles set out to write a balanced account, and he has done so-- it is a good job all around, as Yale recognized when it gave him an endowed chair recently (Caltech's loss, alas!). Information subsequent to its publication only enhances Baltimore's stature. Unfortunately, like the French Dreyfus case that it resembled at times, too many prominent people said too many harsh things about Baltimore that they cannot retract. Contrary to at least one of the editorial reviewers, it is clear now that Kevles was too hard on Baltimore and company, but so many people attacked Baltimore(Nature's Maddox, Paul Doty, Jim Watson, W.Gilbert, J Darnell, G. Blobel, and a whole nascent federal bureaucracy, inter alia) that these contemporary anti-Dreyfusards will never be refuted. Be that as it may, read this account to get a detailed study of how scientists and government can go wrong, all while trying to do the right thing.

For me The Baltimore Case was edifying and a pleasure to read. I recommend it highly to anyone like myself who followed desultorily the media's presentation of the proceedings before the Congressional Subcommittee as putting "Science on Trial," but without any grasp of the underlying science. And I agree with the previous reviewers' conclusion that the book is too long although I attribute its length to the author's commitment to thoroughness.

I finished The Baltimore Case feeling I'd learned a lot about viral research in an academic setting, the role of personality conflicts in this research, and the editorial practices of scientific journals like Cell. (Excuse me for not saying more about the political, scientific, and personal disputes that the book so fascinatingly details, but to my mind they are commendably covered in the other reviews.) I especially admired the author's sustained treatment of the central story as a murder mystery with no murderer and everyone the victims, as well as his clear presentation of the underlying scientific facts. Professor Kevles did a very impressive job.

If ever there was a clear case of people choosing sides based on what they believe a priori, this is it. While some authors (Judy Sarasohm for example) followed this case from both sides, Kevles obviously entered the discussion with a judgement to be excused. The case of Imanishi-Kari v. O' Toole is one that should have be decided in science, by scientists. But the intervention and face-saving by David Baltimore caused this case to linger half a decade beyond it's merit.

This book wends its way through the facts of the case in 512 pages, but prejudges it's view from page 1. Science isn't the question; in the original paper, the Tufts review, the MIT review, the NIH review or the Secret Service investigation.

Rather, the intent is clear from the beginning, politics has no place in science, except when practiced by Nobel laureates.

Read "Science On Trial" as well, to see an honest (but admittedly poor) author explain the entire case, instead of a biased view decrying the proper research.

There used to be a time when those occupying certain hallowed positions could do no wrong, and this included academia and business. However, recent events in the business world have confirmed that the top of the pyramid can and does crumble under the weight of wrong doings. An example is the ENRON case. Another, the Huttenback case (UC Santa Barbabra). I am an admirer of scientists who spend days without sleep in the lab trying to get some elusive result or photo, and when they do, or think they do, trivialities such as data records are forgotten. However, reproducibility -- which is the buzz word in many of these cases, needs to be defined.

If I drop my glass of champagne, can it be reproduced? I challenge anyone to reproduce the exact number of fragments and their shapes. However, as engineers know, the statistical parameters can be reasonably ascertained over many experiments.

Now if data is supposed to be forged, this can also be determined using sampling theory. In the Iwanishi Kari-Baltimore case, this test was not applied. I wrote to Nature about it in 1992 but they did not publish my letter. The so called fraudulent data can still be tested ( it was published if I recall in Nature among many heated letters).

Regarding breaking of samples I have also experienced accusations of being unscientific when challenged to reproduce the data.( Method of preparation was not mentioned if I recall). I published a paper on polymethylmethacrylate fracture where I attempted to correlate structure with breaking strengths. Some ignoramuses challenged it and brought in the attorney general of a southern state to try to ruin my career. I republished the paper in another international journal. I later learned that the protagonist of this piece had obtained a NIH grant mentioning some of the earlier results. When informed of the facts, NIH did not take notice of this. Earlier when the "Reproducers" were asked to appear at an inquiry to confront me, they did not do so. They had even asked me to apply for a Dupont grant.