| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 21:28:08 +0100
Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture
<SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture
<SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
From: Human Nature <admin@HUMAN-NATURE.COM>
Subject: SUMMARY OF THE BALTIMORE CASE
To: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
THE BALTIMORE CASE: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character (W.W.
Norton, 1998), by Caltech historian of science Dan Kevles, is the
story of David Baltimore, who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1975
at the age of 37 (for his work on retroviruses), followed by the
presidency of Rockefeller University and numerous other accolades
that go with being a successfu scientist in the world of Big Science.
But in 1986, when at MIT, he collaborated on a paper with Thereza
Imanishi-Kari and several other co-authors, that was published in the
prestigious journal CELL. There was nothing particularly
earth-shattering about the paper's conclusions, but it became the
focus of controversy when Margot O'Toole, a postdoctoral
fellow at MIT, complained about Imanishi-Kari's data, implying that
it was faked. This eventually led to an formal Congressional
investigation for which O'Toole was portrayed as young honest
scientist standing up for truth and fairness in a world of Big
Science dominated by huge egos competing for huge dollars and, the
implication being, willing to do anything for those dollars and
rewards, including data fabrication. She won several awards,
including the Humanist of the Year Award from the Ethical Society of
Boston, and the Ethics Award of the American Institute of Chemists.
By most early accounts it looked like she had stood up against the
mighty David Baltimore (who was not himself accused of faking data
but, as senior scientist on the paper, was held accountable
nonetheless) and won.
But as the affair played itself out in the early 1990s (these things
take years) it appeared that instead of Big Science taking a fall
from grace (eagerly embraced by those critical of science), it
appeared more and more that Baltimore and Imanishi-Kari were the
victims of bureaucratic witch-hunters. Congress gave an ethics
committee the power and the duty to root out and destroy scientific
fraud and, like all good
witch-hunters, they found what they were looking for in the Baltimore
case.
Kevles chronicles in intricate detail all the personalities and
events over the course of a decade, and follows Baltimore's rise to
power, fall from grace, and phoenix-like comeback where he was
acquitted and is now the President of Caltech. He shows how
Imanishi-Kari had not had a fair trial, she had been convicted in the
court of public opinion and nowhere else, and those who condemned
Baltimore for defending Imanishi-Kari had overlooked important
aspects of the case in their witch-hunting zeal and lack of
understanding of how science works. Imanishi-Kari was officially
exonerated on all counts in June of 1996.
I cannot recommend enough that everyone pick up a copy of this book
and read it cover to cover. It is a gripping tale that shows how
science really works and how the misunderstanding of science leads to
disastrous cases like this.
Michael Shermer
The Baltimore Case : A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character
by Daniel J. Kevles
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393041034/darwinanddarwini/