Tobacco Documents Online

C`_'. i- € ) !C'IE AFTER

i THE SCIENCE MOB BY Plrilip J. Hilts v-e( rrruteites: l") tt're t tf,abie, Ck3c~sctve, and re•sourcrlul. t3tu :au h.aYc nu rahees. uFn4stur: Arrcd ivhcre`s thu eaur tn vnur carrcinq-canr xtarTot.tAtLe; C:xnair,r hri<sre canndnesr. tu duises; [{re r's~,hs thlnh :1nYt 1HYt tnM1t SUF1nti it. -Sramtva fEeazwc's transEat¢un u('soph.ECfc~' Pf.ifurfetr. itt the vearc bei"ure `1"or'ItC th'ar TI, science Isas a •smaiL chatated pr<>iestiirnt. fu 1940 tthere were about '(lU.f}(1Q scientists and S7oi rnillion in P(.dernd mtronec. Scientists cc•ere• a eantetuplatiee oracr, ~ul('k tht,ir espu- ................................ ............ .................... _.... I'tnt.tr j. Ittt:rs is a Wasitiel;¢e[a'e curre`ilnxacErnt For The ,r<-w I~srr. TtrrpS. - ---------- - - -------- - - - ------------- 2d 1H!°. \'FN` kFFlr(31JC MdY 18, 1992 The David Baltimore case-and its lessons. Si1rC !a_r the k.Orld X'as InBllted. M'ite6t :m UCCASHCinal t{ue&tiUtl Uf 5fO1PpOnk.°~5 Cir misconduct arose, it W85 C1uP- etly rsesul.ed within the confines 4 the pra.rfessiun. But rFOW, 4i5 the nLmlber ()f scientists reFlL'he,, I million andd their share raf the natiun's, i'eeierul bxdgct reaches 5_'5 billion, the c4eutands dor F'eater accuunta6ilin and upennetis are uelderstandahlc mtlre insistent. Thetiugh scientists watdd like to remain aicLiRf, tt hrotherhrx%d whose standards and integria remain above public reproach, that era is over. I St:rries about scientific rniscondhlct ;tre nrt longer an aherratictn. Indeed. in recentveaLS tite nlost notorious •

• . • cases have invotveed snrne r,f rnit cottntrv "s tnoq rep- ~ tist char!;ed with the traucl. <'tnd it's famous les, utable sc ientists and universitia s. In 1`J8'i3 ~c,}ur I?arsce. ~ becau:,e of the nature of the f.'aud than because F,alti- a researcher at Harearcl Medical Schocal, was d€rund bv the National Institutes of Health to haFe faked some data in his ~rtudies on heart drsa°asa^.. In 1984 the National Institute of t<f< ntal Hraltlt aonri xded that Stephen I3reuuit>g, ,a researcher a.t the- Crniversite of Pittsburgh, had f:ahricatcd data in a p.tper about dru, therapy for inperactive children. In br,tFi cases earlic.r internal unitersit inecati~ati ne had cle ued the scien- tists of blanie. Rolzert Gallo, the chieC of the La6ora- at the ntt-t and the co-d'es- ory of Tumor Cell L iolo,,7 cot°eret' of the cause of :1D5, is trnder irtves- tigation he several fed- eral agencies for not giving sufficient credit in 1984 .for work per- fornied hr French sci- entists- ~ recent Nni rel ort fcluncl hirn riot gtultt• of misconduct but detailed several instances of irrespon- si.ble fie.ha7or. The Ntti{, which is charged with investi- {;aring allegations of misconduct in feder- ally funded research at universities, eXatn- ines a few dozen such cases each pear. It is impossible to sa6' how many others remain tinder wraps at the universities. The re- luctance of FYdm[nfls- trautrs to rctot out cases of rniscrondu+•t by facultv is harddv- surp-ising: when one comes to the atten- tion of federal investi- gatesrs, artd the perpe- trator is found guilty, rntore himself determined to make it famotts. Like a C;rcck traf,redc, it turns on a rharticR^r flaw in the pro- uagrlresst, unsecan Inhirnself but escruciatinah• obvious to the :budiettcc tlnbt allts ~ him to commit a sequence etf nnprobahls tUotish acts. Each 3e ads to the ftnal- maddeningly. avoidab(e--Call. The case is quite sintltle in msm: respects. and it could h.zse beeu rquiclait te.otved at the start. Instead it has drayged on for the past sis cears, involving dozens of eminent scientisi.s who rallied behind 1?al- timore, and provok- ing two university in{'tIIrles, tKYJ fiJrmaQ irLi"f'.Stiganons by the Nut, and threc: CCIII9ressionL4l hear- ings be the oversight committee responsi- ble f<tr looking into gocernneert fraud. -~nd still it is not ove.r. The Rttt has not vet hmshed its tn- vestigatii}n, and a grand jury in Balti- more is considering indictsnents against Imanishi-Kari. What we now have, though, is a thorough draft report by the Office of Scientific. Integrin' at the \n-i that provides a fac- tual guide to the irnpenetrable. Fronn this and the test.i- rni)rtv of e7lf-'h side since the draft was leaked to the press last sprYn};, we know at least the sequence of ee•ents that led to the puhlsc humiEia- IJHAi\YNG R3 L'1]? L:Nkf{FXi.'H TC1N ]IfF. NFN' IiFPOAI.[i: his federal rts'•.atxh funds are tLEthdr..,,tt More impot- tant in a s tem in rhich reprutiaon is p uamcrunt, a' charge of rntsbehacror representc a pern,,tnent tfis- grac:e-3 linp.,ering impediment to fntu-s fede:d and ~, private fcutding. Perhaps the tnost ae"marbcaltk :ase cif miacouducc In the annals of American science is the one known as "the Baltimore r-ase.° The most protracted scandal of the last sa..ver.4 iYcars, it stands as the e'<entplar ofsvhats ,rrsrng with the deflnsire and elf-re=~aVarin;; sYructure of the Anierlcan s ientific estaia isiuuent. It-s named after the scientist who trfP.aFed to inve_su,L,ate allegations uf faked tF<ttehara,l sDr. David Baldnture, rather than after I)r. Thereza tmanispri-kari, thcsa:ien- tion of Baltimote a Nobel Frize winner and former `tead ot' the S1-Etnehead Institute and president of Rorl.efeller C nne.rsitr. tl3altimore was fsnalle pressurcrd to resi,n from Iaockefi,ller last t:ail hv senior faculty who felt the c n,'oing scandal was an embarrassment to tlee universtlc,} We cannot sac whc Baltimore ciid what he clid. I have askcd htnc repe:ated3%'. ancl lie is unable to say Khn. The case bel;an ts-ith a rc &areh paper, pabiished in tht journal _let'toirc Rc C.:If on ."',prkl _.i- 1986, tirfed, "Aftered of' Enciogruiuus Imrnuncn ,lobuhn Gene ~ l l ~ Expression s t Trtns7gc.nn ltice C,onutintna a I{ear- 4 b ll ' Cf C ` Th i d M ~ tten r;rn~rc c,it i tan ene. e p,rper, ivr u }ronrinued on pc~pc 2S r ~ W ~ MAY 98.99G2 TFL5 NEN' RBPL.'81.!C 25 CO N

ftrtjtt,t,i7rt°fiarl and aratttfterred htf3altii2lolr ;thian I Fin ad13. tott jt ne lti, 1986, O'Tut.,le herself con- ne-t coitstas;ue at ttir, and three other xlentists, ~ frontexE F]ah:imote and itnantshi-lure at a meeting also ciescribed experiments that ptarporteci to show that when scientists inserted a foreign gene into ntice, it did noE ati e~.p( ( tc d_lust na6.e fUrelgn Anubf)dit a ILathel ~t had some unknots-rt e;f6ect on the mouse'S envn j;ene~,. altetnng them to include antibodies that mtmacLed tFte foreign anrlbodt'.'Thce paper implies that it might sorree- tiutc be possible to gain command of the body's defenses br introducing forcign genes that would recruit ihe rta.tnral ones to attact a selected target. The paper began to unravel almost immediately, even hefore publirat.icyn. T'he warning sig-res c,ame from the tbsn' postdoctoral student., Dr. Margot O"I'oole, assigned bv Imanishi-kari to extend thee work to the next step. SFre could not duplicate the vork and wasted almost a tear demonstrating that important experiments in the paper were tbmrcrng. It is always dan- gerous for postdoctoral students to challenge their superiors, upon whon-s they rely for every detail of their professional life, includinp; naoney, labstzace, and the opportunitv to ps.tblish. This particular challenge would require either an extensive correction or a with- drawal of the paper. an unusual procedure that would embarrass all of the authors. n\iae 19856 O' Iocrle first touak the uncontfort- al le f icts to her thesis adviser and trao other scien- tists at Tufts Unner ity, which Was about to hire Itnanishtluui. They were concerned enough to call in Imanishi-Kari for proof of'the workk she'd done, • but ttfter a quick perusal of several pages of her notes 111 the experiment, they decided that whatever prc}tr tenis existed need not be disclosed. (Forensic experts at the Secret Servicee now say two of the pages of evi- dence she brought were fabricated just before the tnc.ct ng. Tufrs hired fm anushi-F:ari, where she remairts today as an assistant professor in the department prtthcrlogy,) O'Toole then went to t.he de.an at sz[t', who asked Dr. Hertnan F.isen, a friend of ISaltimore's, to look into the case. Though Eisen was the officially desig- nated investigator at ~trt. he never looked at hnanishi- Iiari's lab data or her notes. He did not question Imanishi-k.ar, CY'I'oole, or &altimcare. Instead, he quickly read a me-rncr from O"Toole on wha t was wrong, discussed t.Ire matter with the hufLS scieIlttsts, and later ssrotc a report savin; that there appeared to be errors in the C.'ePZ paper and differences in inter- pretation hel:ween [tnanish°s-[tirtri and O'Toole, hutt that this was "the stuff of science," and not misconduct. (Sebcral motuhs ago, in a n2eeting with scientists at Harvard v.hn continued to be pert+arbed br the case, [isen adm'vtted that he ciid ncttt rvad O'TroPc•'s memo carefullb. He also said he "never belieced" the theor}, behind the part of the paper done h:• hnanishi-Iim-i, and sas bbas not particularl_e° concerned with the acctt- r lcv of the cbrde nce ux E Such rltionalizstions could ~tartils hace provided the reassurance the group was looking fos,! ------------ --- ------ - - ------ attended hv Eisen and another co-author of the (%dll paper, David h5'eaver, a member of BaEtimore's lab. She ec3s th€e unly one who brought data to the meettng- seventc.cn pages trom Imamaht han°s notc .(Incestiga- tors at utH later said those pages were pruna facie evi- dence of trouble because they showed results oppo- site froui those reported in the ;aaper.) According to O'Toole, Itnanishi-Ir'.a.ri admitted at the time what she has corne to state pub icf v: sonne of the work cited irt the paper was not done, and other work got difa Ferent results than what was reported. At the end of' the meeting, O'Tuc' le asked that the paper be cor- rected or withdrawn. Kailtinrore replied that such prob- lems with accuracy are nott urmsual and thev need nott be r_orrected-a startling new standard for scientific inqlnrV. He said thatt the sa:ientifac process is "seif-c:orrect- ing"-meaning that other scientists will eventually fig- ure out that the published work was ten-ong. It is true that honest work is often wsrong and requires another study to reveal that. But Baltimore was extending the notion of self-correction tao cover errors he knew existed but decided not to report. Thus he was doom- ing some scientist to repeating work that need not he repeated, merely to maintain his own unblemished record. O'Toole pressed him. He says he told her she could write to C'.t,14 but that if she did, lie would x•r.te his own letter endorsing the paper's results, and that he couldn't imagine they would acceptt her letter then. O'Toole says that she left the meeting feeling belea- guered and decided to let the matter drop. H owever by ,jui,v 1986 the case was sniffed out bt a pas.tr of self appointed fr tud scouts at *r:x, ttalter Stewart ancl Ned Feder. They had heard of the c.asee thtrrugh the p*rapevine and began to press O'Tcaerl~ to give thern information about it. 'I'hough they have no official status as in- vestigators. the burden of pressing such cases went to dheu because they were willing to do the work neces- sary. Tlaere is in fact nobody in science directly assigned to study and adjudicate potential cases of mis- conduct. They also alerted Representative John Din- gell. chairman of the House Subcommittee on Over- sight and Investinations. who oversees the workings and misworkings of' federal agencies. He began his own prolonged intytsirb• and eventualiv held two hear- ings oar the case, one in April 14ft8, the other in April 1989, IIn januarr 1988 Stewart and Feder`s icurk and Din- gell's investigation finally prompted the ;vtN to appointt an official committee to snvcstiFate the tnatter. But at first, and trase to form in iIi -estigations carried out bv scientists, the xatt put tzeo of [laltinroore's close asscrci- ates urt the panel, Frederick Alt of Columbia, a co- author with Baltimore on rnore than a dozen papers, md,Jaanes Darnell of R.ockefeller, co-author on Falti- - - --------------------------- - ------------------ - --------------------------- - 28 1 ttC McSC FiEPUHLtC MAY i$, 1992

irt ;Muecesvt at .e,'a.kxr 6 on n'trSli.cul ir bie+4o- I Ihe third panel tvcmh<.r, Ur uta Storb of the Lln,ter- sin-rf C hicago. was 4tter fr,iunc° to have ea1"itten a letter ~ of reconmlendatit>n for dmantshi-I{ari. That surruner Baltimore bc°gan a national campaign designc:d to derail the ntH and congressional inves- tigatiane_. f-le attacked O'Teiolc as a"discontented post- drsc•• in a letter to the Nis, ;rnc9 he and seir.r l friends at MtT orchestt'ated the writing of 1et.ters to more than 4Q{i colleagues in echich the investigations were declared to be a threat to science itself. Baltimore at the titne was ehief of the !~'hitehrad Institute, ~ttT s molecular hiologp research institute, as well as a pro- Iessczr at rStr, and he committed tens of thousands of dollars of the institute's mone<< to lobbying, includ- ing the hiring of A4.in Gump, a high-pria:d 41'ash- ington latt° firm, to press his arguments upon Con- gress. Baltimore cast the conflict as one of outsiders invad- ing the sanctuary of seience.'1'hep xvere, he said, maii- cic ush tnisrepresenting az;cientffre dispute about error as a case of fraud. Ide appealed to the xenophobia of other re.searchers in asking them to rall}• round him. In one letter, a ciose friend of S3altimore's, xtr: s Phillip Sharp, urged his colleagues to writee srl-red pieces, and letters to the editor and to Congress. His sample letter to Congress said: "I believe that to continue what nbanc of us percesvc. to be a vendetta against honest scientiatq will cost our societt dearlv. If scientists who have been exonerated of all i%iongdoing must con- tinuee to defcrul themselves against vague and shifting • cliarges, all rne.nibers of the scientific community must be af'raid." Robert E. Ptallack. dean of Columbia Col- le;;e, did write an op-ed piece in The New Ii,rk Times in which lte deplored congressional meddling in science: "The way Dr. Baltimore is being treated means that witch-hunts are in the ofi'tng," Pollack declared. "If Cbngt'ess legislates against error' in science, there is no chance that a sensible e•oung person will choose to be a acientist.® The nuntl.ler of combatants in the fray grew, until half a doien Nobel Freze winners and eminent scientists frotn Stanford, ntrr. Harvard, 'I'ufts, and Rockefeller had taken up the cudgels. Baltimore and his lobb.;ists arrtut}ed for a bec•d~ of distinguished ncientists to go to Washington on his behalf• Thev had sc ats reserved just ilch'snd Baltimore at Dingell's second congressional hearing in April 1989, facing Dingell. D avid Iialtunots. was the onh~ source of his ctil- i' hagues` tcrttsnty that the ca c was one of etr'or nnd not fraurl But Baltimore htmself had not looked at the evidence in rietad; in fact• he said it was not his buwiness to look at it. C4?tdtt he did katow, at the eerr least, cs=as that there were false statements in the paper. For example, one of the probr lcnxs raised in the mnrmer of d°dfiG was that one of the ~ reate•nt did not p:rfortn as stated irt the paper. That September, se•t°er.il months after Eisen had concluded his inrfuiry into the mattet', Baltimore st-rote in a leuer 30 T}[E \r4K' R6FI:NLI{' MAY 16,1902 ao F1inl (niar3e_ public ua,de~-r s.akatioe r tl '"T'l2e~ <sidene:e tharr tlle fSet-I arltibi7dY doesn't do as described in the papr t is cleai "1 het e3a's statetnent to dc.u tl:tat she knety it all dle time is a remarka:ble admission of fnzilt.... 4v'hr •I'hereza chose to use the daca and to tnislead both e t'tts and those who reacl the paper is hevond me." iLtore intcrestin,u,, a few lines later 13altianore admitted choos- rng, to mislead those who read the paper, and he gave a reason whss "All authors do have to take responsibilit for a manuscript, so all of ets are in a sense culpable, but I would hate to see David's [David Peeac•er] iittegritl- qu€:stioned for something hc accepted in good faith. •.. The literature is full of bits and pieces now known to be wrong, but it is not the tradition to point each oete out publidw•" He said that no correction sht uld be published but that he would privately let others know that Finanishi- Kari's data "are rsot reliable, and l, for one, will be skeptical of Thereza's work in the futttre." Later Iiaiti- mrrre told the Office of Scientific Inte,>;tity that he was not proud of this letter and his decision to advise against a correction and added, implausibly, that prolr abkc he and Eisen had rnisundestood Imanishf-lgarfi's explanation of her tnisdeed. Lrianishi-kaei is crri€;inallg from 13ioizil and has a mild accent, W hen Dingell subpoenaed Itnamsht hau's notebooks in preparation for the congress- ional hearings in the spring of 1989, she mett with Baltimore and his law,vet• Normand Smith. She confided that she realI- had no notebooks, only loose sheets of paper, spiral-hound pads, and f'old- ers. Rese.archers' notebools often are not pristine, butt when subject to examination they must make sense. G1'ltat should I do with this mess? skte asked. Either Ral- timore or Smitla--neither will be definite about. it- told her to assemble them into a notebook. On April 25 Dingell's staff intited Baltimore in for a private talk. It was nine days before the heat-ings were ~ to take pl=ace Dingell's staff had taken tlte notebooks to the top fore isic experts at the Secret Service, w•ho reported that all the signs of outright fraud were there. Ilinbell's staff felt that if Baltimore got a look at this new data, he rnightt have a chance to regroup, back away and offer to help resolve the matter. He I eva:, told that the Secret Service had fourtd that 20 per- cent of Imantshi-Y tri.'s notebook material showed eni- dence of being faked. But Baltimore still didn't back dos,•n. In fact, at the hearings he was asked how hn sni,hi-k:ari caine to make the notebooks. fIe replied that liee did not kn(nV• 7hc paper and typefaces from mechanical data counters did not match thosee used in the lab in 1985 rrlten the data was supposed to haFe been taken. Ittathei', all the signs matched perfectly data fron'@ another tinte in the Ia7-sereral cears before, when it would have been impossible lirr the experiments to have been done. The paper on ashich the purport- cd data was recorded was a peculiar shade of sell w green. unlike ;ansthing seen in the lab for years. - ---- - ------- - ----- - --- - --- - ----- - ------ - --------- 4

a numYrcr 'ai oue +)3 thc siote- books was elt aaa~ed• sirngllv rch'sted +'tut both font and back. d-}inea in hmniishi-I•iari's notebook pages were out of order, ovcrtvritten, and somt• were eiearly wrong W n the experiments represented on the ptgc Ltter W " en corefrranted vtith hcer bY the iti'tti ln+,e sr.egatc,irs, Imanishi-Iia:~'s said that dates "don't mean anvthing.° Mavtre they are not evt.u dates,,just numhcrs. Numbers referring_' to cvhat% she was asY:ed. "I don't b,nocs,•' she said• Baltimore was clertric shaken be' the tireeting. Those present said his color sank, and thc•v Ceared he would be sick on the spot. But his tecoiwrv tvas quick. In a subsequent meeting that rnust he considered at the least highly imlaropett he rnet with the titH investiga- toes and with irnanishi-[v3ri to talk about the testimonc they would give before Dingell. For example, tvhen Imanish'i-Y;ar[ suggested thee paI er mav have gotten dis- colored by leaving itt in the sun, tini investigator Dr. Hugh AleDetitt said that story tt•ottld not work because thet alreadc knew it vr•as not true. He of fered the pos- sibilitv that there evars another explanation, one she hadn't suggested yet. When itt caane aime to testifc. Baltimore delivered as rernark;able a piece of' or.itcrrv as a scientist ever did hcfore Ccrngress• °"Phe Secret Service apparent- lv conducted a nine-month farensic analysis of €7r. Iman9shi-IC:ari's lat>oratorv notes," lie said. "In a cha- radr of htlpfulness, they presented a partial oral sum- mary of their findings on Tuesday, April ?:i. That pre- sentation w rs designed to terrify withctut provtding any rhstana.e . last Sun 3eG~ srrrne written rraah rrals were ~rovtdcd. And based on those and what I h ace heard tod<r}, there is still nothing from the Secret Service investigation that causes nte to doubt the validity+ of the Cell paper.° Though Baltimore himself had aal- rnost sing'le-handedlv created the whole spectacle, he went on to chastise IDiugell. "+I aeu.stt tell wnas, Mr. C:hair- man, I ant verv troubled about how this sittsatizvc got. so out of hand. I have a eer•,• real concern that ,laneri- can science can easih• become the victim of this kind of governmemt inquiry.... Profeasor hnanishi-Iiari is also avictim, ... She deserves mv suppurt, and the sulr port ol` all scientists, ior any of then could be in her shoes." N o onc doubts that Baltimore is a brilliant sci- enu5t. But those 1•rhu know hint have seen anetther, mearc childish David Iitltitnore in outbursts frorn tmie t0 time. Iiis extraordi- nary success m:r, also have led him to feel iniulnera- hh•---able to detlect p rsonal scandal merehr by bring- ing the weight a-If his reputation to beac F'rom his weakness we see the weakness ctrf science: that it is a human enterprise. Its practitioners struggle always against ernotion and prejudice, and never Cullti over- conte them ~ c CP Toole s plight illustrates the dangers in a hierar httal av+stem tshere a scientist is inaudible to all those above her ran4:. GGhen she made her chaz'ges, the senior scientist.s tnraed and spoke to one anrrtha^r. Eisen t<tlked to Ba3timore, Tu£cs to MIT, Later, when Stewart, Eeder, and Uhtgel[ jcr'snr.d in, they likewise car- ried no [rarticulctr stau.is in science. @3a17mott and oth- ers even chose to contradict the forenstc c perts at tlte Secret Sr.et.ce, who .utelv know their business. O'Tocyle, who is now working at the Genetics Insti- tute in Cambridge, 'tY.ssachusetts, after a long hiatus in tvhicit no cane in the taeld irc:ai3d hire her, believes that the unlv v.a\ to avoid another Baltimore case ic to have the investigations of such matters open and pufr €ic. C)ther scientists hace had a simii r response. Dr. Walter Gilbert, a Nobel Prize winner in molecular biot- ogv from Rarvard, sass: °'Sonae of as are just aghast at David's behavior. Through his octrt doing, the case becacne a dramatic test of power trehveen the Congress and the scientific esrahlishment. It became a case of how science should he supported and reviewed. He tried to rnake it a test case, rather than sac, 'I'm sorrc,' and walk awam, or, as an}' scientist should, sar that i#` the work was wrong he wotdd be responsihle and tvithdt'aw it." The c3sce, Gilbert sae's, has proved to he a het3fthy reminder to scientists "that lab notebooks are open dcocr.rments, that all the authors on a paper are resprrn- sible for it. Fact-finding must be done vigorouslq and impartial@y, rather than br• the friends of the persc n involved, I4'hat has not heen healtl-iy is the failure af the institutions-both the universities and the Ntta-to investigate quickly and thoroaighly" B ut the Baltimore ctsae echoes something deeper in the sctcntrfic wcrrld than mere secretive procedures and mutual, collegial protection. it revc als a:rmethi.ng about the nature of the scientific mind itse9f'. The kev to sci- ence, the physicist lticharci Feynrnan xrc}te, is "a kind of scientific int.egrit}r, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honestr-a kind of' lettning over laackwards. For example, if voa"re doing an expet`iment. +rou should report eventhing that you think might make it invalid---not onlf what you think is right about it." These are exacting stan- dards, and ones that human heings---si°ittt all their pre:rpens'tto for pride, sanity, arrd ambition--regularly fatil to live bv. For too long scientists-and the se,ciety that supports theni-have believed that they a.re s',rmehctt immtute to these craperfecturns, that their professional ittttgrin shoailtl thercfore tae ptsced bevond the troubling, apen soma trrnes misplaced scruune of a liberal deutucr•ac:: The l tst feev vears should prove beyond any doubt that those scientists are all too human and that such '<c.ruttnr is all too often merited. David Baltimore clearl:° failed .a.s a scientist-throagh his carelessness, his willftti oversit;ht, and his ext.raordi- ntrrv attemp€s to protect his rn4n reputation at the expensc of a conscoernious toung ee3lleagtte. Ir-n the end.I3rlumor'etnarEvertentlu t'creaker just how ivhtr,r- ahle the scientific profession is to ahnse by 4liose entrusted tco protect it. + - ---- - ------- - ------------- MAY 9G, 1998 7 F1E Nrw RCi'l.B:_!c 31